meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt/Tanakh/Commentary/Tur HaAroch/Tur HaAroch/English/merged.txt"}
text: Tur HaAroch
  הטור הארוך
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Tur on the Torah, trans. Eliyahu Munk
  -
  
  Tur HaAroch
  
  Introduction
  
  
  
  Genesis
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ﻿ בראשית. Rabbi Yitzchok said that G’d had no need to begin the Torah prior to chapter 12,2 in Exodus, until the words החודש הזה וגו', “this month will be the first of the months for you, etc.” Nachmanides, in justifying Rabbi Yitzchok’s comment, writes that the story of creation is of great consequence and provides the root for our faith in G’d, and that anyone who does not believe what is written in that chapter does not believe that this present universe is G’d’s creation but believes that the universe preceded G’d in historical terms. He who does so is an outright heretic and has no share in G’d’s Torah at all. Chapter 12 in Exodus contains the first commandment addressed specifically to the Jewish people as a people. [the commandment of circumcision also applies to those of Avraham’s descendants who would not be Jews. Ed.]
      Notwithstanding the latter consideration, seeing that the fact that G’d created the universe is not spelled out anywhere else in the five books of the Torah, it was important to record this vital message at the very beginning. Seeing that the story of creation had been handed down verbally by one generation to the next during the 2448 years which preceded the giving to the people of Israel of the written Torah, Rabbi Yitzchok was correct in saying that inasmuch as people had such a tradition already, the written Torah could have commenced only with chapter 12 in Exodus and the legislative part of the Torah would have been unimpaired.
      G’d considered it imperative to dictate to Moses the sequence of the 6 days (stages) of creation culminating in the creation of man and G’d assigning man to be in charge of the life-supporting part of the universe, i.e. earth. Rabbi Yitzchok’s comment is especially pertinent as the Talmud in <i>Chagigah 11</i> warns those who have acquired knowledge of how earth came into being to conceal such knowledge from the public at large. We could have questioned then why the Torah at that stage saw fit to reveal to one and all what only a chosen few had been aware of? G’d wanted us to know that He was at home on earth in a place called גן עדן, and that but for man having been expelled from there due to his sin he could have remained in constant direct contact with his Creator without the need for any intermediary. It also was necessary to record that after the total corruption of mankind save for a single family, the Creator saved that family and destroyed the surface of the earth during the deluge. These short paragraphs summarizing over 1600 years of the history of mankind, serve as a warning to later generations of what might happen if they too would become guilty of deliberately flouting the Creator’s design collectively. Seeing that the inhabitants of the land of Canaan behaved in a manner most displeasing to G’d, the Torah by giving us a short history of man, explains that the forced removal of the Canaanites from their land, was no more than what they had brought upon themselves by ignoring history.
      Still on the quote by <i>Rashi</i> of what Rabbi Yitzchok said, etc. Notwithstanding the fact that mankind as a whole had received 7 other commandments, the commandment to sanctify the new moon was the first commandment addressed to only a single nation, the Jewish nation. Seeing that at that point the Jewish people still constituted an integral part of mankind as a whole, and they were all subject to these 7 universally applicable commandments, it might have been deemed appropriate to commence the Torah, the Book containing legislation addressed exclusively to that nation only, with the point at which the first of such national commandments was introduced. <i>Rashi</i> explains therefore, that by commencing the Torah at <i>Bereshit bara,</i> the Torah wanted to demonstrate not only that G’d was the Creator, but that He is also the sole and undisputed owner of His universe and may decide which nation is entitled to live on which part of the earth. In other words, if the Jewish people supplanted the Canaanites in the land of Canaan and they were helped by numerous supernatural miracles in doing so, it was clear that their success was G’d’s will, that it was not robbery instigated by Moses and Joshua their leaders.
      There appears to be a contradiction here, seeing that when the Torah describes who lived in the land of Canaan during Avraham’s time, the Torah first refers to the Canaanite living there, (Genesis 13,7) whereas in chapter 14,18 Malki Tzedek, a Semite, is described as King in Jerusalem (שלם). We would have to answer that the only minute part of the land of Canaan not yet taken over by the Canaanites was that city of Jerusalem. Still, seeing that Canaan had been, cursed by his grandfather Noach to be a slave to Noach’s other two sons, how are we to explain the ascendancy of that nation at that time? Moreover, why should the Canaanites have dispossessed the descendants of Shem more than the descendants of Yaphet? The Torah may wish to hint that seeing the Canaanites obtained their homeland by dispossessing the Semites, the people relatively most loyal to G’d already, put a great question mark on their legal and moral right to occupy the choicest land on earth. [the Canaanites, the most morally corrupt nation, took aim at the Semites, the most morally superior. Ed] 
      <i>
      Rashi</i> explains the word בראשית as being in a construct mode, to the verb ברא, “He created,” i.e. the line is to be understood as: “at the beginning of G’d’s creating heaven and earth, the earth was in a state of chaos.” At that point G’d issued the directive: “let there be light.” Accordingly, the only thing G’d created on the first day was “light.” 
      Nachmanides explains the words בראשית ברא אלוקים את השמים ואת הארץ, as meaning that G’d’s first creative activity consisted of His calling into existence out of total non-existence, heaven and earth. This “earth” however, was something so insubstantial, something referred to as <i>tohu vavohu</i>, matter which was ready to assume definitive form and substance at a subsequent stage. This “matter=<i>tohu vavohu</i>, is equivalent to what the ancient Greeks called ”hi<i>ayuli.”</i> The meaning of the word ברא is the creation of something of substance which had never possessed any substance at all, known in philosophy as “ex nihilo.” 
      Subsequent to this act of creating matter out of pure spirit, any other creative activity made use of this basic and original raw material. Such stages of creative activity are described as יצירה, “providing form and substance,” but are never referred to as בריאה, “creation.” The original not quite definitive form and shape of that matter, is referred to in the Torah as בהו, “<i>vohu</i>.” At that stage, heaven and all its components consisted of a single raw material, and earth and all it is comprised of consisted of another single raw material.
      According to <i>Rashi</i> on Kohelet 7,19, the word describes the super terrestrial wisdom with which G’d created the universe, a wisdom that leaves even the wisest of men in utter amazement, תוהא. [transliteration from the ancient Greek. Ed.] Both the raw material used to create heaven and that used to create earth are unique and distinct, and the word ברא refers exclusively to the creation of these two phenomena.. The “names” תהו and בהו given by the Torah to these raw materials are intended to forestall man changing the names in question and renaming them to suit his purpose. The words are composites, i.e. בו הוא parallels Isaiah 34,11 ונטה עליה קו-תהו ואבני בהו, “and He shall measure it with a line of chaos and with weights of emptiness.” The word קו is derived from קוה, hope, i.e. the builder employs the plumb line to check if the results of his efforts justified his hopes and expectations. אבני בהו, refer to the stones which the building consists of. [the foregoing is taken from Nachmanides. Ed.]
      After the Torah reported that initially G’d created heaven and earth, it reverts to the subject of “earth,” explaining that after the initial creative activity producing tangible matter, the phenomenon known as “earth” (in contrast to that known as “heaven”) was in a state of תהו, meaning tangible matter devoid of distinct shape and contours, so that it was best described as בהו, as G’d proceeded to provide it with distinct shape and contours. This meant that what had originally been a single raw material, now became “split” into the four basic raw materials we are all familiar with, i.e. fire, water, earth and atmosphere, air, wind. Ever since that stage of development, whenever we refer to the word הארץ, we mean the phenomenon which is composed of varying proportions of these four raw materials. When the Torah refers to the completion of G’d’s creative activity on the seventh day and describes it as ויכלו השמים והארץ וכל צבאם, it refers to the totality of what is known in our literature as the עולם התחתון, “the lower universe,” the part of the universe inhabited by living bodies. The word חשך describes the element fire, because the original fire is black. Had it been reddish it would have illuminated the night so that the darkness of night would be impossible to observe. The water which is the raw material used to mould the dust of the earth, is referred to by the Torah in our chapter as תהם, This is why the waters of the ocean are referred to as תהומות as in Exodus 15,8 קפאו תהומות בלב-ים, “the normally mobile waves became inert (as if frozen) in the midst of the ocean.” The bedrock of the ocean is referred to as תהום as we know from Isaiah 63,13 מוליכם בתהומות כסוס במדבר, “He guides them through the depths of the sea as one guides a horse through the desert.” In our context here, what we know as “air,” is referred to as רוח It is a well known fact that the combination of these four raw materials comprise what we know as ארץ, the globe we all inhabit. The pillar holding this lower universe together is the globe of earth, surrounded by water on most of its surface surrounded further by the atmosphere we call air or רוח. The fire in turn surrounds this atmosphere. [the heat of the sun emanates from beyond the atmosphere. Ed.]
      What our verse reveals is that this phenomenon described as ארץ, was “dressed up” in a shape, meaning that the element fire surrounded it on the outside, the atmosphere, air, רוח being an element in constant motion interweaving with the other elements. The innermost spot within all these layers is known in the language of our sages as אבן שתיה, the foundation stone of the earth, i.e. the stone which “waters” the entire globe. To sum up, the meaning of the first two verses is: “at the beginning G’d created heaven and He created earth, both out of non-existent matter. When the earth was first created, it was in a chaotic state devoid of form and contours, a mixture of the four basic elements fire, water, earth and wind, none of which had been defined as yet as to their functions. 
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויאמר אלוקים יהי אור, “G’d said: ‘let there be light!’ The word ויאמר, i.e. אמירה, is puzzling, seeing there was no one to say anything to. What is meant by the word here is that it was addressed to the existing raw material known as שמים, heaven. The Creator wished to produce something bright, shiny. This came into existence without any effort. When the Torah continues with the words ויהי אור, instead of saying ויהי כן, which is the usual formula, the reason is that the light created at this stage did not endure but was withdrawn after Adam had sinned. The expression ויהי כן is only used in conjunction with phenomena which endured.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   וירא אלוקים את האור כי טוב, ”G’d saw that the light was good, etc.” According to <i>Rashi,</i> G’d saw that it was not good to employ light and darkness simultaneously, that this created confusion, and as a result He assigned to both light and darkness specific periods in which each would be sovereign. Nachmanides questions <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation, saying that if we were to accept this we would have to posit that G’d did not know that light and darkness functioning simultaneously would be unsatisfactory, and that He learned “from experience.” [This would appear heretical, denying G’d being all knowing, and describing Him as reacting to new circumstances and new insights instead of having allowed for them from the start. Ed.] Nachmanides therefore understands the word אמירה, ויאמר, as meaning: “to convert a potential into an actual.” Accordingly, such statements in the Torah as ויאמר יהי אור, ויאמר יהי רקיע, must be understood as a command to at that time convert something which had existed only as a potential, theoretically, being converted into reality. A new reality becoming enduring is called ראייה, seeing. A well known example of the use of the word ראייה in this sense is the phrase רואה אני את דברי אדמון, which means: “I confirm and consider as correct and binding the words of Admon.” Every statement in the Torah describing G’d as “seeing,” means that the manner in which His instructions had materialized was “good,” i.e. וירא אלוקים כי טוב, means that G’d was satisfied that the new reality would endure. On the sixth day we read of G’d “saying” וירא אלוקים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד, G’d decided that the entire universe as it presented itself to Him upon completion was fit to endure. When the Torah describes G’d as saying on the first day after the light had become a reality, וירא אלוקים את האור כי טוב, adding the apparently superfluous words את האור, the reason is that without these words the reader would have construed the Torah as describing G’d’s reaction to the creation of שמים וארץ instead of the creation of אור. It would have been incorrect to describe G’d as having already decreed that the universe was to endure before He had completed the whole universe as planned. As long as only the raw materials תהו ובהו, the elements used to create heaven and earth existed, no guarantee existed that they would endure. On the days following, the raw materials needed to form an atmosphere, create solid masses of earth, etc., were created, and thus the permanence of the original “embryo” of a universe was assured. What is described during the second day (stage) of creation was incomplete, and therefore the words וירא אלוקים כי טוב is not found until halfway through the third day when that part of creation had been completed.
  
     ויבדל אלוקים בין האור ובין החושך. “G’d separated the light from the darkness.” The word חושך in this verse does not refer to the same חושך as in verse 1. There it had referred to black fire, whereas here it refers to a mere absence of light. This absence of light occurred as G’d had allocated to the light a certain length of time during which it would shine before it would again shine after an interval had elapsed.
      Nachmanides writes that some commentators believe that the light of which our verse speaks had been created by G’d in anticipation of His creating the universe and that it had been held in “reserve” for the moment when it would be required. It had been created in the “West,” meaning immediately before nightfall, so that it had not actually functioned before the darkness referred to in verse one. This would explain the grammar in the line ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר, an indication that the light had preceded night followed by the first morning of .the first day. [seeing that the terms “day” and “night” prior to the time when the sun and moon were placed in the sky is different from the way we understand these words today, speculations on the subject are no more than natural. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויקרא אלוקים לאור יום, “G’d named the light “day.” Seeing that the Torah later on tells us that man named all the living creatures, it mentions here that G’d Himself named these phenomena. Ibn Ezra explains the word ויקרא, [a term normally used only when there is someone who can hear the caller, something not the case here, Ed] as meaning that G’d assigned light its properties and night its properties.
      Nachmanides explains the term יום and לילה here as the limitations imposed on both day and night by G’d when He created them, i.e. He defined their properties. The period of light being known as “day,” and the period of night being known as “night.”
  
     ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר, “it was evening, it was morning.” According to Ibn Ezra, the beginning of night is called ערב, evening, on account of light and darkness mixing with one another. The beginning of the day, on the other hand, is known as בוקר, morning, the term referring to man now being able to inspect and distinguish different shapes.
  
     ים אחד. “one day.” According to <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> the word is chosen to remind us that G’d is unique.
      Nachmanides claims that the reason why the Torah does not write יום ראשון, “a first day,” is because an ordinal number such as “first” can be used only if there already exists a “second.” In this case there was not yet a second day.” Other commentators feel that we are dealing here with an oblique reference to the motion of the planets, the earth describing an orbit once in 24 hours around its axis so that in different locations at different times there is always one location where it becomes morning. The same is true, of course, of there being always a location where it becomes evening. In other words, a day has been completed when every part of the globe has experienced an evening and a morning.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   יהי רקיע, “let there be a horizon” The raw material we referred to earlier as the one called שמים, heaven, would now be stretched over the expanse of the water.
  
     ויעש אלוקים את הרקיע, the term עשייה always denotes the completion of a process, making something fit to perform its purpose without further ado.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויהי כן. “so it came to be.” Nachmanides queries the need of the Torah to write these words. Granted that after the first report in the Torah of G’d giving a directive the Torah had to inform us that G’d’s directive had been carried out; here the Torah had already added after G’d giving the directive that He Himself carried it out to the last detail, עשייה; so why did we need to be told that it indeed came to be? Nachmanides concludes that this is why the <i>Bereshit Rabbah 4,6</i> on this expression writes that concerning this expression Ben Zoma made a great commotion among the scholars. He questioned the entire series of the expression ויהי כן, seeing we have an explicit statement in Psalms 33,6 that the heavens were made completely, in their last detail, at the word of G’d. It is clear that Ben Zoma did not question the words ויעש אלוקים as being strange, but the words ויהי כן. [by the way the <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> does not answer the question there but only at the end of chapter 10. Ed.] The answer given is that G’d’s directive was carried out immediately, without delay, and that He, being G’d, did not have to exert Himself in any manner in order to bring about what He intended. Not only that, but the words ויהי כן include the assurance that as long as heaven will exist, it will exist in the format it was created at that time. [not like earth which has been subject to great upheavals from time to time, not the least of which was the deluge. Ed.]
      Ibn Ezra explains that the words ויהי כן should be read as if they referred to what follows, so that we would realize that when the first verse already spoke about a phenomenon known as שמים, the reference as to what is now being named as שמים by G’d.
      Nachmanides adds further that the heavens referred to in these verses are not the planetary system as we know it, but describe part of the <i>merkavah,</i> the celestial regions forming the entourage of the Creator, as in Ezekiel 1,22 ודמות על ראשי החיות רקיע כעין הקרח הנורא נטוי על ראשיהם מלמעלה, “and as for the semblance of the expanse above the heads of the <i>chayot,</i> it resembled awesome ice, spread out above their heads.” The Torah did not write a word about the creation of these creatures which formed part of Ezekiel’s vision, just as it had not reported a word about the creation of the angels or any other disembodied phenomena in the universe. The Torah lumps together all these phenomena as having been created on the second day when the creation of the רקיע, later named שמים, is referred to in only general terms. Basically, these phenomena were all created from the waters, and that is the reason for the repeated use of the term רקיע השמים, the word שמים being a composite, i.e. שם מים, “there is water there.” The planetary system which the Torah describes as G’d placing ברקיע השמים, clearly is not part of the concept רקיע השמים, but consists of inhabitants of that “expanse.”
      Nonetheless, even taking into consideration the words of Nachmanides, we have to add that the word ארץ in the first word of the Torah does indeed refer to the “earth” as we know it, the Torah having used the appellation in anticipation of the globe that became visible on the third day.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   יקוו המים, “let the waters converge together;” the original תהום was in the original state i.e. cloudy water full of particles of solid matter scattered throughout. At this point G’d decreed for the water to rearrange itself in a manner which would separate the solid particles from it. As a result, the solid particles, earth, would become visible above the water as a distinct phenomenon. The earth would also become dry as a result of being above the water. We are faced here with two apparently contradictory decrees being issued by the Creator. According to our knowledge of the laws of physics, earth, which has a higher specific weight than water, should remain submerged in water, and here G’d commanded earth to become visible, i.e. to “rise” above the waters of the surrounding oceans. At that time both the waters and the earth were assigned their names, i.e. ימים ויבשת, “oceans and dry land.”
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויקרא אלוקים ליבשה ארץ. “G’d named the dry land ארץ. The name יבשה is appropriate, seeing that as soon as the water is removed from the dust, [one of the four basic raw materials. Ed.] that is left behind becomes dry.
  
     ולמקוה המים קרא ימים, “He named the collection of waters ימים.” The reason why the waters were now described as ימים, oceans, is because the ground at the bottom of the ocean is called ים, as we know from Isaiah 11,9 כמים לים מכסים, “as the waters which cover the ocean.”
  
     וירא אלוקים כי טוב, “G’d ‘saw’ that it was good.” A reference to the permanence of the waters covering the bottom of the ocean, a change from the previous condition. [The new condition needed approval by G’d, seeing that nature had carried out His command, as opposed to G’d having done it Himself, as on the second day. (verse 7). Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   תדשא הארץ דשא, “let the earth become capable of producing herbs.” Some commentators believe that the word דשא is equivalent to עשב, small thin grass, i.e. grass which has not yet produced seed. The word עשב when used in the Torah would then describe grass that has grown high enough to produce seed capable of reproducing itself.
   <i>
      Rashi</i> does not accept this interpretation but believes that the word דשא is a collective term for green vegetation of a primitive nature covering the surface of the earth. Hence, the word דשא does not need an adjective to define it more closely. 
      Nachmanides queries <i>Rashi’s</i> statement, saying that if he were right the word דשא would never appear in the plural mode, whereas our sages speak of combinations of several kinds of .דשאים. Therefore we must accept the view that the word דשא describes grass that has not fully grown. Any plant that has not developed to the stage of reproducing itself, i.e. having produced its own seed, is called דשא. This is also reflected in the word תדשא, a directive to continue to develop eventually into fruit-bearing trees, why else would the Torah not write תוצא הארץ דשא ותוציא עץ פרי, “let the earth produce herbs, and let it produce a fruit-bearing tree?” Clearly, the tree is merely a continuation of a growth process that commenced as דשא. Nachmanides queries further why the Torah does not mention עצי סרק, trees which do not produce edible fruit, saying “why does the Torah not mention non fruit bearing trees and why was the earth commanded to produce only fruit-bearing trees?” He answers that actually the wording of the Torah alerted the sages to say that the so-called עצי סרק also produce fruit; however, after the earth was cursed as a result of the original sin, the fruit of these trees was cursed also and became inedible or poisonous.
      Nachmanides goes on to explain that the verse may be understood in the following sequence: first the earth was commanded to produce primitive plants. Once the earth had been able to comply with this part of G’d’s directive, He directed earth to produce more sophisticated vegetation, such as fruit-bearing trees, the trunks of which were also edible. Nachmanides adds that the reason the Torah did not assign a specific day as being the one on which the earth carried out this directive was that earth will forever continue to produce vegetation. This was not a one-time event, such as the establishment of a horizon, oceans, etc. Moreover, the earth is a permanent phenomenon in this universe regardless of the fact that certain parts of the earth produce vegetation and other parts do not.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ועץ עושה פרי, and fruit-bearing trees.” The earth violated the Creator’s commandment as it had been commanded to produce also edible trunks. It was afraid that if its trunk would taste as good as its fruit, both man and beast would eat both trunk and fruit and the species would die out.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   יהי מאורות, “let there be luminaries;” according to <i>Rashi</i> these luminaries had already been created on the first day but were not made operative, i.e. placed in their respective orbits in the sky until the fourth day. 
      Nachmanides explains that the light which had been created on the first day illuminated the basic universe still in a state of chaos, and on the second day G’d prevented this light from illuminating the earth’s foundation (shining only in the sky, the רקיע), whereas once the dry land, יבשה came into existence on the third day, there was darkness on the face of the earth, until, on the fourth day, G’d created sun and moon, etc This is why the Torah bothered to tell us that these luminaries were intended to provide light in our part of the universe. The word ברקיע indicates that until that time this light had functioned only above the sky. Now it was available also for creatures whose habitat was below the sky.
      The phrasing יהי אורות, which suggests there had not been any such luminaries prior to that day, means only that G’d had decreed already on the first day that the raw material functioning as light in the heavens should henceforth also be the one giving illumination on earth. Now, on the fourth day, the time had come to translate that potential into practice, the larger luminary to shine by day and the smaller one by night.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ויעש אלוקים, “G’d made completely, etc.” seeing that the Torah says immediately afterwards that ויתן אותם אלוקים ברקיע השמים, “G’d positioned them in the sky of the heaven”, it is clear that these celestial bodies were not part of the celestial bodies themselves but were separate entities in their own right. 
     את שני המאורות הגדולים, “the two large luminaries;” according to our sages in <i>Chulin 60,</i> both luminaries were originally of equal size, the moon having been downsized. According to the grammarian Rabbi Joseph Kimchi, the meaning of the word גדולים for both luminaries reflects merely the fact that both appear so much larger than the stars.[and need not mean that one was downsized. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ולמשול ביום ובלילה, “and to have dominion by day and night respectively.” This “dominion” would manifest itself in these luminaries materially influencing changes on earth, such as in the growth of vegetation, climate changes at different times of the year, etc. The sun would govern matters involving heat and dryness, whereas the moon would govern matters involving cold and wet matters (high and low tide of the oceans, as well as the promoting of plant growth in the watery regions.)
  
     ולהבדיל בין האור והחושך, ”as well as to separate daylight from darkness.” According to Ibn Ezra, the function of separating between daylight and darkness is one performed by both the sun and the moon. Both sun and moon at daybreak and in the evening, signal by their appearance that the darkness or daylight respectively is about to emerge or disappear.
      Nachmanides understands the words אור and חושך as alternates for “day” and “night.” as this is the name give to light and darkness respectively. We have been told this already in verse 7, when G’d named these phenomena accordingly, having in mind more advanced stages of the development of the universe. Our verse would simply mean that the sun governs by day whereas the moon governs by night.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ישרצו המים, “let the waters teem, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that any living creature which is devoid of height is called שרץ, such as the small flying insects which are known as שרץ העוף to describe that though they are capable of flight they are tiny, and are therefore called שרץ העוף. The ants etc., also tiny land-based creatures, are called שרץ הארץ. 
      Nachmanides queries <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation, pointing out that the Torah used the same phrasing as a blessing in Genesis 9,7 ואתם פרו ורבו שרצו בארץ ורבו בה, and the grand children of Noach were certainly not midgets or anything like it. In light of this he explains the meaning of the word ישרצו in terms of how such creatures move. He claims that the term שרץ refers to rapid movement, whereas the term רמש refers to the manner in which the bodies of these creatures practically hug the ground they move on. They are restless by nature, hardly ever reposing and remaining still. The expression ישרצו המים then is addressed to the motion of the waters in which these minute creatures make their habitat. Every four-legged flying creature is called שרץ העוף as opposed to two legged birds with wings. The latter are called עוף (as a species without the additional word שרץ). The latter practically only move while flying, as opposed to the small creatures, that frequently walk in a fashion.
  
     ועוף יעופף על הארץ, “and the birds flying above the earth.” Seeing that the creatures whose habitat was the water were created on the fifth day, the Torah had to spell out that not only the fish, etc., were created on that day but also the birds, although they do not inhabit the water but fly about above the earth or the water. As to the verse (Genesis 2,19) which details that G’d fashioned the beasts of the field on the 6th day as well as the verse ויצר אלוקים מן האדמה את כל חית השדה ואת כל עוף השמים, which at first glance sounds contradictory, for either G’d created the birds on the fifth day and as originating in water, or He created them on the sixth day, and they originated on the dry land, on אדמה, is explained by our sages in חולין to mean that the birds were made out of material which had accumulated in muddy puddles.
  
     נפש חיה, “a disembodied life-force.” fish are part of the water both in body and in spirit, [their blood not being the carrier of their disembodied life-force נפש.] G’d had imbued them with a life-force from the earth (globe) itself as opposed to man whose life force emanated in the celestial regions.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויברא אלוקים את התנינים הגדולים, “G’d created the large sea-monsters.” According to Nachmanides the Torah used the term בריאה for the “creation” of these sea monsters because of their tremendous size, a term normally reserved for creating something out of nothing. The Torah had used the same term when G’d created man, as man is such a superior creature that he cannot be compared to other mammals. The reason why the Torah fails to add the customary ויהי כן, signaling that the phenomenon now created endured, is precisely because in this instance it did not endure.
      According to our sages in <i>Baba Batra</i> 75 G’d killed the female of the pair and salted away its flesh in order to serve it for the righteous at a future time.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויברך אותם אלוקים, “G’d blessed them.” Our sages explain that these creatures were in need of a blessing as they are constantly subject to being hunted. The free-roaming beasts on land also required a blessing, but due to the serpent’s having lured man into sin, G’d withheld such a blessing from the entire species.
      Nachmanides writes that the blessing given to the fish and birds extended also automatically to the mammals created on the sixth day, seeing the common denominator of these creatures was a) they were mobile, b) they could only procreate as a pair (male and female). The plants that were created on the third day were not mobile and not created as separate male and females so that they were less in need of this special blessing that they should be able to multiply. Hence we do not find this blessing at the conclusion of G’d’s activity on the third day.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ורמש, according to <i>Rashi</i> this word describes the creatures which creep on the ground. Nachmanides queried this, pointing out that in Genesis 7,21 in connection with the deluge, the Torah writes:ויגוע כל בשר הרומש על הארץ בעוף ובבהמה ובחיה ובכל שרץ השורץ על הארץ וכל האדם. “All flesh that moved on the earth perished, both fowl and cattle and, beast, and every swarming thing that swarms on the earth, and every human.” In view of this he interprets the word רמש as related to the root רמס. When speaking of the four-legged animals, the term refers to their trampling the earth with their feet, whereas when speaking about the small creatures, it means that they hug the earth with their entire bodies while in motion.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ויאמר אלוקים נעשה אדם בצלמנו, “G’d said: ‘let us make man in our image.’” The Torah assigned a special paragraph to the creation of man as he is such a superior creature, totally different in nature from all other living creatures. 
      The word נעשה, in the plural, is used because seeing that on the first day of creation G’d was completely alone in the universe when He created something out of nothing, in the meantime all the phenomena which had come into existence since that day would contribute some of their own essence to the body of man. In other words, earth itself had become a partner in G’d’s creative activities and was invited to contribute to the making of the first human being. There is nothing surprising about this, as G’d had already empowered both water and earth on the fifth day and the early part of the sixth day respectively, to generate living creatures of differing capacities. G’d contributed the living soul which did not originate in either the domain of water or earth but in the celestial regions. (Genesis 2,7)
      Our sages explained the expression נעשה as G’d having consulted with other celestial beings before creating man. The reason for this “consultation” was that the angel in charge of running the physical universe on behalf of G’d had now to be consulted or instructed when a human being would emerge from earth, a domain which this angel was entitled to consider as his “backyard.” 
       Rabbi Saadyah gaon understands the plural נעשה as basically a variation of the singular, similar to Balak when he invited Bileam to curse the Jewish people, saying to him אולי אוכל נכה בו, “perhaps I may be able to defeat it.” (the people). (Numbers 22,6) Rabbi Saadyah quotes more examples of plural formulations in reality being singulars dressed up as plurals in order to make them sound more impressive
  
     בצלמנו, “ín our image.” A reference to the facial features of man. The word צלם appears in such a context in Daniel 3,19, “וצלם אנפהי אשתנו, and the features of his face were contorted.” The Torah added the word בדמותינו, “in our form,” as the word is related to דומא, the physical contours of creatures or objects, as this word is used to describe phenomena whose external appearances and shapes are similar to one another. The Torah, in this case, draws attention to man and other mammals produced by the earth on the sixth day having much in common in terms of external appearance and raw materials used to produce them. The plural refers to the spiritual similarity of man to disembodied celestial beings on the one hand, and his physical resemblance to purely terrestrial beings on the other. The reason why the Torah added the words בצלם אלוקים ברא אותו, is to emphasise the miraculous properties possessed by a creature such as man.
  
     וירדו בדגת הים ובעוף השמים ובבהמה, “and to exercise dominion over the fish in the sea, the fowl in the heavens, and the domestic beasts.” Although at first glance, the free-roaming beasts do not seem to be included, this is not so; the term בהמה here includes all the beasts on earth.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   ויברך אותם אלוקים, “G’d blessed them.” This is a blessing empowering man to translate his desire to rule the earth into practice, and this is why the words ויאמר להם, “He said to them,” are added as an introduction to the wording of the blessing, an introduction we do not find on the other occasion (1,22) when the words ויברך אלוקים has been used. 
  
     ומלאו את הארץ, “and fill the earth, (populate it).” Without man multiplying, his task of ruling the earth would be impossible to carry out. Alternately, the meaning is that man should not congregate on a narrow strip of the earth, but should migrate, different families taking up residence in different parts of the globe. [as G’d decreed when He destroyed the Tower which had been built to prevent man’s dispersal over the globe. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ואת כל העץ אשר בו פרי עץ, “and every tree which contains fruit of the tree” the Torah permitted the eating of the seeds of grain producing plants such as kernels of wheat etc, and the eating of the fruit of the tree, but not the eating of the trunk itself, just as also the stalks of the herbs were not allowed to be eaten [in order to ensure that the species would not become defunct. Ed.] After the first sin, eating of the stalks of the herbs themselves was permitted, as we read ואכלת את עשב השדה, ”you will eat the grass of the field,” (Genesis 3,18) The eating of meat had not been permitted at all, as the animals due to their mobility have a life force, נפש, which is superior to the “life-force” of plants. This is manifest in their freedom to choose the kind of food they want to eat as well as in their ability to choose where to make their habitat. They are intelligent enough to flee from locations causing them pain, or from death threatening situations. Once the animals became corrupt, as detailed in Genesis 6,12, they forfeited this legal protection from man the predator, and man was given permission to eat meat provided the animal was dead first. After all, the very existence of the animals was for the sake of and convenience of man. Even after this permission to eat the meat of the animals was granted, it was forbidden to eat heir life-force, נפש. (Genesis 9,4) This is basically why slaughtering of the animals prior to eating their flesh was decreed by the Torah for the Jewish people. This is also the meaning of the sages stating that causing pain to animals is a Biblical prohibition. (Nachmanides on our verse)
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   את כל ירק עשב לאכלה, ויהי כן. “every green herb for food; it was so.” I was puzzled why at this point the Torah had to add the line ויהי כן, “it was so, or it remained so.” Seeing that in verse 29 G’d had already given these directives including the word ויאמר, it is obvious that His directive would be carried out .Why does the Torah need to confirm this? The answer is that in this instance no potential became an actual after G’d uttered the directive. G’d had only made sure that the plants in question would be suitable for man when he wanted to eat them. My sainted father the רא'ש, explained to me that the words ויהי כן, in this instance, mean that G’d caused man not to develop a craving for meat which would cause him to indulge in killing animals for food. Nowadays, man is sometimes even imbued with the wish to kill other human beings. Were it not for a natural tendency not to kill even animals, we would all kill one another at the slightest provocation.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   והנה טוב מאד, and lo, it was very good!” Some commentators say that in view of the presence on earth now of the most superior creature, man, the Torah now describes the entire universe in loftier terms than previously, i.e. instead of merely “good,” it had now become “very good.” In <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> an opinion is expressed that the expression is a reference to death [in our versions <i>gehinom</i>.] The student hearing this was understandably dumbfounded wanting to know how purgatory could be “very good?” The answer was that there can be no existence without .a corresponding loss.
      [If I understand correctly, the concept is that in order to convert anything into something else, such as raw material into a human being, the components so used will be missing elsewhere, in the place they were taken from. Similarly, the creation of life which is of limited duration, creates the automatic concept of death, which occurs when that life expires. “Death” implies that something which exists now has ceased to exist. Ed.]
      Yet another view in that <i>Midrash</i> describes the expression טוב מאד as referring to the evil urge, the יצר הרע. This is equivalent to the מדת פורענות, negative virtue. This is why Onkelos translates the expression as והא תקין לחדא, i.e. that it was established together with the יצר טוב, seeing that evil is a necessary counterpart to the good which could not exist [be perceived as such Ed.] unless there is an alternative.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וכל צבאם, and all their hosts” The hosts of the earth, i.e. man and beast, as well as all the vegetation. It includes also the hosts of the heavens, so that we have here an indirect reference to the angels, i.e. that they had also been created during the six days of creation.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויכל אלוקים ביום השביעי, “G’d completed on the seventh day, etc.” Although G’d knows exactly when the sixth day ends and the seventh day commences, to the onlooker it might appear as if the seventh day had already started. According to the plain meaning of the text, the line means that whatever G’d did on the seventh day was the completion of the seven days of creation. 
  
  Verse 3
  
    ויברך ויקדש, “He blessed and sanctified.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the words ויברך ויקדשrefer to the manna. During the weekdays one <i>omer</i> of manna per person fell from the heavens, and on the Sabbath eve twice the amount, so that the Sabbath was sanctified by no manna descending.     Rav Saadyah gaon explains that the blessing and sanctity are granted to those who observe the Sabbath in accordance with <i>halachah</i>.      Ibn Ezra explains the blessing bestowed on the Sabbath as additional strength granted to the bodies to enable them to procreate and the additional mental and spiritual dimension known as נשמה יתירה, “additional soul,” which Jews enjoy on that day.  
   ויקדש אותו, “He sanctified it.” This day is not slated for work being performed as are the six working days. 
     אשר ברא אלוקים לעשות, “which G’d had created to be developed further.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the meaning is that work (of a creative nature) originally intended to be carried out only on the seventh day, was moved forward so that G’d performed it already on the sixth day.      According to Ibn Ezra the verse tells us that G’d enabled the various creatures, including plants, to be able to procreate and ensure their continued existence on earth     Nachmanides holds that as of this day G’d desisted from any creative activity which was known as בריאה, i.e. creating matter out of no tangible raw material, יש מאין, “<i>ex nihilo</i>.” The meaning of the additional word לעשות, is that G’d did not even put finishing touches to phenomena He had already created in their primitive state.      Nachmanides adds that we should know that the expression ששת ימים does not only refer to the six days of creation in a literal sense, but to the entire projected length of time this universe is to endure, i.e. 6000 years. This is why our sages described the length of a “day” in terms of G’d’s calendar as equivalent to 1000 years of our calendar. During the first two days the universe consisted completely of water. These “days” are an allusion to the 2000 years described by our sages a <i>tohu,</i> a degree of chaos, seeing that nothing had been completed during these two “days.” Seeing that during these 2000 years no one proclaimed the name of the Living G’d, our sages described this era as תהו. The first day during which light had been created is basically the period of close to 1000 years during which Adam lived, It is quite possible that even Enosh did not turn to idolatry until Adam had died. The second day which saw the creation of the heavens, etc. also produced a Noach who, with his sons, was righteous, whereas the rest of mankind was doomed to destruction during that millennium. Mankind was destroyed by water, another sign that this was the dominating influence during that era.      The third day, i.e. also the third millennium, saw the emergence of an Avraham who was 48 years of age at the beginning of that millennium. Avraham was the first human being who succeeded in attracting many people to worship G’d as the only deity. He had begun converting people years before G’d told him to leave Charan and to move to what was then the land of Canaan. It was also the millennium during the middle of which Torah was revealed to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai. It is important to remember that with the onset of dusk after sunset the following day has already begun. [Avraham’s being born in the year1952 after the creation of Adam is considered as if he had been born during dusk of the second “day,” a stage preparatory to the third day (millennium).] Observance of the commandments of the Torah is equivalent of “the World having produced its fruit.” The fourth day, (or millennium) during which the sun and moon were created also produced the first Temple which Solomon built in Jerusalem. (72 years into the third millennium). This millennium lasted until 172 years after the destruction of the first Temple. The day the Temple was consecrated was a day of light when heavenly fire descended to consume thousands of sacrifices. The glory of G’d filled the Temple and the heavenly fire was reposing on the altar as does a lion that has eaten his fill. In other words, Israel’s light shone forth at that time as did the sun when placed in orbit for the first time. From that time on Israel’s glory diminished fairly steadily culminating in exile of the people and the subsequent minor rally during which the second Temple was built, a period which can be best compared to the kind of night during which the moon is the only source of light available.     The fifth day which produced most of the living creatures of the water and the birds of the sky, is symbolized by the fifth millennium, commencing 172 years after the destruction of the second Temple. This was an era to which the verse in Chabakuk 1,14-15 can be compared. The prophet there writes: ותעשה אדם כדגי הים כרמש לא מושל בו. כולה בחכה העלה יגורהו בחרמו ויאספהו במכמרתו עלכן ישמח ויגל. “You have made mankind like the fish of the sea, like creeping things that have no ruler. He has fished them all up with a line, pulled them up in his trawl and gathered them in his net. That is why he rejoices and is glad.” [The prophet complains about the apparent absence of G’d’s providence during this millennium when human beings were treated as if they were fish in the sea with no value to their lives. Ed.] This era did not produce men of caliber who sought the nearness of their Creator. (Isaiah 31,1)     On the morning of the sixth day the earth produced various land-based mammals, all of this occurring prior to sunrise as alluded to in Psalms 104, 22 תזרח השמש יאספון ואל מעונתם ירבצון, “by the time the sun rises they came home and crouch in their dens.” Following this, man was created in the image of G’d on the sixth day (sixth millennium) Then commenced the period of man’s dominance as described in the subsequent verse in Psalms 104,23יצא אדם לפעלו ולעבודתו עדי ערב, “man then goes to his work, to his labour until the evening.” David describes the sixth millennium during the early part of which the “animals” roam the world more or less unimpeded. These “animals” are humans who do not know their Creator, and therefore are hardly better than animals. After man’s creation, described as part of sunrise, will come the redeemer, scion of the house of David, who has been made in the image of the Lord of whom it has been written: (Daniel 7,13) וארו עםי ענני שמיא כבר אנש אתה הוא ועד עתיק יומיא מטה וקדמוהי הקרבוהי ולה יהיב שלטן ויקר ומלכו, “and behold with the clouds of heaven, one like a man came; he came up to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him before Him. He gave him dominion, glory and kingship, peoples nations and languages.” [although our author is quoting Nachmanides he has left out several sentences, perhaps he did not have the updated text that we have nowadays thanks to Rabbi Chavell.]     It would seem from the Torah’s terminology which uses the same words to describe two different scenarios, i.e. days and millennia, that at the beginning of the sixth millennium an especially powerful and violent nation will emerge, a nation and religion which will be more monotheistic than previous ones. [reference to Islam. Ed.]     The seventh day is the Sabbath, which in terms of millennia describes the future known as עולם הבא, an idyllic state involving מנוחה rest in a positive sense, something which the sages speak about. Some commentators see in the word לעשות the opposite of עשה, i.e. something G’d had done already, a reference to the spiritually negative forces in the universe, the מזיקים, the potential for which G’d had created. The phenomena have not been equipped with a body, hence the word לעשות describes them in their incomplete state. Still other commentators see in the word לעשות instructions to existing phenomena such as earth, water, etc., [in other words “nature” Ed.] to continue the process as it no longer involved anything basically new. From now on man would be the product of his parents, a reproduction of the ongoing process here called לעשות.     In the <i>Midrash</i> the wordלעשות is understood to refer to something G’d had deliberately omitted to create at the time, i.e. the רוח צפוני the north wind. This wind would be put to use when it is time to judge the idolaters in the future. G’d will challenge them by saying to them that if there is any substance to their deities, He challenges them to produce the north wind which He had left in reserve for their expertise. If they would prove unable to produce this north wind, they would be convicted of having worshipped totally useless phenomena as deities.     The reason why the Torah does not conclude with the words ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר יום שביעי, “it was evening and morning the seventh day,” is that the Jewish people would honour the Sabbath by commencing it before the end of the sixth day, thus lending it an extra measure of sanctity. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   וכל שיח השדה, “and all the greenery of the field, etc.” The vegetation which had begun to sprout forth on the third day had actually not broken through the surface of the soil until the sixth day when Adam prayed for rain to materialize. When the rain materialized all these plants surfaced above the earth.
      Nachmandes, explaining the literal meaning of our verse, the פשט, says that whereas on the third day all the plants 
      mentioned materialized in their mature form, they did not develop as there was no one to tend them. The reason why the vegetation here is not described as שיח האדמה, the vegetation of the earth, but as שיח השדה, is that the word שדה is indicative of something subject to agriculture, ground that is being worked. This had not started until after the first rainfall.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ואד יעלה מן הארץ, “vapour would rise from the earth, etc.” According to <i>Rashi</i> these words refer to the fashioning of man, G’d, so to speak, used the moisture called אד to make a kind of dough of the mixture of earth and these vapours, allowing Him to fashion and mould man in the shape He had intended for him.
      According to the plain meaning of the text it appears that seeing the Torah writes that at that time no rain had yet descended on earth, there was no point to rain descending until man had been created who would till the ground after the rain had fallen. The Torah therefore describes that vapours from the earth could keep the plants alive even in the temporary absence of man to tend to them.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויטע ה' אלוקים גן בעדן מקדם, “The Lord G’d planted a garden in Eden, in the east.” He planted the garden to the east of an area known as Eden.
      Some commentators believe that the country was called “Eden,” as in Kings II Onkelos understands the word מקדם as מלקדמין, as of ancient times, which Nachmanides equates with G’d not transplanting the trees in that garden from another location, but making them grow from the very roots, as indicated by the words ויצמח ה' אלוקים, the Lord G’d made grow, etc.” In other words, the directive for these trees to grow was given long before G’d instructed the earth on the third day to produce vegetation. G’d had decreed already at that early stage of creation that this spot would become the site of גן עדן. He had even selected the precise spot for each tree in that garden, personally. The earth had not had any leeway in the matter as it had elsewhere on the globe.
      As to the Torah writing that G’d placed Adam in that garden in order to work it and preserve it, this means that Adam was to sow and make additional rows of trees, etc. If the trees of the original garden had required tending, who would have done this after Adam had been expelled?
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ועץ החיים בתוך הגן. “and the tree of life in the center of the garden.” The meaning of the words: “the tree of life was in the center of the garden,” is that the location and function of this tree was known. This is why the Torah describes it as “at the center” of the garden and not simply as ”in the garden.” Onkelos also translates the word בתוך as meaning “at the center.” This is also what Chavah answered the serpent when she said: “G’d has said not to eat from the tree in the center of the garden,” without mentioning the name of that tree. Seeing that she had mentioned the location of the tree, it was as if she had identified it by name. Seeing that this was so, it is difficult to understand how both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were in the center of the garden?     Nachmanides explains that this is no problem. There was an ערוגה, “furrow,” in the center of the garden and both these trees grew out of this furrow. The entire furrow is described by the Torah as “the center, אמצע, of the garden. [although the Torah never used this word, only בתוך, which does not have to mean precisely the center. Ed.]     There are still other commentators who state that the tree of life was precisely at the center of the garden, whereas the tree of knowledge surrounded it with its foliage. In this manner both trees were located in the center of the garden, the tree of life in the more narrow sense of the word. This would also explain why G’d was not concerned that man would eat from the fruit of the tree of life immediately before he would eat from the tree of knowledge having already assured himself of eternal life. Seeing that the tree of life was difficult to get at due to it being surrounded by the branches of the tree of knowledge, it did not present a challenge until man had become mortal.     Rabbi Joseph Kimchi explains that the tree of knowledge and the tree of life were one and the same tree. As to the Torah once speaking of the “tree of life,” and once of the “tree of knowledge,” this is no different from our describing a certain person once as very intelligent, and once as being righteous. These two characteristics are not mutually exclusive. The tree in question also possessed several characteristics. This is also plausible when we consider the woman’s answer to the serpent when she said (in the same breath) “from the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat whereas G’d said not to eat from the tree in the centre of the garden.” According to Chavah only a single tree had been placed out of bounds to man. I cannot understand what Rabbi Joseph Kimchi does with verse 23 in chapter 3 where G’d expresses His concern about man now wanting to eat from the tree of life. According to the worthy Rabbi they had already eaten from that tree!  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל. “You may eat from all the trees of the garden.” <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 16,6 sees in these words a warning not to eat even a minute amount of live tissue from any animal. This seems hard to understand in view of meat having remained forbidden to man until after the deluge. (Genesis 9,3-4) Rabbeinu Nissim explains that the prohibition to eat meat concerned only the killing of an animal in order to eat its meat. The meat of animals which died of natural causes had not been forbidden at all. Living tissue, even if it had fallen off the animal, was prohibited, however.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   לא תאכל ממנו, “you must not eat thereof.” A reference to the fruit of the tree, as the trunk itself was inedible and man therefore had not been cautioned against eating it.
  
     כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות, “for on the day you eat from it you will surely become mortal.” This is not a warning of immediate death [as it would have been equivalent to the dying out of the human species. Ed.] but a warning not to forfeit eternal life on earth.
      There are some commentators who hold that prior to eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge even other sins would not have resulted in a death penalty, seeing man would have lacked the knowledge of good and evil which he had only acquired as a result of eating from the fruit of that tree. The meaning of מות תמות then would be that after eating from the tree of knowledge and acquiring the knowledge of good and evil, any subsequent sins were liable to be considered capital sins, with death as their punishment.
      Nachmanides wrote that according to the scientists of his time, man was a mortal creature already before he ate from the tree of knowledge due to the fact that he was composed of a number of different (4) raw materials and all these amalgams ultimately disintegrate. What then was the difference that occurred after Adam ate from the tree? Had he not eaten from the tree, death, when it would eventually occur, would not be as a form of punishment for a sin committed. His death would be of the same category as that of people who knowingly ate תרומה, although not being priests or members of a priest’s household, and similar examples of what are known as מיתה בידי שמים, execution at the hands of heavenly forces. 
      Our sages, ignoring the opinion of scientists, hold that thanks to his divine soul, man would have lived on indefinitely, his soul counteracting the inherent weakness of any creature consisting of four raw materials. His sin neutralized the power of his soul to protect him from death. Actually, the belief in the mortality (eventual metamorphosis) of all phenomena which consist of more than one raw material, is held only by people who lack in true faith and believe that the existence of the universe is not due to G’d’s free will, but was the result of an immutable law of nature, long preceding the existence of any G’d. For true believers who know in their deepest heart that the universe is the result of the will of a totally free Creator, the continued existence of anything this Creator has initiated, does not pose a problem. The only thing that would put an end to the absolute life expectancy of man was the fact that he violated the commandment and ignored the warning of what would follow. 
      It is possible that all the fruit of the various trees of the גן עדן, barring those of the tree of knowledge, were completely assimilated by the human body, as was the manna later on, and therefore did not represent a foreign body, something that undermined man’s health, resulting in his eventual death. Having eaten from the forbidden fruit, Adam once more became –in the words of his Creator- “dust you are, and to dust you must return.”
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   לא טוב היות האדם לבדו, “it is not good for man to remain solitary.” Clearly it had not been G’d’s intention already at the time He created Adam that he should remain single, seeing that all other creatures were created in pairs, male and female specimen. Even trees and herbs contain seed to enable them to “mate” and to reproduce their kind.     However, it is possible to argue that man was created with two faces and that between them (within a single body) they possessed the ingredients necessary to reproduce so that the second “face” enabled Adam to help him to reproduce. G’d saw, however, that it would be better that man’s עזר, assistant, should stand independently, facing him, so that he could see her having the choice to separate from her or to closely associate with her in accordance with his wishes. This is the meaning of the words: עזר כנגדו.
  
  Verse 19
  
     וייצר ה' אלוקים מן האדמה, “the Lord G’d fashioned out of the earth, etc. Rabbi Joseph Kimchi explains the word וייצר, as meaning: “He gathered together.” This word appears in a similar meaning as יוצר גובאי where it means gathering. [I have not found the source. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 20
  
   ולאדם לא מצא עזר כנגדו, ”and for Adam he had not found a suitable helpmate.” Rabbi Joseph Kimchi views Adam as the subject in this verse, i.e. Adam had been unable to find a suitable helpmate for himself. This was because the Lord had not presented him with such a choice, had not introduced a candidate to him. G’d knew that none of the existing creatures would be a suitable helpmate for Adam. The word ולאדם is therefore to be understood as a metaphor, a pronoun, the line meaning: “and for himself, personally, He had not found a suitable helpmate.” We find a similar construction in Genesis 4,23 when Lemech addresses his wives Adah and Tzilah, saying: שמען קולי נשי למך וגו' “listen to what I have to say, oh wives of Lemech.” [who else had he been speaking to that he had to insert his own name? Ed.]
      Nachmanides explains the words וכל אשר יקרא לו נפש חיה הוא שמו, as applying to the subject of a suitable helpmate for himself. <i>Rashi</i> had already stated that the verse is truncated, and the correct sequence should have been וכל נפש חיה אשר יקרא לו האדם הוא שמו, “and whatever name Adam bestowed on any of the living creatures became its permanent name.” Seeing that Adam himself had been described at the very beginning of his existence as נפש חיה, Adam in his quest for a mate, proceeded to screen all the other creatures known as נפש חיה. As soon as he had bestowed the title נפש חיה on any of them, a title which remained permanent, he hoped that such an animal would qualify as his own helpmate, only to find himself disappointed again and again. Also, in recognizing the distinct characteristics of the animals he classified them into groups such as בהמה גסה and בהמה דקה, large cattle and small cattle. The word עזר is used in a wider sense, including the ability to mate with one another and produce offspring. The common denominator of small cattle, such as sheep and goats, is that they are able to mate with one another and produce offspring, whereas the common denominator of large cattle is that they cannot mate with one another successfully.
      Clearly, it had not been within the power of Adam to change the natural characteristics of any of these animals which had been created with their specific tendencies. However, if Adam had found among any of the beasts any that appealed to him in an extraordinary manner, he would have prayed to G’d to adapt the characteristics of such an animal so that it would be suitable as his mate. However, in the event, he found none that even remotely interested him in this regard. We do find that G’d reassigned the functions and appearance of one of Adam’s “ribs” in order to provide him with a more suitable mate. The meaning of the words הוא שמו, is that G’d agreed with the name, i.e. characterization Adam had given to each animal, and He henceforth referred to such creature by the name Adam had given them.
      The truth is that G’d had not wanted to remove a “rib” from Adam until the latter had asked for an as yet non existent creature to become his helpmate, his partner. When, finally, he found such a partner after awakening from his sleep, he named this partner suitably, i.e. אישה as she represented the same components as איש, i.e. himself.
      Some commentators feel that the emphasis in this verse is on the words זאת הפעם, “(only) on this occasion.” Henceforth, woman as well as man would not be direct creations by their Creator, but they would be born by woman, similar to the procreative process common to all mammals. This is another aspect of the wordsאשר ברא אלוקים לעשות, in 2,3 at the end of the report about the creation. Up until then, G’d had practiced the art of בריאה, creation, in the literal sense. Henceforth new phenomena would only be reproductions of existing phenomena, hence לעשות, to complete, to ensure that what had been created originally would not be lost.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  .ודבק באשתו והיו לבשר אחד, “he will cleave to his wife so that they will unite to become one flesh.” This is not a commandment, but means that man will be inherently designed to cleave to his wife for the purpose of founding a family, etc. It does not mean that he has been programmed.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ויאמר הנחש אל האשה לא מות תמותון, “the serpent said to the woman: ”you will surely not die.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the serpent had pushed Chavah against the tree first, thus demonstrating to her that touching the tree did not result in any harm to her, contrary to what she had said in the name of G’d. The most common criticism of <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary is that Chavah simply had to reply that seeing the day was not yet over, the fact that she had not died as yet was no proof of anything, and that this was the reason that she had not died as a result of touching the tree. The defenders of <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary are forced to respond that the serpent challenged her by saying that since, according to her own words, she was going to die by the end of the day on account of having touched the tree, she might as well eat of it, seeing she could only die once. The basic objection to <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary is totally invalid, as Chavah had never said a word about dying on that day, but about dying as a result of eating or touching, i.e. immediately. 
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  כי טוב העץ למאכל , “for the tree is good as food.” She had thought originally that the reason why G’d had forbidden the tree was because its fruit was bitter, and the poison of the fruit would result in death to those who ate it. Now she had convinced herself that its fruit was sweet.
  
     וכי תאוה לעינים, “and that its appearance caused one to desire it.” We learn that man’s desires are activated by his eyes, by what he sees.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   וישמעו את קול ה' אלוקים מתהלך בגן, “they heard the voice of the Lord G’d strolling trough the garden.” This is not the only time that we find the word הילוך, walking, associated with קול, a voice. We read in Jeremiah 46,22 קולה כנחש ילך, “She will rustle (sound) away like a snake.”
      Nachmanides understands the word מתהלך as a metaphor for a form of revelation of G’d’s Presence. We have a similar verse in Leviticus 26,12 והתהלכתי בתוככם, “I reveal Myself in your midst,” although in that context it is as a result of Israel obeying all of G’d’s commandments. The meaning of the word לרוח, in the expression לרוח היום, is that prior to a revelation of G’d’s Presence, one of the advance notices is a strong wind such as when Elijah experienced such a revelation at Mount Sinai. (Kings I 19,11) In this instance the wind was not powerful and frightening, but רוח היום of the same force as it was daily when a breeze is blowing. G’d had not intended to frighten Adam and his wife. There are some commentators who understand the line as indicating that Adam and his wife were indeed frightened upon hearing G’d’s voice, and that is why they tried to hide.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   כי עירום אנכי, “for I am naked.” The fig leaf which they had used to cover themselves only covered their private parts. Although, according to the <i>Midrash,</i> G’d, personally, provided them with no fewer than 24 kinds of ornaments, they had to remove these at the time when they engaged in marital relations.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   האשה אשר נתת עמדי, “the woman You have given me as my companion, etc.” According to Nachmanides Adam’s excuse was that seeing that G’d had given him Chavah as an עזר, helpmate, everything she would ask or advise him to do would be of benefit and use to him. It had not therefore occurred to him that her advice could be harmful if followed. When G’d punished him, He made plain that Adam’s argument was flawed as how could he ignore G’d’s command and accept a contrary command by one of G’d’s creatures? My sainted father the רא'ש explained that the only reason why Adam could use the excuse he offered was because he had already eaten from the fruit of the tree and had become aware of the difference between good and evil. He accused his wife of having tricked him.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   מה זאת עשית, “what is this you have done?” How could you have violated My commandment, even though it had not been addressed to you directly but to your husband? Seeing that you are made of his bone, surely you must have realized that My commandment also included you?
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   אל האשה אמר, “to the woman He had said, etc.” G’d did not mention the woman’s eating from the tree as the cause of her punishment as He had done when He announced Adam’s punishment in verse 17. The reason is that she was punished both for the eating and for suggesting that her husband become her partner in crime. The serpent too, had been punished for giving criminal advice to the woman.
  
     עצבונך, “your severe discomfort.” According to <i>Rashi</i> this is not physical discomfort, but the mental anguish which is part of raising children. This seems difficult, for if this were the true meaning of the verse, why did the Torah not write the word הרונך, “your pregnancy,” before speaking about raising as yet unborn children? It appears more appropriate therefore to understand the word עצבונך as referring to the monthly discomfort of menstruating, something even women who do not bear children have to contend with.
  
     ואל אישך תשוקתך, “and your longing will be for your husband.” <i>Rashi</i> interprets this as the woman’s desire for marital relations with her husband, something that she does not express openly, by words of mouth, but has to wait for passively, seeing that her husband is the initiator, “rules over her.” Nachmanides takes exception to <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation, saying that on the contrary, a woman’s natural reticence in these matters is praiseworthy, hardly a punishment.
      Ibn Ezra understands the word תשוקתך as “your obedience,” saying that the wife has to be obedient to the demands of her husband. She requires his permission to carry out plans of her own design, seeing that she is basically under his control.
      It would appear that seeing G’d said to the woman: הרבה ארבה עצבונך והרונך, “I will greatly increase your discomfort, etc.,” including that during pregnancy, that even if the woman takes care to minimize the incidence of marital relations in order to not become pregnant, her natural tendency to engage in marital relations will overcome her unwillingness to become pregnant again and again. In fact her husband, seeing that he rules over her, may force her to submit to having marital relations even against her will.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ועתה פן ישלח ידו ולקח גם מעץ החיים, “and now, so that he will not attempt to also take from the tree of life, etc.” Before Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge and had become mortal, there was no concern that he would eat from that tree, as prior to that sin Adam would not be tempted to do anything against the wishes of His Creator. Besides, he had no need for what that tree had to offer, being himself immortal.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   וישלחהו, “He expelled him.” According to Rabbi Joseph Kimchi, G’d first sent him outside the boundaries of <i>Gan Eden,</i> and subsequently expelled him by positioning the cherubs to prevent him for regaining access to that garden.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   והאדם ידע את חוה אשתו, “in the interval Adam had been intimate with his wife Chavah, etc.” When the sages comment that two human beings went to bed and four got up out of that same bed, this refers to what is spelled out in the text. Seeing that the Torah does not specifically mention the female twins born with Kayin and Hevel, the <i>Midrash</i> (<i>Pirkey de Rabbi Eliiezer</i> quoted by Rabbeinu Bachya on Genesis 2,7) also does not mention this. Some commentators understand the words “four descended from that bed,” as referring to Kayin and his twin sister, believing that Hevel had not been born at that time, as the Torah hints when writing ותוסף ללדת את אחיו את הבל, “she again gave birth to Hevel his brother.” (4,2)
  
     קניתי איש את ה', “I have acquired a man, with G’d.” <i>Rashi</i> understands the word את to mean: “with,” Chavah saying that she had become a partner to G’d.
      Nachmanides comments that Chavah said that this son would be her posthumous possession, (estate) that she would leave behind on this earth when it came time for her to die. He would serve his Creator in lieu of his parents when these would be no longer alive. Alternatively, the meaning of the word את in our verse is similar to ויתהלך חנוך את האלוקים, or in את האלוקים התהלך נח (Genesis 6,9 and Genesis 5,22) “Noach walked with G’d.” She called the one son by a name meaning acquisition, and the second one הבל, as she did not want to spell out her fatalistic outlook of life on earth so that any acquisitions man makes on this earth while alive will prove to have been הבל, in vain, ultimately useless.
      In the whole of the portion known as בראשית prior to the conclusion of the seven days of creation, G’d is referred to only as אלוקים. The four-lettered name of G’d does not appear until verse 4 in chapter 2. From that point on, we also do not only find the four-lettered name of G’d unless accompanied by the name אלוקים. This reflects the statement of our sages that originally G’d had wanted to employ only the attribute of Justice, i.e. אלוקים, when He created His universe. When He realized that the universe would be very short-lived if He insisted on the attribute of Justice, He co-opted the attribute of Mercy, i.e. the four-lettered name of G’d, the tetragram, and He placed it at the beginning of His combined name. When the time came when Chavah described herself as G’d’s partner, He said that from that point on He would employ the attribute of Mercy as His chief attribute in dealing with mankind. This is why from this point on we find only the four-lettered name of G’d (until idolatry was practiced by man. Based on the רא'ש, the author’s father.)
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויהי הבל רועה צאן וקין היה עובד אדמה, “and Hevel became a tender of sheep, whereas Kayin became a tiller of the soil.” Ordinarily, we would have expected the Torah to mention Kayin’s vocation first, seeing that he was the first-born. However, seeing that Kayin did not really have a vocation but served the Lord by merely existing, as hinted at by Chavah, who had described him as an acquisition, Hevel’s vocation was mentioned first. When Kayin observed that his brother had chosen a vocation for himself, he too chose a vocation, and became a farmer. Seeing he chose his vocation last, the Torah mentions the vocations of the brothers in that order.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   והבל הביא גם הוא מבכורות צאנו. “and Hevel had also brought of the choicest of his flocks.” Rabbi Joseph Kimchi, in drawing our attention to the absence of any mention here of first building an altar and presenting the gift to G’d on such an altar, sees this as proof that until Noach after the deluge, the slaughtering of animals even as burnt offerings was not permitted to man.
  וישע ה' אל הבל, “the Lord responded to Hevel, (and his gift). Rabbi Joseph Kimchi explains the reason why G’d did not respond to Kayin’s gift as due to the fact that he first ate his fill before giving G’d the share we call <i>bikkurim,</i> the first ripe fruit we produce. Hevel, on the other hand, offered to G’d the very first of the wool his sheep had produced.
  
  Verse 5
  
   לא שעה, “He had not responded.” <i>Rashi</i> understands the word שעה as meaning “He turned toward,” as in אל ישעו, (Exodus 8,9) “let them not turn toward.” However, in Exodus 5,9 he does not explain it in the same manner. We need to understand the word here as similar to another verse in which it means: “do not turn to other altars.” (Isaiah 17,8)
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   הלא אם תיטיב שאת, “indeed when you will be good there will be a reward (forgiveness).” According to <i>Rashi</i> the meaning of the word שאת is similar to נושא עוון ופשע, “Who forgives sin and deliberate affronts.” (Exodus 34,7)
      According to Ibn Ezra the meaning of the word is “raising,” such as the lifting or raising the face of someone who feels ashamed because he has been rejected and buries his face in his hands so as not to display his shame.
      According to Nachmanides G’d tells Kayin that if he will be good he will even outrank his brother Hevel in G’d’s esteem, seeing that he is the first-born, after all. If, on the other hand, (remainder of our verse) Kayin were not to improve his ways, he would not only experience this humiliation but others would follow and dog him all his life. The reason is that he provided an entrance for the evil urge through his misguided conduct.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויאמר קין, “Kayin said, etc.” according to <i>Rashi</i> Kayin began to quarrel with Hevel. According to Ibn Ezra Kayin told Hevel all the admonitions G’d had subjected him to. This is why the Torah did not have to repeat what he said to Hevel. Nachmanides explains that the words ויאמר קין אל הבל אחיו, are to be understood as part of the words ויהי בהיותם בשדה, “it was when they were both in the field, etc,” i.e. the second half of our verse. We need to understand the whole sequence as Kayin saying to Hevel: “let’s go out into the field, etc.” His intention was to kill him there in a spot that was not within view of his parents or twin sister. He was under the impression that his parents would not beget any more children. He was also afraid that the human species would be built up by the descendants of Hevel seeing hat only his gift had been accepted by G’d.
      Some commentators believe that the subject of their conversation was to divide up the earth between them, Kayin claiming agriculture as his domain, claiming all arable land as belonging to him, whereas Hevel, being a shepherd, claimed all that was above the ground. Eventually, Kayin used this as a pretext to deny his brother setting foot on his soil, whereas Hevel denied Kayin the right to breathe the air. This led to a fight between them.
  
     ויקם קין, “Kayin arose, etc.” According to the <i>Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah</i> 22,7-8) Hevel succeeded in wrestling Kayin to the ground, whereupon Kayin asked him if he planned to kill him, pleading that they were the only two human beings in the world, and would it not be terrible to kill half the human race? Thereupon Hevel had pity on him and released him. At that point Kayin exploited Hevel’s weakness and killed him. Seeing that he did not know where to administer a lethal blow he had to strike him in numerous places until he found the most vulnerable spot in his body. (according to the <i>Midrash,</i> he observed two ravens fighting , one of them standing over the other and killing it and then burying it in the earth. Kayin simply copied the raven)
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   השמר אחי אנכי? “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Kayin remonstrated with G’d that it had been G’d’s duty to protect Hevel, not his.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ארור אתה מן האדמה אשר פצתה את פיה, “you are cursed from the earth which opened its mouth, etc.” It is difficult to understand how the earth could be faulted. After all, the earth acts as receptacle for everything which is poured out upon it. The answer given is that in this instance the earth deliberately tried to conceal the deed by swallowing all of Hevel’s blood (and body) so that not a trace of what happened there remained visible. 
      <i>Rashi</i> explains the words ארור אתה מן האדמה, as meaning “you are cursed now even more than the first curse which had been decreed against the earth as a result of your father’s sin when he ate from the tree of knowledge.” [that curse had also been described as ארורה, although <i>Rashi</i> substituted the term קללה. Ed.]
      Nachmanides disagrees with <i>Rashi</i>, saying that this time the earth itself was not cursed as when Kayin’s father had sinned, but in this instance Kayin’s vocation as a farmer was the subject of the curse. Whereas previously he had been a very successful farmer, he would find now that even his best efforts would not be rewarded with the expected success.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   גדול עוני מנשא, “my sin is too great to be forgiven.” According to Nachmanides this was Kayin’s true and sincere confession. He acknowledged the righteousness of the Creator, admitting that he had deserved the severe punishment decreed upon him. He felt unable to pray, as he did not think that prayers from a sinner such as himself had a chance to evoke G’d’s sympathy. He felt that if he had not qualified for a favourable response to his sacrificial offering before he murdered his brother, he most certainly could not expect that G’d would accept any gift from him now. He was at his wits’ end, seeing that anyone on earth who would find him would be justified in killing him.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   הרג קין שבעתים יוקם. “whoever kills Kayin will be avenged sevenfold.” According to Nachmanides this means that whoever will kill Kayin will be avenged seven times over, i.e. .he will be punished for his deed as if he had killed seven people. This threat was designed to restrain anyone who would feel like killing Kayin.
  
     וישם ה' לקין אות, “G’d placed a mark on Kayin;” the Torah did not write ויתן לו ה' אות, “G’d gave Kayin a mark,” but וישם, a word which describes something permanent. The mark with which G’d provided Kayin would remain visible for an indefinite period of time. Perhaps the meaning is that whenever Kayin, in his many journeys, would face a route unknown to him, the fact that he received no guidance would serve as a warning to him that that route was potentially dangerous for him.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   וישב בארץ נוד, “he settled in the land of Nod.” Seeing that Kayin had become a true penitent, G’d remitted half of his sentence, the half dealing with his being a constant wanderer on earth, not calling any place “home.” Whereas he had been condemned to be נע ונד, he had now been allowed to establish a permanent residence.
      Nachmanides explains the word נוד in terms of it being a variant of נע ונד, meaning that the region in which Kayin was a wanderer was one called נוד, so that his wanderings did not involve roaming the surface of the globe. 
  
     קדמת עדן, “to the east of Eden.” Wherever an easterly direction is mentioned in connection with man, it is related to the location of גן עדן in some manner. When the direction is mentioned with Moses, however, the Torah writes אז יבדיל משה שלש ערים מזרחה שמש, in order to describe an easterly direction (Deuteronomy 4,41, i.e. the word מזרחה describes an easterly direction)
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויהי בונה עיר, “he became a builder of a city.” Nachmanides explains that originally Kayin had not entertained the idea of building anything permanent as he was afraid he would both remain childless and a wanderer. After a son had been born for him, he built the city and named it after his son. Seeing that he himself was cursed and his efforts were doomed to failure, he did not name the city after himself but after his son. This would create the impression that his son had built it, and it would have a chance to endure.
      Seeing that the Torah writes the words ויהי בונה עיר, in the present, ongoing tense, instead of writing the words ויבן עיר, “he built a city,” we learn that henceforth Kayin continuously engaged in building cities, habitations for human beings, the backbone of any civilization. He had to keep doing this as whatever he accomplished was short-lived.
      The reason why the Torah bothers to list the descendants of Kayin and their accomplishments although all of them perished in the deluge, is to show for how long G’d’s patience lasts and for how long He gives successive generations a chance to repair the spiritual damage inflicted by their forbears. It is likely that only six generations of Kayin existed before the deluge, although it is possible that the Torah saw no point in mentioning any additional generations as none of its members distinguished themselves in any manner. The reason why the Torah details Lemech’s admonitions to his wives may be because Kayin and his sons already had died before Lemech fathered any children. [whereas the Torah mentions the death of each of the founders of the generations born to Sheth, it does not do so with the descendants of Kayin, indicating that none of these people were missed when they died. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויאמר למך לנשיו, “Lemech said to his wives, etc.” Nachmanides concludes from the plain text of our verses that Lemech was a wise and astute individual, well versed in all the vocations requiring not only brawn but also brain. He taught his oldest son how to be a proficient shepherd, allowing for the different nature of different animals, as well as the different kind of feed which they would thrive on. He taught his second son the rudiments of musical composition and how to play certain musical instruments. He taught his third son the art of working with different kinds of metal, including the making of weapons such as swords, spears, daggers, etc. His wives became afraid that he would be punished for introducing warfare into a peaceful society. Seeing that his paternal great-great-grandfather had been a murderer, perpetuating the art of killing would surely be frowned upon by heaven. Thus thought his wives. He told them that he himself had not been guilty of killing as had Kayin, so that G’d would protect him against murder even more so than He had been protecting Kayin for hundreds of years. He made the point that it is not the weapons which kill but the men who abuse the weapons. Man is capable of inflicting death on his fellow man with his bare hands and therefore manufacturing swords was not something that by itself was sinful.
      Rabbi Joseph Kimchi interprets the speech by Lemech to his wives as provoked by the discord in his household, seeing he had married two wives. Lemech is asking why he should be blamed, מה פשעי, when it was his wives who could not live in harmony with one another. If people like Kayin who had murdered, could live in peace and undisturbed, why should he who had not been guilty of murder have to be the victim of such discord? He warned his wives with sevenfold retribution by G’d Who had promised Kayin that He would personally avenge his life if anyone were to kill him. G’d would bring down great unhappiness on the people making Lemech’s life miserable.
      Other commentators consider Lemech as boasting that he had killed both adults and children merely in order to put the fear of him into the hearts of his wives. In fact, he had not killed. They would become afraid of him and live together peacefully under his roof.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   אז הוחל לקרא בשם ה', “then some people began to desecrate the Holy Name of the Lord<i>.” Rash’bam</i> interprets this line as people beginning to pray to G’d as their situation on earth had deteriorated so drastically. Other commentators, take the opposite view, saying that our verse describes the beginning of idolatry.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   זה ספר תולדות אדם, “this is a record of human history.” This is a reference to the various children mentioned in the remainder of the chapter. Beyond this, it is reasonable to consider the entire Torah a record of mankind’s history (up to the end of Moses’ life) and this is the reason why the Torah here did not choose to write אלה תולדות אדם, as it did on other occasions.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויולד בדמותו, בצלמו, “he begat in his likeness and in his image.” It is a well known fact that all the children born to man resemble their parents in large measure. So what did the Torah tell us here that we did not already know? The fact is that first man, not born of woman had been fashioned by G’d and been described by Him as being בצלם אלוקים. We might have thought that this distinction applied only to the first human being, the one who was the direct product of G’d’s handiwork. The Torah tells us here that this distinction was passed on throughout the generations. No mention was made of this distinction when Kayin and Hevel were born, as the Torah did not want to dwell on these two (whose descendants ceased at the time of the deluge) Seeing that Noach and his family were descendants of Sheth, it was important to inform us that their exteriors also reflected their G’dliness. According to the <i>Midrash,</i> the Torah mentions the fact that Adam reproduced in his own image to alert us to the fact that seminal emissions during the one hundred and thirty years before the birth of Sheth had resulted in the formation of שדים ומזיקים, spiritually and physically harmful creatures.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ויהיו ימי אדם, “Adam’s lifespan amounted to, etc.” Seeing these early generations lived for so many years when compared to the lifespan of man in times after the deluge, the Torah adopted a method of telling us about their inordinately longs life spans immediately after reporting that these people fathered their first children at an age when most of us nowadays have long been buried already. By choosing the method adopted here, the Torah explains why these people married (relatively speaking) so late and did not start a family sooner. Seeing that original man had been fashioned by the Creator Himself, he had been endowed with a more perfect body, enabling him and the first few generations after him, to live longer than usual lives in spite of death having been decreed for the species as a whole. Due to the gradual spiritual corruption of mankind, their bodies were affected negatively also, so that immediately after the deluge the average life span had already shrunk to less that half of what it had been prior to the deluge. After the dispersal as a result of the building of the Tower, the life expectancy shrank further, not least because suddenly man had to adjust to climactic changes during the year in the locations to which they had been dispersed.
      It would seem that the lifetime of people other than the patriarchs had already shrunk to an average of seventy years, (the immediate offspring of Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov excepted) We know this from Moses’ prayer recorded in the Book of Psalms, 90,10, where he describes this number as a “normal.” lifespan. The fact that Pharaoh was dumbfounded when Yaakov told him that he was already 130 years old, seems to support this theory. (Genesis 47,9)
      Maimonides writes that all the people mentioned in the Torah as having attained such longevity were exceptions and that is why their individual life spans have been mentioned. He credits their exceptional longevity to their having been very careful with their diets, foregoing foods which are basically life-shortening. Anyone not mentioned specifically lived a normal lifespan. Nachmanides already questions Maimonides’ opinion, citing the fact that the people mentioned as having lived for so long were not prophets so that G’d should have performed a miracle [I might add that Chanoch, (5,23) whom the Torah described as loyal to G’d, ”walking with Him,” (5,24) lived far fewer years than his not so righteous contemporaries Ed.] Also, why, according to Maimonides, would the נפילים, corrupt individuals, be granted such long lives as the Torah testified that the spies in Moses’ time had encountered?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויראו בני האלוקים,” the ‘sons’ of G’d saw, etc.” The expression בני האלוקים, refers to the elite of the society in those days, the law enforcers and judges. The Torah informs us that the very people charged with maintaining the functioning of an orderly, law abiding society, were the first to take the law into their own hands whenever it suited their purpose. Abuse of power leads to anarchy.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   בשגם הוא בשר, “seeing that he is part flesh.” According to <i>Rashi</i> G’d said that if man, made partially of soft issue such as flesh, did not bring himself to humble himself in His Presence, how much worse would he be if made of a hard substance or of fire?
      Ibn Ezra claims that G’d said: “My spirit will never prevail within man, on account of this sin (the practice of indiscriminate violence) coupled with the fact that the raw material he is made of, i.e. flesh, which will cause him to die so that only his spirit (soul) will return to Me.” [once his spirit leaves him his flesh will decompose. Ed
      Maimonides explains the meaning of the verse to be that G’d’s spirit will never prevail in man seeing that the fact that he too is made of flesh like all other moving creatures, ensures that he will die just as all creatures die and disintegrate. He therefore does not deserve that G’d’s spirit be at home within him. What Maimonides means is that whereas G’d had given man a divine soul such as He gave to the angels, they had chosen to prefer to emphasise the physical part of themselves, be more like the animals so that they do not deserve the gift G’d had given them.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   הנפילים היו בארץ, “the Nephilim were on earth at that time.” According to <i>Rashi</i> these creatures had fallen from heaven (in disgrace) and had in turn caused people on earth to fall from their spiritual level to a spiritually still lower level. The name נפילים corresponds to the Hebrew word ענקים, “giants.” At any rate, ordinary people were frightened of these “giants.” 
      Other commentators simply understand the term נפילים as representing human beings who, due to their imposing stature, made everyone fall down before them in a state of fear.
      Rabbi Joseph Kimchi explains the word נפילים as meaning גדולים, “great men, giants.” He quotes Job 14,18 ואולם הר נופל יבול as a parallel, i.e. that even the most powerful and great phenomena (such a tall mountains) on earth will ultimately fall, collapse.
  
     בני אלוקים, “the elite of mankind.” The male children of the most outstanding members of human society. These young men would look at the daughters of their morally inferior contemporaries and be consumed with lust for them, so that they would rape them and the result would be more such physically alluring females.
  
     אשר יבאו, “who would be intimate with them.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the subject are the sons of the בני האלוקים
      Nachmanides explains that Adam and Chavah are here referred to as בני האלוקים, “the children of G’d,” as they had been the direct product of G’d’s creative activity, and they had no physical father. Adam and Chavah in turn, had many sons and daughters as the Torah reports in These children of Adam and Chavah were in a class by themselves, seeing that their father had passed on to them a great deal of the genes of the genetically perfect first man on earth.
      It is possible that the first pair of humans and their immediate sons were referred to as בני האלוקים, as they more than any subsequent human reflected what was calledצלם אלוקים at the time when G’d created the first pair of human beings. These people never engaged in idol worship, whereas their offspring already began to see in other powers on earth deities of a kind, albeit surrogates of the Creator. In keeping with this tendency of people to deify powers of nature, their own physical dimensions and strength declined, as a form of punishment. When the human population increased on earth and there began to be competition for good looking female partners, the men of earlier generations, due to their superior prowess, overpowered their more poorly endowed competitors, and they grabbed themselves whatever they chose. Originally, they married such girls even against their will, but eventually their morals deteriorated to such a degree that they raped girls without offering marriage, and generally this did not come to light until the features of the children born from such illegal liaisons did not resemble either of their parents, but showed genetic likeness to the members of the giants.
      The word מעולם, normally understood as meaning “from time immemorial,” is the Torah’s way of hinting that in the future whenever a human being would for some reason be of such outsize dimensions as the giants of former times, people would speak of giants having lived prior to the deluge; the appearance of this phenomenon would trigger memories of the stories which had been handed down from generation about the existence of such a race at one time.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   וינחם ה' ויתעצב אל לבו, “G’d reconsidered and was saddened right to His heart.” The Torah employs the syntax used by human beings when they regret something they have done. Basically, the Torah writes that the conduct of the humans, their insurrection against the Creator’s basic rules, resulted in their causing G’d’s Holy Spirit to reconsider if they deserved to continue living. 
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ונח מצא חן, “but Noach had found favour, etc.” <i>Bereshit Rabbah 28,9</i> points out that even Noach, strictly speaking, had not deserved that G’d perform miracles for him to save him, but as he was fortunate in finding favour in G’d’s eyes, [either because he had fathered Shem, and eventually an Avraham was born to that family, or that in accordance with the dictum that the attribute of justice is always tempered with the application of the attribute of mercy, he was the one to whom the attribute of mercy could be applied. The entire statement has as its basis the letter ו in the word ונח, which suggests that actually he too was included in the previous statement נחמתי כי עשיתם, “I am sorry that I have made them” Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   אלה תולדות נח, “these are the offspring of Noach.” Some commentators understand the word תולדות as referring to important events in the life of Noach, similar to Genesis 10,1 ואלה תולדת בני נח, or אלה תולדות השמים in Genesis The fact that the Torah repeated the words ויולד נח וגו', that Noach begat 3 sons, information we had been told already in Genesis 5,32 is due to the interruption of the Torah’s narrative by telling us that Noach was a righteous man and that this accounted for his and his family being spared during the deluge. Seeing that Noach begat only three sons, as opposed to most of his contemporaries, the Torah wishes to emphasise this point. Even during the 350 years which he lived on after the deluge he sired no more children. These three sons alone were his biological offspring and they were saved because of that (not their own merit).
  
     איש צדיק תמים היה, “he was a perfectly righteous man.” The meaning of the expression צדיק תמים is that he was a righteous man among other righteous men, i.e. had been found righteous when coming up for judgment. When a person such as Noach is found righteous, his erstwhile sins, potential causes for punishment, are converted into righteousness. This is the meaning of the verse (Deut. 25,1) והצדיקו את הצדיק והרשיעו את הרשע, “they (the judges) will exonerate the righteous (totally) and condemn the wicked.” In the case of Avraham, of whom G’d said that He knows him to be practicing and teaching צדקה ומשפט, (Genesis 18,18) He bestowed two kinds of praise upon him, צדקה, a practicing צדיק, and משפט, the meting out of משפט by tempering it with mercy, רחמים.
      Ibn Ezra understands the word צדיק as referring to Noach’s deeds, and תמים as referring to his motivation. [his righteousness was not prompted by self-serving considerations. Ed.] 
      When the Torah continues that Noach walked with G’d, ויתהלך נח את האלוקים, this means that he did not even allow himself to be guided by astrology and similar considerations, but followed directly in the paths of G’d to the extent that they had been revealed. He certainly did not practice any form of idolatry.
      Alternatively, the Torah describes Noach here as a prophet, seeing that the formulation אחרי ה' תלכו ואותו תיראו”follow the Lord and remain in awe of Him,” is used by the Torah to describe the prophet who distances himself from idolatry.
  
     בדורותיו, “in his generations.” According to <i>Rashi</i> some commentators consider this word a compliment to Noach, whereas others see in it a veiled criticism. [relative righteousness compared to his contemporaries. Ed.]
      Nachmanides explains the word as meaning what any reader would assume, i.e. that during the generations Noach lived he was the only one who was righteous and wholehearted in his relations with his Creator. He explains the line (Genesis 7,1) “כי אותך ראיתי צדיק בדור הזה, “for you I have seen righteous in this generation” in he same vein, i.e. no one else is worth saving from the oncoming deluge. The reason the Torah uses the plural mode for the word בדורותיו is the fact that Noach’s life time spanned several generations during all of which mankind had become successively more corrupt. Do not raise the question that Methuselah who died only few days before the onset of the deluge (according to our sages) was also a righteous man. The Torah did not deny that he was righteous, but only states that there was no other righteous man whom G’d deemed worth saving at the time in question. According to yet other commentators the word בדורותיו refers to the generation preceding the deluge as well as to those following it.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   את שם, את חם,ואת יפת, “Sem, Cham and Yaphet.” Yaphet was the oldest. We know this because the Torah writes יפת הגדול, (Genesis 10,21) The reason why here the Torah mentions Sem first is because he was the spiritually outstanding one of Noach’s sons, whereas Cham was the spiritually most inferior, and he is mentioned immediately after Sem, as he followed him in the order of their birth. Had the Torah listed them in the order: Sem, Yaphet, Cham, not even one of them would have been mentioned in the order of their births. Yaphet did not possess a special distinction which would have justified changing the order of their names on that account.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   כי השחית כל בשר, “for all flesh has become corrupt.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the use of the transitive mode השחית, tells us that the animal kingdom copied man and became corrupt also, seeing that man had defied the G’d given laws of nature and substituted a mode of conduct of his own making. This was most manifest in their mating habits including indiscriminate mating with other species.
      Nachmanides writes that according to <i>Rashi</i> the line כי מלאה הארץ חמס מפניהם, “for the earth has become filled with violence on their account,” cannot apply to the animals but only to man. Violence is not a form of corruption when practiced by the beasts. (Genesis 6,13) Alternatively, the verse does apply to both man and beast, and the beasts and birds had learned to become predators after observing the conduct of man.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the wordsכל בשר apply only to human beings, just as they do in verse 17 לשחת כל בשר אשר בו רוח חיים, “to destroy all flesh which possesses the spirit of life (a soul).” When the Torah uses the words כל בשר again in verse 19 where the creatures to be brought into the ark are listed, the expression refers exclusively to members of the animal kingdom.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   כי מלאה הארץ חמס , “for the earth has become saturated with violence.” The Torah states here that the decree to destroy mankind was not finalized until the anarchy, i.e. indiscriminate violence, had made the establishment of a civilized society a utopian dream. Robbery is a basic commandment of the seven universally applicable prohibitions given to mankind, a commandment which any group of people would have invented for themselves had such laws not been formulated by the Creator Himself and been conveyed by one of His prophets. Non-observance of such basic laws leads to the destruction of mankind.
  
     והנני משחיתם את הארץ, “and I am about to destroy them together with the earth.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the word את is to be understood as מן from, i.e. “I will destroy them from the face of the earth.”
      According to Ibn Ezra the word משחיתם drags the next word with it, i.e. G’d will destroy the earth together with man [as an earth without man has no purpose. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   עצי גופר, “gopher wood.” A word reminiscent of גפרית, sulphur, a means of destroying by fire, the fate which mankind was guilty of experiencing. Compare the fate of Sodom and Gomorrha which were destroyed by sulphur and fire.
  
     מבית ומחוץ בכופר, “overlay it with tar both from the inside and the outside.” According to <i>Rashi</i> כופר is identical with זפת, pitch. The purpose of the pitch was to protect the wooden structure against the waters which would have penetrated and made it disintegrate in a few days. Some commentators understand the word זפת as a generic term for any insulating material which adheres firmly to the surface to which it is applied.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   צוהר, “a light,” according to some commentators this source of light was a gem stone which refracted whatever light was available in all directions. Others believe that the reference is to some kind of window (transparent material) Our sages question that seeing that the sun and moon did not operate during the duration of the flood, what good would a window have done? The answer provided is that it would enable the people inside the ark to calculate when 12 months would have passed. This is not a satisfactory answer either; however we know that a window had functions other than the admitting of light from the outside, namely it served as a means to dispatch the raven and the dove, as we will learn later on. [disposal of garbage could also be achieved by that means. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 17
  
   ואני הנני מביא את המבול, as for Me, I am ready to bring on the deluge, etc.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the word הנני signals that at this time G’d found Himself in agreement with the angels who had opposed the creation of man to begin with, saying מה אנוש כי תזכרנו, “what is man (the species) that You should concern Yourself with him?” (Psalms 8,5). Nachmanides queries such an interpretation, seeing that G’d went to some lengths to ensure that the species was not wiped out, but that Noach and family would survive the deluge. Perhaps <i>Rashi</i> meant to say that G’d agreed with the angels who argued that man was not entitled to forgiveness anymore.
  
  Verse 18
  
   והקימותי את בריתי אתך, “but I will maintain My covenant with you.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the covenant was needed to prevent the produce in the ark that was to serve its inhabitants as food from rotting, during the year it would remain inside.
      Ibn Ezra suggests that this was an oath by G’d to Noach that neither he nor members of his family would die while in the ark during the deluge, even though the Torah does not spell it out as a specific promise. We explained this (<i>Tur</i>)) in connection with Deut. 1,22 on the line נשלחה אנשים לפנינו, “let us send some men ahead.” [in that verse too the Torah refrains from spelling out that the request was for spies and not simply scouts. Ed.] The word והקימותי refers to “keeping a promise, an oath.” It is most likely that this is a veiled hint of the rainbow, which will become the symbol of G’d’s oath later on in our portion. The word ברית, meaning “a solemn and mutual undertaking,” is derived from the expression ברו לכם, (Samuel I 17,8) where it means “choose for yourselves.”
      Nachmanides writes, more in line with the plain meaning of the text, that G’d promised Noach that when the moment came for the deluge to commence, he and his family would enter the ark safely, unharmed and the requisite pairs of animals would all show up ready to enter the ark to spend the time within safely. The special significance of the word (concept) ברית is that it is a binding promise not subject to additional clauses which could invalidate it.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ומכל החי מכל בשר, “and from all living creatures, all flesh, etc.” Nachmanides writes that it is a well known fact that the beasts are many and that there are innumerable sub-species to be found among them, not only huge creatures such as elephants, but millions of varieties of creepers, insects, etc. The need to bring specimens of each into the ark and to feed them all once they were inside, was a seemingly superhuman task. Clearly, the ark was not large enough to contain them all, except if G’d invoked some miracle. Although G’d could have reduced the size of these creatures for the duration of their stay in the ark, He wanted them to continue to live normally, so as to impress this and subsequent generations with the miracles G’d performed as part of Noach’s survival, so as to inspire later generations to choose the path of repentance once they had become guilty of sins. Furthermore, it is a principle of G’d’s intervention in laws of nature, that miracles are restricted to what could not be accomplished without them. Man is thus encouraged to do whatever he can to survive without relying on G’d’s intervention. by means of miracles.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   שנים מכל יבואו אליך,”two of each species will come to you, etc.” According to Nachmanides G’d tells Noach that these creatures will present themselves before Noach of their own volition, so that he did not have to go chasing after them in order to save their lives. When the Torah later on reports about the arrival of these beasts, it adds that they all came as a pair, male and female. (7,9) We need to resolve why, in the previous verse, G’d instructed Noach “to bring the beasts to him,” seeing they were going to come of their own volition. The instruction in verse 19 became operative only after the animals had presented themselves before Noach. Now he was to bring them into the ark and to assign to them their respective quarters. Moreover, the animals that were to have their lives saved came of their own volition. But the seven pairs of the pure animals that were to serve as sacrifices after the deluge did not come by themselves, but Noach was instructed to take them and bring them into the ark. (compare 7,2)
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויעש נח ככל אשר צוה אותו אלוקים, “Noach carried out all the instructions G’d had given him.” He constructed the ark, collected the food supplies, etc. The reason why the Torah appears to repeat itself in 7,5 where it again mentions that Noach had carried out his instructions, is to make us aware that he did not skip performing any part of G’d’s instructions to him. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויאמר ה' אל נח, “The Lord said to Noach, etc.” the use of the tetragram indicated to Noach that he was being saved as a manifestation of Gd’s attribute of Mercy, at work on his behalf and that of his offspring.
  
     בא אתה וכל ביתך אל התיבה, “enter the ark, you and your whole family.” Seeing that Noach had spent many years building the ark, now that the time for the deluge had drawn near, G’d instructed him to make his home forthwith inside the ark together with his family. Seeing that originally, G’d had described what would happen to him with the words: אתה ובניך ואשתך ונשי בניך אתך, “you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you,” it was made clear now by not listing his wife and children individually, that they were being saved due to Noach’s merit, not due to their own merit. The absence of the word אתך on this occasion makes plain that they were not considered on a moral par with their father/husband or father-in-law. Had they been, the Torah would have written אתכם ראיתי צדיקים, “I have viewed you (pl.) as righteous people, etc.” G’d continued to order him to take the extra “pure” domestic animals and birds, as well as telling him the date on which the deluge would commence.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   מכל הבהמה הטהורה, “of all the ‘pure domesticated beasts, etc.” Seeing that there had not been any legislation distinguishing between “pure” and “impure” beasts, <i>Rashi</i> understands the word as describing those beasts which would, -after the revelation at Mount Sinai- be characterised as “pure.” This would be a veiled hint that Noach studied the Torah already at his time. [otherwise how would he have known which animals were “pure”? Ed.]     Nachmanides writes that G’d informed him about the specific characteristics of the animals which He had referred to as “pure.” The Torah simply condenses G’d’s instructions.     Whereas when speaking of the mammals, i.e. בהמה, the Torah describes a pair as איש ואשתו, “man and his wife,” when speaking of the birds which are pure it describes them merely as זכר ונקבה, “male and female.” The reason for this different description is accounted for by the fact that when mammals cross breed or attempt to do so, this is forbidden, i.e. monogamy or its equivalent exists among mammals. Such indiscriminate mating between birds is not forbidden. The Torah refers indirectly to the more intimate relationship between male and female mammals by referring to them as איש ואשתו.  
     מכל הבהמה הטהורה....שבעה, שבעה, “from all the domesticated pure beasts seven, seven.” This instruction alerted Noach to G’d’s desire that he use them as offerings when he would leave the ark. Had they been required to preserve their respective species, there would not have been any need for seven males and seven females of each category.   
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  מן הבהמה הטהורה ומן הבהמה אשר איננה טהורה....שניים,שניים באו אל נח. “Of the pure domesticated beasts, and of the not pure domesticated beasts, they came to Noach in pairs.” According to <i>Rashi</i> none of these beasts arrived in fewer numbers than 2 each.     Some commentators understand the expression as referring to 2 pairs of each, applying the same to the pure beasts of which 7 pairs each were brought into the ark.     According to Nachmanides one pair of each species came of their own volition, whereas Noach added six more pairs of each of the pure species. He had to supply the animals needed as sacrificial offerings by exerting himself. 
     אשר איננה טהורה, “which was not pure.” The reason why here the Torah uses the word איננה to describe something negative, as opposed to the word לא used in verse 8, is that the word refers to a subject that had already been mentioned without being described as impure. [Following <i>Rashi,</i> the author understands the word לא טהורה as applying to beasts which are fit to eat for Jews, such as deer, of which Solomon kept a whole stable for his guests, whereas איננה describes a totally impure animal, one which is forbidden for Jews to eat even as חולין, non-consecrated meat. Ed.]     You should realize that we have been taught in the first chapter of tractate <i>Pessachim</i> folio 3 that the Torah used eight extra letters in order to avoid describing something as טמא, outright defiled, when the same point could be made by using more refined language such as here, i.e. “not pure,” instead of ”defiled, impure.” The Talmud quotes our verse. One could ask why the Talmud did not quote the earlier verse to make the same point. The reason, presumably, is that in that verse the Torah did not speak about impure animals but about animals which are impure only in respect of their fitness to be offered as a sacrificial offering.     However, Nachmanides pursues a different approach, claiming that all the “pure animals” were fit as sacrifices, quoting ויקח נח מכל הבהמה הטהורה וגו', “Noach took from all manner of pure animal and bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar.” He adds that for the Israelites later after the revelation at Mount Sinai, only pigeons were fit as sacrifices from among the fowl, and only large cattle and small cattle from among the mammals. Nachmanides continues to explain the third time the Torah dwells on the same subject saying 
     כאשר צוה אותו אלוקים, “as G’d had commanded him,”(7,16) as testifying that just as Noach complied meticulously with G’d’s instructions about entering the ark, etc., he also complied with G’d’s detailed instructions about leaving the ark. This brief reference is directly linked to the other instructions that the Torah detailed in earlier verses. The words והבאים זכר ונקבה at the beginning of verse 16, mean that these animals appeared at the last possible moment before the commencement of the deluge, and that they were welcomed by Noach who had entered the ark by that time. These animals had been driven by a divine inspiration to behave as they did at that time. Our verse is somewhat abbreviated and means: “all those who came to Noach as males and females of all flesh, Noach let into the ark because G’d had so commanded him.” The meaning of the words שניים, שניים in the previous verse is that G’d had commanded these animals to present themselves in pairs, male and female.     It is possible that the words ויעש נח, as well as ונח בן שש מאות שנה, in verses 5-6 and all the subsequent verses up to 11 בשנת שש מאות שנה לחיי נח, “in the sixth hundredth year of Noach’s life,” do not tell us about a separate action at all, but illustrate that Noach complied in every detail with the instructions which he had receive from G’d. Having reported this, the Torah proceeds to inform us about when precisely the deluge began. [Those who prefer to believe that the calendar at that time did not correspond to our calendar nowadays, are reminded that there would be no point in the Torah telling us about such dates unless we could relate to them from our own experience. Ed.]     Ibn Ezra explains the words ויבא נח ובניו ואשתו ונשי בניו אתו אל התבה, (7,7) as not meaning that they entered the ark at that time, but that all these animals came to Noach’s house on the 10th of the month, [according to our sages (<i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 3,6) the beginning of the deluge was postponed at the last moment to allow for the seven days’ mourning for Methuselah who died then to have been observed. Ed.] The words מפני המבול would mean that what prompted these animals to come at that time was that they felt that the disaster called deluge was imminent. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויהי המבול ארבעים יום, “The deluge continued for a period of 40 days.” According to <i>Rashi,</i> the first day, i.e. the 17th of the second month, does not count as one of the 40 days mentioned here, the reason being that the deluge started during the daylight hours, part of that date, i.e. the night, already having passed. Accordingly, the 40 days mentioned here ended on the 28th day of <i>Kislev</i>. Everybody questions <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary in view of his own commentary later on (8,3) that the words ויחסרו המים מקצה חמישים יום, “at the conclusion of 150 days the waters began to recede,” refers to the first day of Sivan<i>. Rashi</i> proceeds to make the following calculation: “on the 27th of of <i>Kislev</i> the rains ceased. We are left with 3 more days in <i>Kislev,</i> plus 29 days for <i>Tevet,</i> which amount to a total of 32. Adding a total of 118 days for the months of <i>Shevat, Adar, Nissan, and Iyar,</i> brings us to a total of 150. [2 of the last four months are presumed to have 29 days and 2 have 30 days. Ed.] According to this latest calculation by <i>Rashi,</i> the 17th of <i>Marcheshvan</i> forms part of the 150 days!
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   והמים גברו, “and the waters had kept rising and becoming more turbulent;” Verse 18, writing וירבו ויגברו המים, had taught us that when waters increase in volume the Torah describes this in terms of גברו, becoming strong, powerful, turbulent. It is possible, however, to understand the word ויגברו in verse 18 for the word כח also is often referred to as גבורה. In this case the turbulence of the waters uprooted trees, etc. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
     ויסוכו המים, “the waters subsided.” The expression is parallel to the one in Esther 7,10 which describes the king’s anger as subsiding with the words וחמת המלך שככה, the letters ס and ש being interchangeable letters on frequent occasions. Alternatively, the word is parallel to the root סתר as in הסתר, meaning “hiding, a form of receding.” According to סדר עולם, the waters that had come forth from the bowels of the earth during the deluge, now receded back to their habitat within the bowels of the globe. 
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויכלא הגשם, “the rain ceased.” Here the Torah cannot refer to the rain that descended as part of the deluge, seeing that this rain had stopped already on the 27th of <i>Kislev</i>, after 40 days. The Torah reports here that during this period of over 200 days after the first of <i>Sivan</i> and the family of Noach and the animals leaving the ark, no normal rainfall occurred. The strong prevailing winds at this time prevented any rain clouds from forming and descending. The purpose of the wind was to gradually restore the atmosphere to its traditional dryness.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ותנח התבה בחודש השביעי, “the ark came to rest in the seventh month.” According to <i>Rashi</i> this was the month of <i>Sivan,</i> and we would learn from this information that the keel of the ark was submerged in the water by 11 cubits (approx 6.6 meters<i>)</i> 
      Nachmanides confirms that <i>Rashi’s</i> explanation follows <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> He adds that seeing that <i>Rashi</i> himself frequently takes issue with such M<i>idrashim</i> in light of the dictum that on the one hand there are 70 facets to the written Torah, whereas at the same time we must establish the plain meaning of the text, (a major concern of <i>Rashi),</i> we too may also be permitted to emphasise another aspect of our verse. The difficulty with <i>Rashi’s</i> explanation is that he counts the words “in the seventh month,” as referring to a date, as the seventh month after the original rains had stopped at which time the waters had already begun to recede; how can the Torah immediately afterwards refer to the first of the month of the 601st year of Noach’s life (8,13) where clearly the reference must be to the first month of the calendar year, i.e. the first of <i>Tishrey</i>? How could the Torah switch its terms of reference and confuse its readers?
      Besides, whence do we have proof that the keel of the ark was submerged by 11 cubits? This calculation appears based on <i>Rashi’s</i> assumption that the waters receded at a constant speed of 1 cubit every four days, seeing that the keel of the ark had been reported as above the highest mountain by 15 cubits (7,20). From the 1st of <i>Sivan</i> till the first of <i>Av</i> there are 60 days. If the ark, as reported, ran aground on the17th of the seventh month, and the summits of the highest mountains became visible once more, how could the surface of the earth become dry by the first of <i>Tishrey according to Rashi’s</i> calculation, seeing that many mountains were thousands of cubits high? According to the calculation of <i>Rashi</i> all this took place within 13 days (from the 17th of the seventh month counting from <i>Kislev,</i> as interpreted verse 4) 
      Furthermore, from a mariner’s point of view, a vessel which is more than one third submerged in water (the ark’s total height being 30 cubits), is not really capable of navigating waters, too much of its weight being under the water’s surface.
      In view of the problems of <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation, Nachmanides understands that the 150 days which the Torah describes the waters as being turbulent and rising, commence by including the 40 days of rain, so that these days concluded on the 17th of <i>Iyar,</i> seeing that the major flooding took place during the 40 days of incessant rainfall. 73 days after the 17th of I<i>yar</i> on the first of the tenth month, i.e. the first of <i>Av.</i> This was the tenth month after the beginning of the rainfall, the tops of the mountains becoming visible.
      Another approach to the report of the dates in the Torah, and this is the correct approach according to Nachmanides, is that the 150 days certainly commenced with the 17th of the second month (<i>Marcheshvan</i>) the day the deluge began, and ended on the 17th day in Nissan (which is the seventh month after <i>Tishrey,</i> which is the first month of the year.) On this day the ark came to rest on Mount Arrarat, for then G’d made a strong easterly wind blow (verse 1).This wind dried out the surface of the earth.(The wind accelerated the lowering of the water level dramatically.) Until the Exodus from Egypt all of mankind considered the first of <i>Tishrey</i> as New Year. Only immediately prior the Exodus from Egypt did G’d command the Jewish people to henceforth count “their” years from the first of the month of Nissan. [concerning matters which they did not have in common with mankind as a whole, Ed.] Proof that this approach is correct is the fact that the Torah does not mention that the waters decreased by a certain amount on a certain day during a specific month. Such details were reserved for the second stage of the recovery after the waters had peaked, such as when the Torah mentions the date on which the highest mountain peaks once again became visible.
      The sequence in which the various stages occurred was as follows: on the day the rain started falling on earth, the fountains of the earth below also opened and added huge amounts of water which flooded the surface of the earth. The atmosphere became extremely saturated with moisture. The flooding of the earth continued at this level for 150 days. At that point G’d made a strong wind sweep over the earth that accounted for a sudden and substantial drop of the water level on earth as well as a drying of the atmosphere. The water level dropped so much on that day as a result of that wind that the ark landed on top of Mount Arrarat on that same day. Prior to that the ark’s keel had been submerged by 2-3 cubits. 73 days later, on the first of the month of <i>Tamuz,</i> the tenth month of the year, the tops of various mountains became visible. 40 days later, on the tenth of Av, Noach opened the window of the ark for the first time and three weeks later on the first day of <i>Ellul</i> he dispatched the dove for the first time. 40 days later he decided to remove the roof of the ark.
      The meaning of the words (verse 1) “G’d made a wind sweep the earth so that the waters calmed,” is something that occurred simultaneously with the retreat of the subterranean waters into the bowels of the earth. You will note that the Torah speaks of a wind sweeping over the earth, not over the water. 
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   והמים היו הלוך וחסור עד החודש העשירי בעשירי וגו', “and the waters had been in a steady retreat until the tenth month; on the tenth day of that month, etc.” This verse sounds like the kind of verse our sages describe as מסורס, “truncated,” and its meaning is that the waters had kept receding until the time when the tops of the mountains had become visible in the tenth month; the Torah informs us that during these 73 days the level of the water fell by 15 cubits. This contrasts with the first period during which the water level fell, as a result of which there occurred the landing of the ark on top of Mount Arrarat. We do not know how many cubits the water level had fallen then, nor do we know how deeply the ark had sat beneath the surface of the waters. It was of no concern to us.
      Personally, I believe that the fact that the ark was floating was due to the current created by the subterranean wells which had opened up. Had it not been for this, the extreme weight of the ark, caused by both the great number of passengers and the tremendous amount of food stored within it, would have resulted in the ark sitting pretty much in the same spot during all this time. As soon as the current of the subterranean wells subsided, and these waters had returned to their former habitat, and the wind which G’d had sent ceased, the ark, in accordance with the laws of physics, settled more deeply in the water and struck solid rock (foundered) on Mount Arrarat.
      Note that both according to our understanding and according to the understanding of our sages in the <i>Midrash</i>, as well as in accordance with the various commentators who have laboured over our chapter, Arrarat is one of the tallest mountains in the region, and the waters of the deluge covered its peak to a depth of at least 15 cubits. This “axiom” is difficult to comprehend, as according to general agreement Mount Olympus is considerably higher than Mount Arrarat. The Arrarat mountain range is located close to the valley within which Bagdad is situated. [modern cartographers give the height of Mount Olympus as 2917 meters, and that of Arrarat as 5122 meters. Ed.] Perhaps the Torah meant to tell us that prior to the 17th of the seventh month the ark was far more than 15 cubits above the tallest mountain, and that other higher mountain tops had been visible already before then but that by that time the waters had receded so much that even Mount Arrarat, though far lower, was already capable of arresting the movement of the ark. Noach had opened the window of the ark ever since the rains had stopped (after the first 40 days) closing it at will from time to time. 
      After the 73 days when the ark had become stationary, Noach used the window to look out and observe what was happening around him. When he perceived the tops of high mountains all around him, he closed the window and waited for another 40 days before checking on his surroundings again. 40 days later he dispatched the raven. You will note that the Torah did not write “Noach opened the window, etc.,” but merely that this event occurred at the end of a period of 40 days. This is to tell us that the raven was dispatched 40 days after the tops of other mountains had become visible. Noach had hoped that enough time had elapsed to reveal the tops of the trees, (on mountains below the tree line) If correct, he thought to release the birds, as there would be a habitat available for them once more. The raven was released on the first of <i>Tishrey</i> when for the first time חרבה הארץ, the surface of the earth was earth instead of water, although the earth dried out sufficiently only in the second month. At that time (17th of <i>Marcheshvan</i>) Noach and his passengers left the ark at G’d’s command.
      There is a minor difficulty with Nachmanides’ description, in that he perceives the tops of the mountains having become visible before the first of the tenth month, seeing that the Torah writes specifically that these mountain tops became visible on the first of the month. Nachmanides’ saying that these words refer once more to Mount Arrarat is difficult to accept. 
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויהי מקץ ארבעים יום ויפתח נח את חלון התבה, “it was at the end of 40 days that Noach opened the window of the ark.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the meaning of the line is that this was 40 days after the tops of the mountains had become visible. If that were correct, we are hard pressed to understand why the dove did not find a resting place. Nachmanides writes concerning this that it is not the nature of the birds to seek out resting places in lofty mountains.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויצא יצא ושוב, “it kept coming back;” Noach concluded at that point not to endanger the species of which only one pair was in the ark, and to dispatch birds of the “pure” species of which he had seven pairs each at his disposal.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ולא מצאה היונה מנוח, “but the dove did not find a place to rest the ball of its foot on.” Even though one of our sages holds that the deluge left the Land of Israel unaffected, the dove did not descend there on account of the heat. The giant Og took refuge in the vicinity of the ark as the immediate area around the ark was cooler than the atmosphere at large.     The truth is that –as Nachmanides writes- that even though the deluge did not flood the Holy Land directly and the rains did not fall there, water from the surrounding countries flooded the Holy Land also, seeing that the Holy Land was not enclosed by a water-proof fence which could keep out the waters. The Biblical verse supporting the view that the waters of the deluge did not descend on the Holy Land, only speaks of ארץ מטוהרה לא גושמה ביום זעם, “a land which remained pure and did not experience destructive rain on the day of (G’d’s) anger.” (Ezekiel 22,24) The verse did not mention that no water penetrated the Holy Land during the deluge, only that it did not endure the rain, and that the subterranean wells did not gush forth from underneath it. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
     והנה עלה זית בפיה, “and here she had torn off an olive leaf with its beak.” According to Nachmanides, the plain meaning of the words indicate that the trees in that region had not been uprooted, the reason being that the deluge was not like a raging river which sweeps everything ahead of it. However, according to <i>Bereshit Rabbah,</i> the wording supports the view that the trees themselves had disintegrated, There is a discussion in the <i>Midrash</i> according to which the dove brought this leaf from the Holy Land, proving to Noach that in that region there had not been a deluge. True, that the waters had flooded the earth also in that region, as we pointed out already, however, seeing that no torrential rain had descended on that region and no hot geysers had gushed forth in that region from below, the trunks of the trees had survived, whereas elsewhere all the trees had been completely destroyed. There is another opinion in the <i>Midrash</i> according to which the dove found the leaf in <i>Gan Eden.</i>      Nachmanides questions how, according to the view that the olive leaf came from <i>Gan Eden,</i> did Noach know that the waters outside the ark had subsided? Surely, the waters had never penetrated into <i>Gan Eden</i> in the first place? He answers that possibly the gates of <i>Gan Eden</i> had been shut to prevent the waters from getting inside, and as soon as the waters subsided these gates were reopened. 
     והנה עלה זית טרף בפיה. Our sages explain that the word טרף here means “booty,” as it does many times in the Bible, and that the dove had prayed to find such booty, i.e. it succeeded בפיה, thanks to the pleading with her mouth. Still other commentators understand the word טרף as meaning “torn off,” as in Exodus 22,30 ובשר בשדה טרפה, “flesh of an animal in the field which has been torn apart, etc.” This corresponds to Onkelos who renders the word there as תליש, meaning שבור, broken, damaged, ripped off. [a reference to tissue ripped from a live beast. Ed.] If that were not so, perhaps the dove had simply scooped up a torn leaf that was floating on top of the water. 
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   צא מן התבה, “leave the ark!” Noach was not willing to leave the ark without specific instructions from G’d. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   למשפחותיהם יצאו מן התבה, “they left the ark according to their respective families.” In <i>Sanhedin</i> 108 this is understood as למשפחותיהם ולא הם.This statement is not elaborated on there. [The simplest interpretation is that only those animals capable of reproducing left the ark; any animal which was sterile did not live on after the deluge for any length of time. Some commentators believe that whereas the animals left the ark without awaiting instructions from either Noach or G’d, Noach and family awaited such instructions. Noach demanded a promise from G’d that He would not again bring a flood upon the earth. Still other commentators view the word למשפחותיהם here as a hint that the animals undertook henceforth to mate only with their own species.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויאמר ה' אל לבו, “The Lord said to Himself, etc.” According to Nachmanides this strange formulation simply means that G’d did not reveal His thoughts to anyone at that time. Only when Moses received the Torah, did G’d reveal what His thoughts had been at the time. He had not revealed to Noach what precisely His reaction had been to Noach’s sacrifice, i.e. that on account of it He would not again use the deluge as a means to punish mankind.
  
     בעבור האדם, “because of man.” The earth had only been cursed on account of original man. Had Adam not sinned, his descendants, despite their corruption, would not have had to endure a deluge.
  
     ולא אוסיף עוד להכות את כל חי, “and I will not again smite all living creatures simultaneously. However, I reserve the right to decree collective punishment on a city or a country.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ומוראכם וחתכם יהיה על כל חית הארץ, “and the fear and dread of you will be upon all the animals of the earth.” This was not natural, as the animals for the year they had been provided for by Noach and his family had already gotten used to man as their provider. They had become so familiar with man that to be in awe of him would be a new experience for them.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   כל רמש אשר הוא חי, “every moving living creature, etc.” This expression includes all creatures other than man.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   אך בשר בנפשו דמו, Yet the flesh of a living creature possessing a soul, etc.”
      According to <i>Rashi</i> the meaning of the verse is that any flesh of an animal which is still alive must not be eaten by man. This rule is known in <i>halachah</i> as the prohibition of אבר מן החי. The rule applies not only to the flesh of an animal but also to its blood, so that the interpretation of the word בנפשו means that also its blood must not yet be eaten.
      Nachmanides writes that <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation does not correspond to the plain meaning of the text, whereas the interpretation by the <i>Midrash</i> upon which <i>Rashi</i> bases himself is not <i>halachically</i> accurate, as even the generation of Noach had not been given this commandment, and there is a dispute as to which part applied to them between the majority of the scholars and Rabbi Chaninah ben Gamliel.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש, “(but) I shall demand your (human beings’) blood if it results in loss of your life.” The meaning is: “your blood,” i.e. that which is the essence of your lives, I shall demand an accounting for seeing that the blood is what makes flesh viable. I will demand such an accounting from every mammal a well as bird (who kills a human being). The word חיה in this verse is comprehensive and not restricted to predatory animals. 
      An alternative meaning of the verse could be: “blood which is of the type that is vital, without which death results, I will demand an accounting for, whereas blood in the capillaries which is not vital is not subject to the same kind of capital punishment.” This verse is an allusion to the verse שופך דם האדם באדם דמו יישפך, “Whosoever sheds the blood of man will have his own blood shed by man” (court). (verse 6) This would more clearly spell out that only spilling the life-blood of a human being is subject to the death penalty.
  
     מיד כל חיה אדרשנו, “I will demand such account from any living creature.” Nachmanides questions the expression אדרשנו, “I will demand an accounting of,” as not applicable to animals which do not have the intelligence to understand such commandments. How can creatures without intelligence qualify for punishment for not obeying laws? He answers that the shedding of human blood may be an exception, and that this is not in the nature of a punitive reprisal but is a law promulgated by the Creator as a sort of axiom. 
      This is also the meaning of the words סקול יסקל השור, “the offending ox must surely be stoned to death” in Exodus 21,28, where this is not to be construed as a penalty for the owner of the beast, as the same procedure is applicable to an ox that killed a human being even though he may not be owned by a specific person at all, but is a free-roaming animal. The Torah’s command to mankind in general is the same as the Torah’s legislation for the Jewish people later on. The meaning of the words: שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך, is then that anyone, man or beast, which sheds human blood will be put to death by a human tribunal as the violent death of a creature bearing the image of G’d cannot remain unaccounted. In the absence of a court that can put the offending human or animal to death, sentence and execution will be at the hands of heaven.
      It is further possible that the words מיד כל חיה ומיד האדם can allude to this heavenly intervention in avenging the killer, so that the word מיד should be understand as על יד. Perhaps the very fact that the nature of many beasts is to kill, is the reason the Torah warns that such instinct when practiced against humans is perverse.
      The mystical dimension of the subject is that at the time of the creation G’d assigned all the herbs to be food for man; after that the Torah wrote ויהי כן, “it remained so,” i.e. the vegetarian diet of man became the norm. (Genesis 1,28) Now that G’d had permitted man a meat diet provided the animal eaten had been killed first, and it had become the norm that living creatures feed on one another, it became necessary to legislate limits as to who might be killed and who not, and by whom. G’d therefore instilled within the animals a natural awe of man, which would restrain them from attacking and killing him. This is why the Torah commanded אך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש, to indicate that G’d would not hold an animal responsible for killing and feeding upon other animals. This is the reason why the subject of bloodshed had to be introduced at this juncture, seeing that for the first time killing some of G’d’s creatures for the sake of eating had become permitted. 
      According to the view of our sages (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 56 interpreting the words על האדם), Adam himself had already been warned concerning this. The reason for the prohibition to kill man is the fact that he was created in the image of G’d, as our verse concludes.
  
     ואך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש, ”however, your blood for your (own) lives I will demand (an accounting for)” You must not reason that just as it is permissible for you to kill animals seeing the animals which are alive nowadays have all been kept alive by man (Noach), that a human being who is alive by his own efforts is also in charge of his own body and may decide to kill himself, I will demand an accounting for anyone committing suicide. In the event that you might think that just as I permitted you to kill animals, they have the right to see in you the enemy and they may kill you with impunity, I reassure you by saying that I will demand an accounting for your lives from any creature (if they killed you).
  
     ואך את דמכם, “however your blood, etc.” It is possible that when King Sha-ul committed suicide by telling his arms bearer to finish him off (Samuel I 31,4) he thought that he committed a meritorious act denying the Philistines the boast that they had killed the anointed one of G’d. This is why the Torah uses the diminutive word אך, when writing this legislation, to tell us that there are situations, such as when Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah agreed to be thrown into the fiery furnace, that this was not considered suicide but [after consultation with the prophet Ezekiel Ed] an act of sanctifying the name of the Lord.
      .
      Commentators raised the question why we needed a special verse to sanction actions such as those by Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah, as the correctness of their conduct was based on simple logic. By comparing their behaviour with the frogs which invaded Pharaoh’s and the Egyptians’ homes knowing that they were courting their own death by doing so. The answer given is that the analogy with the frogs is not foolproof as the frogs had not been commanded to by Pharaoh or Moses to injure or kill themselves. The word אך on the other hand, is also not sufficient excuse to exempt people such as Chananyah and colleagues, unless we also invoke the logic by comparing them partially with the frogs. The word אך would only teach us that Chananyah and others like him would not be held culpable for such acts of suicide, not that they committed a meritorious deed. This is why we require both the word אך and the example of the frogs to teach us that under the proper circumstances suicide can be a מצוה, meritorious deed. 
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   שופך דם האדם דמו ישפך, “anyone shedding human blood will have his own blood shed by human beings.” Some commentators understand the word באדם in this verse to mean: “on account of the man who had shed his blood.” Now the blood of the original killer has to be shed also.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  ואתם פרו ורבו ושרצו בארץ, “as to you, be fruitful and multiply and swarm over the earth.” The commandment at this time shows that during their stay in the ark both man and beast had been forbidden to have sexual relations.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויאמר אלוקים אל נח ואל בניו אתו, “G’d said to Noach and to his sons with him.” G’d spoke to Noach’s sons, using their father as His intermediary. The sons had not attained the spiritual level which qualified them to be addressed by G’d in their own right.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   זאת אות הברית, “this is the sign of the covenant, etc.” Nachmanides writes that at first glance it appears from these words as if prior to the deluge there had never been rainbow visible in the universe, and that at this time G’d created a new phenomenon. However, when you examine the wording of the text more closely you will find that this is not so. G’d speaks about קשתי, “MY (rain)bow,” i.e. this is not a new phenomenon. Had it been something new, the wording would have had to be “I am placing a bow in the clouds, etc.,” instead of “My bow which I have placed among the clouds will henceforth be a sign of the covenant between Me and the earth from now so that every time I behold it I will remember that there is a covenant between Me and all living creatures.” The word קשתי is proof that there had been a rainbow already earlier. If you were to ask what the point is in making out of this rainbow a sign, a symbol, the meaning is not so different from the pile of stones Yaakov and Lavan erected between them in Genesis Surely, there had been occasions when people had erected piles of stones. It was on this occasion that a pile of stones had been designated to serve as a specific purpose, as a reminder that two people had made a truce at that location. The Torah simply tells us that as of then the rainbow would serve in a similar capacity, reminding G’d as well as people that there existed a binding agreement between the Creator and His creatures not to bring another deluge on the globe. The term ברית is applicable to any such visual reminder of an agreement that is visible to both the parties who are party to such an agreement. Circumcision is also known as a ברית, as it represents the agreement between G’d and the male descendants of Avraham that there is a special relationship between them, an exclusive relationship. Continuance of this relationship is proved by the continued observance of the rite of circumcision on the part of the creature involved.
      A further reason, purpose to this particular אות, sign, is the fact that the rainbow is not shaped in a manner suggesting that it is anchored in the sky, suggesting that it is something decreed from heaven, from above. [the author compares the rainbow to the bow used by the archer in hunting or in war. Ed.] If the rainbow were to appear in the sky with its two ”feet” at the top this would suggest that it is a dictate from heaven. However it is positioned with its two feet on the ground, suggesting that man is not merely a creature at the whim of the Creator Who is a dictatorial ruler. [I have changed the wording somewhat to convey the author’s idea, I hope. Ed.] When warriors call their opponents to a truce, they also reverse the position in which they hold their bows in order to signal peaceful, conciliatory intentions. Another special feature of the rainbow versus the archer’s bow is that it has no provision for placing arrows at the base of it, i.e. it is the reverse of a war-like instrument.
      Some commentators see in the shape of the rainbow an allusion to the verse in Ezekiel 1,27:ממראה מתניו ולמעלה וממראה מתניו ולמטה ראיתי כמראה אש סביב ראיתי כמראה אש ונוגה לו סביב כמראה הקשת אשר יהיה בענן ביום הגשם, “like the appearance of his loins upward, and from the appearance of his loins downward I saw as if the appearance of fire, like the appearance of which shall be so was the appearance of the brilliance all around. on the cloud of a rainy day. the bow.” 
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   והיה בענני ענן, “it will be whenever I wish to bring darkness and destruction etc.” This proves that Satan goes into high gear whenever disaster is around.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   וחם אבי כנען, “and Cham the father of Canaan.” According to <i>Rashi</i> seeing that this paragraph describes the matter of Noach becoming drunk, which led to his cursing his grandson Canaan, through his cursing his son Cham, and through him his grandson Canaan, the Torah had to first tell us who this Canaan was, although Noach’s children’s offspring had not yet been discussed.
      Ibn Ezra explains that Cham had seen Noach’s drunkenness and his nudity and had told his brothers of it, whereas during that time Canaan had harmed his grandfather when he was defenseless, something the Torah did not spell out. This had only been alluded to by the words אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, “what his youngest son (grandson) had done to him.” (verse 24) Seeing that Canaan was the youngest of Noach’s offspring at that time, the wording of the Torah is justified.
      According to Nachmanides, Ibn Ezra departed here from the norms of interpreting the plain meaning of the text and began to invent lies. According to the opinion of Nachmanides, the words “his youngest son,” refer to Cham, Noach’s youngest son, whose oldest son was Canaan. The reason he was mentioned last was that he had been demoted to be a slave to his brothers. The Torah (Noach) by mentioning him last here, stressed the fact that he had been demoted. At the time when Noach’s drunkenness had occurred, Cham had only the one son, and this is why the Torah had to phrase what happened with the words: “Cham, Canaan’s father saw, etc.” When Cham committed the sin against his father, Noach cursed Cham’s offspring by cursing Canaan. Had he cursed Cham instead, saying he would be a lowly servant to his brothers, the curse would have been restricted to Cham personally only; now it applied to all of Cham’s children and offspring throughout the ages. [Seeing that G’d had already blessed all of Noach’s children, Noach could not cancel G’d’s blessing. [This was also why Bileam could not curse Israel, seeing they had been blessed by G’d Himself. Ed.] According to Nachmanides, cursing Cham might have resulted in Cham’s no longer being able to sire children, whereas the one born to him already would not be affected by the curse. [if Cham or Canaan had been guilty of castrating Noach, one view expressed in the <i>Midrash</i>- revenge would have been just this kind of a curse, punishment fitting the crime. Ed.] According to Nachmanides Cham’s sin consisted primarily of publicizing that he had seen his father in a drunken stupor when he had disrobed completely. This constituted publicly making fun of one’s father.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   איש האדמה, “a man of the soil.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the word איש in front of the word האדמה has to be understood like the word איש in Ruth 1,3 איש נעמי, where it means: “Naomi’s husband.” Noach became a “master farmer.” Nachmanides, on the other hand, writes that the expression איש נעמי, describes only a marital status as in איש ואשתו, “man and wife,” and that the meaning of the expression איש האדמה is comparable to אנשי העיר, “the townspeople,” i.e. the people who lived in the town. Noach, instead of becoming an urbanite, building towns as had Kayin, became a dweller on the land, a rurally oriented person. Similarly, when the Torah describes Esau as an איש שדה, the meaning is that he was at home in the outdoors, spent most of his time there, as opposed to his brother Yaakov. (Genesis 25,27) Yet another meaning of the expression איש האדמה would interpret the word איש in the sense of “master of,” “in charge of.” The word is used in that sense with Gideon, who is described by the prophet Samuel as גדעון בן יואש איש ישראל, “Gideon, son of Yoash, a leader, head, of the people of Israel.” (Judges 7,14).
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויתגל, “he disrobed completely.” The reflexive mode which also appears as a passive mode on many occasions, suggests that Noach was disrobed by someone else, presumably Cham, who then reported his father’s state of nudity to his brothers.
  
     בתוך אהלו, “inside his tent.” The Torah wrote the word אהלה with the feminine suffix, to indicate that he was disrobed in his wife’s tent.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויגד לשני אחיו בחוץ, “he told his two brothers who had remained outside.” The word ויגד suggests that Cham told his brothers about his father’s condition in a playful manner, making fun of their father’s state of undress. When Canaan heard what his father had seen, he went inside and either castrated his grandfather or engaged in sodomy with him, depending on which of the opinions in the <i>Midrash</i> we accept. This is why Noach cursed Canaan, not Cham.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויקח שם ויפת את השמלה, “Shem and Yaphet took the garment, etc.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the positive commandment of the <i>tallit</i> is a compensation for the Jewish people for what their forefather Shem [the Torah wrote ויקח, “he took,” not ויקחו, “they took” <i>Rashi</i>] had done with that <i>simlah</i>, when he used it to cover his father’s nudity. <i>Rashi</i> picks up this thread when he explains that as a compensation for Avraham refusing the king of Sodom’s offer to keep the spoils of war, his descendants were rewarded with both the phylacteries and the commandment of fringes, <i>tzitziyot.</i> (Genesis 14,23) In other words, although it was clear that Shem had acquired the merit of the commandment of <i>tallit</i>, it was not clear to which of his children this commandment would be bestowed until Avraham refused to be enriched by the King of Sodom.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   וידע את אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, “he realized what his younger son had done to him.” The Torah has a habit of associating misdemeanors with people who had already previously been guilty of other misdemeanors. In this instance, Cham, who reportedly did not obey the commandment of sexual continence while in the ark, is now accused of a misdemeanor actually perpetrated by his son. The term וידע had first been used in the Torah to describe marital intimacy between Adam and Chavah. (Genesis 4,1) In <i>Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer</i> the words וירא חם, are understood to describe Cham’s inactivity; although he observed his father in the nude, he did not bother to cover his nudity.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ויהי כנען עבד למו, “and Canaan will be a slave to them.” Ibn Ezra explains this to mean that in verse 25 the words עבד עבדים mean that Shem will force Cham to be a servant to G’d and to himself, whereas in verse 26 the words עבד למו refer to Cham being in a state of dependency to him. 
      Nachmanides writes that if that were correct Noach would have cursed his enemies after first having blessed Canaan by declaring him to be a servant of G’d.
      <i>
      Rashi</i> explained that the phrase ברוך ה' אלוקי שם, refers to the time when the Jewish people by their conquest of the land of Canaan would prove that Canaan is the subordinate, the slave.
      Personally, I believe that in verse 25 Noach cursed Canaan to be a slave to all the rest of mankind, and the words עבד עבדים refer to the descendants of Shem, of whom there would be many. Uncles of Canaan would also be called “brothers,” as we know from Lot who was called “brother” by his uncle Avraham on repeated occasions, both by Avraham and by the Torah. (Genesis 13,8; 14,14) Seeing that Canaan would be a slave to his uncles, he would automatically have that status regarding the whole of mankind.
      Noach blessed Shem first to indicate that Shem would be a true servant of the Lord, whereas Canaan would be a servant of Shem’s offspring of whom there would be many.
      It is also possible that the word.למו refers back to the word לאחיו, “to his brothers,” and that Noach continued his blessing to his other two sons granting Yephet large portions of the earth as his domain, and Shem the privilege of being host to the Presence of G’d in the land at his disposal. He declared Canaan as a slave of Shem twice, as a hint Shem would eventually inherit land belonging to the descendants of Canaan, seeing that all the property once owned by a slave becomes the master’s. The reason why this whole paragraph has been recorded in the Torah, was to go on record that Canaan’s sin made him into a slave of the whole of mankind and that it was Avraham who eventually became the owner of what had been meant to be Canaan’s. The reason why the cause of all this has been recorded, i.e. Noach’s state of inebriation, is a warning to all mankind to keep their distance from strong drink, wine in particular, as if even a man of the stature of Noach was victimized by drinking too much of it, how would lesser individuals fare, people who possess far less self control than Noach.
      Some commentators are of the opinion that Noach was obliged to bless Shem after he had cursed Canaan to be a slave so as to indicate that Shem was free and not subservient to anyone else (creature) on earth.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויולדו להם בנים אחר המבול, “children were born for them after the deluge.” Although the fathers and mothers were capable of having children already before the onset of the deluge, G’d had deliberately prevented them from having children in order not to have to destroy their offspring as part of the deluge, and in order not to have to save too many people crowding the ark.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   בני יפת, “the children of Yephet.” The Torah lists Yephet’s children first as he was the oldest, followed by Cham, as the Torah wanted to list the descendants of Shem in conjunction with those of Avraham who was descended from him in a straight line and whose story follows.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   מאלה נפרדו איי הגויים, “from these the various nationalities developed as separate ‘islands of peoples.’” According to Nachmanides, especially the descendants of Yephet took up residence in the islands of the Mediterranean sea around the Greek mainland, each one consisting of a distinct and separate nation-state. The blessing given to Yephet envisioned that his descendants would be scattered over a large area, whereas the descendants of Cham lived in close proximity to one another. This is hinted at by the words מאלה נפרדו, “they separated from these.” This is also why the text (verse 19) continues with: ויהי גבול הכנעני מצידון באכה גררה עד עזה, “the boundaries of the territory belonging to the various clans of the Canaanite extended from Tzidon in the north as far south as Gerar until Gaza.” Significantly, the text adds (verse 20)למשפחותם, ללשונותם, בארצותם בגויהם, “according to their respective families, their different dialects, in their respective countries according to their differing nationalities.” The reason that the Torah went to such length to inform us of all these details is to establish the genealogy of Avraham to Noach via his son Shem. ([importance of being a Semite. Ed.] Through this detailed description of the descendants of both Cham and Shem, the title to the land of Israel by the descendants of Avraham, who had inherited the status of master over Cham due to Noach’s curse of his grandson Canaan, had been established for all future times. The Torah provides details of the development of the descendants of Yephet and the breaking up of a united mankind into clans of different languages, different orientations, in order to provide a logical explanation for the fact that mankind which at one time had all spoken the same language had gradually grown apart from one another both ideologically and geographically, so that international friction can be seen as an act of G’d’s kindness, the G’d Who but for His desire to keep His covenant with Noach would have destroyed the generation who had built the tower meaning thereby to challenge G’d’s supremacy in His own world.
      Maimonides, in his <i>Moreh Nevuchim</i> comments on this subject that what the Torah writes in our chapter is proof to the readers that the world did not precede G’d, but that G’d preceded the world. The report of these chapters in the Torah establishes a direct link between Noach and Avraham, as the ages given demonstrate that the survivors of the deluge gave eye witness accounts of these events having indeed taken place. Therefore, Avraham was in a position to command his own descendants to adhere to the laws of G’d. Shem was alive when Avraham was born, and Noach’s grandfather Methuselah had still known Adam personally. Even Yitzchok and Yaakov had still known Shem, a survivor of the ark, personally. Important historical data were handed down by eye-witnesses for an average of 3-4 generations due to the relatively long lifespan these people enjoyed. 
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ובני כוש סבא וחוילה “and the sons of Cush, Seva and Chavila.” All of thee people named here became founders of different clans which developed into nations. The sons of Raamah developed into two distinct nations, this is why their father’s name was repeated. On the other hand, Nimrod did not develop into being founder of a nation. We know this because the Torah describes his exploits in a different manner in verse 9. We would have expected the Torah to write: ובני כוש נמרד, following the pattern established since the beginning of the chapter. Put did not found a separate nation. This is why his name does not appear again after verse 6. All the ones whose children are not mentioned by name founded nations.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   הוא החל להיות גבור חיל בארץ, “he became the first hero on earth.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the meaning of the verse is that he became the first man who dared oppose G’d after the deluge and to incite man against G’d, although he had been preceded by Enosh doing the same in the antediluvian period. (Seeing that <i>Rashi</i> did not mention Enosh, Nachmanides adds that what is meant by <i>Rashi</i> is that he was the first human being to do so after the deluge.)
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   הוא היה גבור ציד, “he was a ferocious hunter.” <i>Rashi</i> interprets the words גבור ציד to mean that Nimrod was clever in brainwashing people to rebel against the rule of G’d on earth. Ibn Ezra approaches the verse by stressing the plain meaning, saying that Nimrod began to display prowess as a hunter of wild beasts. He adds that the meaning of the words לפני ה' is that he built altars on which he offered some of the animals he had hunted successfully as offerings to G’d. Nachmanides writes that Ibn Ezra’s approach does not appeal to him as Ibn Ezra justifies the actions of a wicked person by what he writes in his commentary. He adds that when our sages described Nimrod as a wicked individual they had reliable traditions to base themselves on. 
      The correct interpretation of our verse (author’s words) is that he was the first individual to assert his power over his fellow human beings, making them subject to his will. He introduced organized warfare, commencing with his capture of Babylon. He followed this up by subjecting Assyria to his rule. When the Torah describes how he extended his rule to Ashur (verse 11) this is noteworthy, as Ashur was one of the descendants of Shem. He proceeded to build fortified cities there. The meaning of the words לפני ה' is meant to draw our attention to the extent of his achievements, something unparalleled by anyone except G’d. The Torah had described such unparalleled actions in similar terms once before when it wrote (Genesis 6,11) ותשחת הארץ לפני האלוקים.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ומצרים ילד, “and Mitzrayim sired, etc.” The Torah, though mentioning Mitzrayim’s offspring, fails to mention where Mitzrayim lived, as it had done with the people mentioned previously. (Nachmanides) The reason is that as opposed to the various hardly known islands over which the descendants of Yephet were scattered, and the shifting lands occupied at different times by the Canaanites, Semites, etc., the boundaries of Egypt not only have remained pretty stationary and are well known, but the land itself bears the name of its founder. There was therefore no need to duplicate this information. Furthermore, all the sons of Mitzrayim took up residence within or adjacent to the land of Egypt. (compare Ezekiel 30,4-5 where the prophet lists the names of the brothers of the original Mitzrayim as being in the proximity of the land of Egypt.)
      According to Ibn Ezra all the names mentioned in our verses here are names of countries, nations, each nation having evolved out of a small family. This is the reason why all these names end in the plural mode. As proof for his argument he cites the phrase אשר יצאו משם, which he translated as “from where they had emerged, evolved.” In other words, the founders had come from some other location. The word משם clearly alludes to a location.
      Nachmanides views the כסלוחים as the inhabitants of a city called by that name, a city which was part of the land known as כפתור in which their brothers the כפתורים resided. The כסלוחים had left the land of כפתור, conquering a nation named פלשת, (Palestine). They subsequently changed their name to פלשתים, Philistines. This is what is meant when the Torah spoke about the כפתורים היוצאים מכפתור, “the Cypriots who had originated in Cyprus.” (Deut. 2,23) These people had originally been כסלוחים. 
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   וכנען ילד את צידון בכורו, “and Canaan sired Tzidon his firstborn.” These (following) ten nations (Canaanites) are all the ones that G’d promised Avraham that his descendants would inherit or dispossess. (Genesis 15,19-21) This is all based on the fact that all of Canaan’s descendants had been condemned to be slaves, forever. However, some of them had changed their names by the time Avraham appeared on the scene of history. At this point the Torah called them by the names given to them by their father at the time they were born. Once they had grown up, moved away from home and founded nations their names changed. Perhaps they adopted the name of the country in which they dwelled, just as the Egyptians called themselves <i>Mitzrim,</i> a derivative of the name <i>Mitzrayim,</i> the land they lived in. It is also possible that those sons that did not become founders of separate nations retained the names given to them at birth, whereas the others changed their names, or their descendants changed their names. Tzidon would be a case in point. He is called a Canaanite as he did not develop into a separate nation and adopted the name of his country. When the Torah had clearly described the land of the Philistines as being part of the land of Israel, although the Philistines had descended from Mitzrayim and not from Canaan, this is no counter argument. At the time when G’d described the land of the Philistines as part of the land He would give to his descendants, (Genesis 26,3 where G’d referred in his prophecy to Yitzchok that He had already sworn that land to his father‘s descendants) the Canaanites had already conquered that part of the land from their original owners. It is quite possible that the Israelites did not inherit more than the 5 principalities that had been inhabited by the 5 Philistine cities mentioned in Joshua It is important to realize that the land of Canaan, ever since the people on it became a nation, had been slated to become Israel’s. This is the חבל נחלתם of which Moses had spoken already in Deuteronomy At the time when G’d scattered the people of the earth, at the time when the tower was destroyed, He allocated that strip of land to the Canaanites on a “temporary” lease. The Canaanites’ function during the hundreds of years before the Israelites conquered that land had been to serve as caretakers on behalf of the Israelites, a task not uncommon for slaves to perform for absentee owners. The Israelites during that period need to be viewed as not yet having come of age to take over their inheritance. [although the author does not mention it, this commentary has been almost literally copied from Nachmanides. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ולשם יולד גם הוא, ”also for Shem offspring had been born.” The Torah chose this unusual syntax so that we would not think that seeing Shem’s offspring had not been mentioned up until now that he had been childless during the time Canaan had produced all these nations.
  
     אבי כל בני עבר, “the founding father of all the “Ivrim.” He was the founder of all the clans settling west of the river Euphrates, the region from which Avraham stemmed.
  
     אחי יפת הגדול “the brother of the senior Yephet.” It is the custom of the Torah to relate the younger brother always by comparing him to the oldest, not to the one who had been born immediately after to him. This is why we have the prophetess Miriam described as Aaron’s sister and not as Moses’ sister (Exodus 15,20) The reason why this comparison is mentioned altogether, is to inform us that his distinguished brother was equal to him, and that Shem’s being mentioned last does not suggest that he was less distinguished or worthy of mention. Cham was certainly not more distinguished than Shem. [this too is the commentary by Nachmanides. Ed]
      Personally, I believe that the word הגדול in our verse is an adjective that applies to Shem, [he was the “great one”] i.e. he was senior to Yephet, Cham being the youngest, although he was listed in an order that suggests otherwise. It is the custom of the Torah to apply the adjective to the party or object that serves as the immediately preceding subject.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   בנסעם מקדם, “when they journeyed from Kedem.” According to <i>Rashi</i> this is a reference to verse 30 in the previous chapter in which mankind had been described as being in הר הקדם. Due to their increasing numbers, they began to look for a location that could comfortably accommodate all of them.
      Nachmanides, on the other hand, considers <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation as flawed, claiming that only the descendants of Shem had resided in the region described as הר הקדם in verse 30. To the question that if so why would the dispersal of mankind be attributed only to the descendants of Shem, this raises the point why the dispersal of mankind is described as caused and applied only to the descendants of Shem and not to those of Yephet and Cham, seeing that the latter even represented the majority of mankind? Furthermore, according to this concept the descendants of Yephet remained in their habitats, and how did they come to populate the islands in the Ionic and Aegean sea? We would have to assume that G’d scattered them all across these islands. Subsequently, they would have formed nation states like the descendants of the other sons of Noach.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the mountain Arrarat was located in the east, and he is correct when he states that Mount Arrarat is situated east of there, and that it makes sense that the people who had lived around there had attempted to flee to the mountains in the Arrarat range to escape the deluge. When Noach descended from the ark it is no more than natural that he should have settled in that region. When his descendants became more numerous, they looked for wider spaces and moved down to the valley. It was the people who had settled in the valley who rebelled against G’d.
      According to the רודפי הפשט, people who are incapable of looking beyond the literal meaning of the text, these people did not intend to rebel against G’d but wanted to insure that they would not become scattered all over the world, unable to find their way back to their homes. These people claim that the fact that the Torah describes their expressed purpose in building the tower, not mentioning anything detrimental about them, is proof that they were quite innocent. If that interpretation were correct, the people of that time must have been complete idiots that they could imagine that a single city and a single tower could be sufficient for all of mankind! Did they imagine that the proliferation of the human race had concluded in their generation?? 
      Anyone familiar with how to interpret what the Torah reveals, understands that the intention of the people building the tower is already revealed by their declared purpose of נעשה לנו שם, “let us make a name for ourselves!” One does not need to read much between the lines to appreciate that the project was a sinful one. If one needed further proof, the very penalty which fitted their crime, i.e. that they were dispersed, proves that they had intended to use their concentration in one location to assert their power vis-à-vis their Creator. Quite possibly, our sages who seize on the expression אשר בנו בני האדם, “which the descendants of Adam had built,” (verse 5) saw in these words a hint that the sin of these people paralleled the sin of disobedience perpetrated by the first human being, Adam. Why else would the Torah have to write the line in verse 5? Who would have thought that the people building the tower were not descendants of Adam? It is worth noting that in the whole episode of the deluge G’d is referred to by His attribute אלוקים, i.e. as someone sitting in judgment, whereas here throughout G’d is referred to as the Attribute of Mercy. The deluge had been decreed because the people at that time had corrupted earth, whereas here, just as in the case of Adam’s sin, the creature-Creator relationship, described by our sages as קצצו בנטיעות, undermining basic religious tenets, was the issue.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ויחי שם...ויולד בנים ובנות, “Shem lived, etc., and begat sons and daughters.” No mention is made of these people dying, as the Torah invariably stated with the ten generations preceding Noach. The reason is that the earlier generations died, decomposed and no trace of them was left after the deluge. Seeing that their memory was blotted out on account of there being no visible reminder that they had ever lived, the Torah made mention of their lives and deaths. These later generations were all buried and their burial sites remained intact. Seeing that Noach was the founder of these last ten generations, and he was also partially a member of the first ten generations, his death is mentioned, as with his death a major segment of human history had been concluded. Some commentators believe that seeing the first human being brought death into the world, the Torah not only mentioned Adam’s death but also the death of those who but for his sin might never have died. Generations subsequent to Noach were born into a different kind of universe than Adam had been placed in; therefore there was no need to stress that these people died after having lived the number of years mentioned in the Torah.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   וימת חרן על פני תרח אביו, “Haran died during the lifetime of his father Terach.” Some commentators hold that until that time children did not die during the lifetime of their fathers except for Peleg (Genesis 11,18). Hence the Torah reported that this was an exception. A similar expression is used in Numbers 3,4 when the appointment of Elazar and Ittamar as priests during the lifetime of their father Aaron is reported. [I do not think the argument is sound, as Lemech, Noach’s father died during the lifetime of his own father Methuselah. Ed. (5,31)]
  
     בארץ מולדתו באור כשדים, “in the country of his birth in Ur of the Chaldaeans.” According to Nachmanides these last words refer back only to Haran, whereas Avraham himself was not born in Ur, seeing that his forefathers were descendants of Shem, whereas the Chaldaeans were descended from the descendants of Cham. Compare Genesis 14,13 where Avraham is described as an <i>Ivri</i>, and not as a “<i>Casdi</i>.” We also have clear evidence from Joshua that the forefathers of the Israelites had originally resided on the east bank of the river Euphrates. (Joshua 24,2) If, at the time when Terach took Avraham, and Haran and family leaving Nachor behind, and settled in Charan which is hundreds of miles north east of Shinor the land of the Casdim, how could Eliezer who was bidden to seek out Avraham’s family, have looked for Rivkah in Charan rather than in Ur? The truth is that Terach and family originated in the land of Aram that is east of the Euphrates. (Ur, downstream, was immediately west of the Euphrates) When Bileam commenced his blessing in Numbers 23,7 he described how Balak had brought him all the way from Aram, which he defines as הררי קדם, the range of mountains in the east, hardly identical with the Mesopotamian valley in which Ur was situated.
      The Talmud (<i>Baba Batra</i> 91) reports that Avraham had been jailed for 10 years, 3 of them in a town called כותא. It is common knowledge that this town was in the land of the Casdim (lower Mesopotamia, near Ur) as we have a verse describing the King of Ashur as coming from Babylon and Kuta as well as from Gaza and Chamat.(Kings II 17,30) In these verses the exile of the ten tribes is described. It is clear that Kuta would not have been situated anywhere near the route described in Kings II as taken by the King of Ashur who had taken the ten tribes prisoner, and who was about to repopulate the cities of Samaria with people from elsewhere, so that the land he had captured would not become desolate. Apparently, Kuta was a town in the general region of Aram Naharayim, the town in which Nachor, grandfather of Rebeccah had made his home (compare Genesis 24,10) Kuta was a large city in those days between the land of Israel and the river Tigris. Terach had moved with his older son Avraham from there downstream to the land of the Casdim (Ur) .Haran, his younger son was born in Ur. Whereas Nachor had remained in what is referred to as עבר הנהר, the Torah testifies only concerning Haran that he had been born in Ur Casdim. This information has also been recorded independently in books dating back to ancient times as pointed out by Maimonides in his <i>Moreh.</i> He writes that Avraham who had been born in Kuta had disagreed with the religions of his contemporaries Most of them were sun worshippers. The king incarcerated him for his refusal to toe the theological line deemed politically correct in his time. After many years when the king became afraid that the people might adopt some of the views Avraham had spread, he exiled him to an area bordering on the land of Canaan. This occurred after he had first deprived him of all his earthly belongings. At any rate, the region still belonged to that known as Ur Casdim. Avraham experienced either a manifest miracle, by being saved from the persecution of the king, or at least he experienced what is known as a נס נסתר, a “hidden miracle,” such as a sudden unaccountable change of heart by the king not to sentence him to death and to release him from jail allowing him to emigrate to a country of his choice. Alternately, he might even have thrown him into a furnace from which G’d saved him by direct intervention in his fate. The nations of the world in those days did not record this miracle in their records as it did not suit them to publicize proof which would cause people to question their beliefs. They were not as truth-loving as Pharaoh’s advisers, the magicians who openly admitted that the G’d in heaven had manifested Himself when working the ten plagues. Moreover, even assuming that they had witnessed this miracle, they would not attribute it to Divine intervention by Avraham’s G’d, but would see in this the work of magicians, or invisible forces in nature.
      Do not allow Ibn Ezra to confuse you with his various questions on this subject, especially the fact that the Torah failed to mention such an outstanding miracle as G’d saving Avraham from a fiery furnace. The magicians of Pharaoh, until the third plague, that of the lice and vermin, also thought that Moses was a superior magician rather than an emissary from G’d who could call on G’d to perform miracles. Had the Torah reported on the miracle of Avraham’s survival of that experience in Nmirod’s furnace, it would also have had to devote some space reporting the refusal of the onlookers and especially Nimrod’s theologians, to acknowledge that this had proven the existence of an invisible G’d who was the Creator, and therefore able to control laws of nature.
      It suffices for the believers that the Torah wrote (Genesis 15,7) “I am the Lord Who has taken you out from Ur Casdim to give you this land (Canaan) as an inheritance.” The very expression הוצאתיך, “I have taken you out,” alerts the reader to the fact that the Torah refers to something supernatural, to a miracle. Ever since G’d had saved Avraham miraculously, He had had in mind to commence the process that would lead ultimately to Avraham’s descendants inheriting the land of Canaan. From that day on, both Terach and his son Avraham had intended to get away as far as possible from lands under the control of Nimrod. Their arrival in Charan must be viewed as a way station (halfway house) on the way to the land of Canaan. The advantage of Charan was the fact that they had relatives there, people who spoke their language. As a result, what was intended as a brief stopover became a prolonged stay in Charan. While he was in Charan, G’d commanded Avraham to do what had been in his mind already, namely to emigrate to the land of Canaan. He therefore left his aging father behind in Charan. Whereas Terach died in his birthplace Charan, Avraham took his wife and his nephew Lot to move to Canaan with him. This is what Joshua had in mind when he reminded the people shortly before his death of their origins, and how G’d had taken their forefather Avraham from a region called עבר הנהר, “the far side of the river Euphrates.” (Joshua 24,2-7) The reference to that region was meant to tell the people that this is where Avraham was commanded to begin his pilgrimage. G’d made Avraham traverse the entire length of the land of Canaan
      According to our sages (who say that Nimrod had thrown Avraham into a fiery furnace for his refusal to toe the theological line of his time) the words אור כשדים are to be understood literally, i.e. “the fire of the Chaldaens.” This expression is used in a similar sense in Isaiah 44,16חאח, חמותי, ראיתי אור, “hurrah, I am warm, I can feel the heat.” Terach had not been thrown into the furnace, so he did not need to be saved. The Torah concentrates on the principal personality in that episode, leaving out some details. The principal character was Avraham, hence it was only he to whom G’d referred to when He reminded him of the purpose for which he had been saved.
      Alternately, the reason why that place was namedאור כשדים, was on account of the miracle which had occurred there when Avraham was saved. We have numerous occasions when locations where the Israelites stopped on their journey through the desert were given names based on what had occurred there, such as תבערה, (Numbers 11,3; or קברות התאוה, Numbers) The verse in our portion would allude to the fact that when Avraham came out of the furnace the whole family fled from that region. This would be parallel to the use of the wordאורים in Isaiah 24,15 באורים כבדו ה' where it means: “therefore honour the Lord in the lands of the mountains where they light signal fires to communicate news items over long distances.” This would be a veiled reference to communicating the miracle that had happened to Avraham in the fiery furnace of Nimrod. The expression מאורות צפעוני, is a description of the lair of a serpent whose poison is as burning as hot fire. This serpent is also known as שרף, [from שרפה, “burning.” Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   ויצאו אתם מאור כשדים, “they departed from there with them.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the plural mode ויצאו, refers to Terach and Avraham, Lot and Sarai, Avraham’s wife. I find his commentary difficult to accept as he represents the major personality in the story, i.e. Avraham, as secondary to the minor player, Terach. This is something most unusual. Furthermore, according to <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation why would Avraham be paired with Terach, for according to <i>Rashi</i> Terach was the principal in the verse, seeing that he had taken Avraham and Lot with him as well as Sarai, and the correct reading should have been: ויצא תרח אתם, “Terach departed with them.”
      Nachmanides writes that seeing that Avraham was a more distinguished person than his father and the other people journeying with them, the Torah employs the plural mode: “they went with them,” seeing that, as the Torah writes, Terach had taken the initiative in emigrating. To the onlookers it appeared as if Avraham had gone along with his father’s decision in the matter. The other members of the entourage continued to travel with Avraham as their leader also after Avraham had left his father behind in Charan. (Genesis 12,4)
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   וימת תרח בחרן, “Terach died in Charan.” According to <i>Rashi,</i> Terach still lived for many years, so that we must wonder why the Torah appeared anxious to report his death already at this juncture. <i>Rashi</i> answers that this was so that people would not accuse Avraham of having abandoned his father in his old age. Therefore, the Torah treats Terach in its report as if he had already died.
      Nachmanides is dissatisfied with this explanation, although it follows the opinions handed down in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i>writing that it is perfectly normal for scripture to report on the life of the father, followed by the birth of his son, followed by the report of the father’s death. Having reported the death of the father, scripture resumes the thread by informing us about important aspects of the son’s life. We know that Noach’s life overlapped with the early years of Avraham, and still the Torah had reported his death already in Genesis
      It is possible that the reason why the <i>Midrash</i> wrote in the vein quoted by <i>Rashi,</i> was that scripture here departed somewhat from its normal syntax when reporting on Terach. Normally, since Shem, Noach’s son, we have not heard about any of the generations’ leaders dying; the Torah had only reported the fact that they were born and for how many years they had lived, leaving the reader to conclude that at the end of the respective number of years, the person referred to had died. Terach is the first person after Noach whose death the Torah had seen fit to devote a line to. (except the premature death of Haran which was reported in Genesis 11,28) In our verse the Torah resumes speaking about Terach, although this had been interrupted with the report of the premature death of his son Haran. Not only does the Torah report on his death at the age of 205 years, but it even stresses the fact of where he died. In view of this, the sages of the <i>Midrash</i> looked for the reason why the Torah had changed its style here.
      It is also possible that seeing that the Torah had already given us some details about Avraham’s life including the fact that he emigrated from Ur Casdim with his father, intending to proceed to the land of Canaan. The Torah felt constrained to point out that as opposed to Avraham, the son, the father never did reach the land of Canaan but died in Charan.
      As to the comment of the sages in the <i>Midrash</i> that wicked people are already described as dead even while they are physically still alive, the Torah later on informed Avraham the son, that his father had a share in the world to come, seeing that G’d phrased Avraham’s own arrival in that region as “you will join your fathers in peace in a ripe old Age.” (Genesis 15,15) Perhaps G’d hinted to Avraham that his father had become a penitent shortly before his death and that therefore he had not forfeited his share in the world to come. Apparently, this is the way <i>Rashi</i> understood our verse. Alternatively, in accordance with a view expressed in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 104, Terach was rewarded with a share in the hereafter as a gift by G’d to his son Avraham. [according to that view and the view that the events in chapter 15 took place 5 years before Avraham settled in the land of Canaan (according to <i>Rashi’s</i> own calculations<i>),</i> G’d would have informed Avraham at the age of 70 that his father would have a share in the hereafter!. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויאמר ה' אל אברם לך לך, “The Lord said to Avram: “go forth for yourself, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> interprets the words לך as meaning “for your own benefit, and for your own satisfaction.” <i>Rashi</i> explains this verse in this fashion, although he was aware that our sages considered this verse as introducing one of the ten trials G’d subjected Avraham to. Having to move away from his birthplace was considered one of these trials.
      Nachmanides does not interpret the word לך as meaning “for your own benefit,” i.e. the repetition of the words לך לך. He feels that the wording לך לך is not at all unusual, and therefore does not call for a special interpretation at this point. He quotes Song of Songs 2,11 הגשם הלך לו, “the rain has ceased,” as well as the preceding words לכי לך, “go forth,” as examples of the pronoun לך appearing without any ulterior meanings having to be looked for. Other similar examples are (Jeremiah 5,5) אלכה לי אל הגדולים, “so I will go to the wealthy, etc.” However, our sages (long before <i>Rashi)</i> have used this kind of syntax in order to derive additional meanings from it. (Deut. 10,1) ועשית לך ארון עץ, “make yourself a wooden ark; or Numbers 10,2 עשה לך שתי חצוצרות כסף “make for yourself two silver trumpets.” The Talmud <i>Yuma</i> 3 explains the word לך to mean that these trumpets were to be Moses’ personal property, and in fact they were hidden after his death so that no one else could make use of them. In view of the above, there is no reason for Nachmanides to criticize <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation of the word לך in our verse. (seeing that the Tabernacle was not Moses’ personal property, the expression לך used in connection with it would not fit the interpretation <i>Rashi</i> gave it here, whereas the trumpets were specifically not communal property.)
  
     מארצך וממולדך ומבית אביך, “from your homeland, your birthplace, and from your father’s house.” The trial became progressively more difficult, as separating from one’s father’s house is more difficult than separating from the land one has been born in.
  
     אל הארץ אשר אראך, “to the land which I will show you.” It is an additional hardship to be ordered to undertake a journey the destination of which has not been revealed beforehand. Avraham considered all this as easy, as he was anxious to fulfill G’d’s request out of a feeling of love for Him. <i>Rashi</i> queries that this commandment was not new, seeing that Avraham had already left his homeland a number of years ago when he went to Charan with his father? He therefore explains that we must understand what G’d is reported to have said here to Avraham to make an even more drastic break with his past by leaving his father’s house.
      Ibn Ezra views the basic commandment as having been formulated by G’d already when G’d said to him לך לך מארצך as well as ממולדך ומבית אביך, at a time when he was still in Ur Casdim. G’d had known that Terach, Avraham’s father, would not go beyond Charan. In fact, Terach died 60 years after Avraham had continued his journey to the land of Canaan.
      Nachmanides disagrees, writing that if correct, the paragraph describing the move from Ur Casdim should have portrayed Avraham as the principal, instead of describing Terach as having taken the other family members with him. (11,31) Clearly, at that time Avraham followed his father’s instructions, not G’d’s. No mention had been made of G’d having communicated with Avraham as yet. Furthermore, in the verse from Joshua 24,3 G’d is quoted as having said: “I have taken your father (Avraham) from beyond the river Euphrates.” If Ibn Ezra were correct, Joshua should have quoted: “I have taken your father from Ur Casdim, etc.” Still another proof that Ibn Ezra is not correct can be found in the instructions Avraham issued to his trusted servant Eliezer when he sent him to get a wife for Yitzchok. In Genesis 24,3 Avraham instructs Eliezer to take a wife for Yitzchok from ארצי ומולדתי, “my homeland and the place where I was born.” Eliezer proceeded to travel to Aram Naharyim, not to Ur Casdim in order to discharge his master’s mission. Ibn Ezra is wrong when he interprets the words in that verse as meaning ארצי=חרן and מולדתי as Ur Casdim. How could he say here that this directive was given to Avraham while he was still in Ur Casdim? Avraham had a number of countries that he called “his country” at different times, though he had only one birthplace and one father’s house. The fact is that Charan was both his homeland, his birthplace, and the location of his father’s house.
  
     אל הארץ אשר אראך, “to the land which I will show you.” He would be wandering until he would eventually get to the land of Canaan. Having arrived in the land of Canaan, G’d told him (verse 7) that He would give that whole land to his (non existent) descendants. When we had been told earlier (11,31) ויצאו אתם מאור כשדים ללכת ארצה כנען, “They departed together from Ur Casdim to go to the land of Canaan,” this was not a journey designed to settle in that land, as Avraham had not yet known at that time that G’d’s commandment had envisaged the land of Canaan as his ultimate destination. We have proof of this from when he explained to Avimelech (Genesis 20,13) that G’d had made him wander without a specific objective through many locations, so that he had adopted the practice of describing Sarai as his sister in all the locations where they had stopped for a period of time. It is possible that Avraham had known that the land of Canaan was G’d’s inheritance on earth, and that therefore he had been heading in that direction. He had understood that the words “to the land which I will show you” were a hint that he should head towards the land of Canaan.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   והיה ברכה, “and become a blessing.” You will be the blessing by whom the nations will bless themselves when they quote you as a role model when blessing others and wishing that they should turn out to be like Avraham.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ואברכה מברכיך, “I will bless those who will bless you.” The plural ending in the word מברכיך is a hint that there will be more people blessing you than people cursing you. Some commentators say that the verse is a prophecy concerning the priests who will be descended from Avraham and whose task it will be to bless the people.
  
     ונברכו בך כל משפחות האדמה, “and all the families on earth will be blessed through you.” Not only Avraham’s direct descendants will be blessed through him, but far wider circles, all the families on earth. Some commentators derive the expression from the causative form of the root ברך, meaning to refine through genetic improvement, מבריך. The term is applied especially to improving the qualities of certain grapes and the wine they produce. In our case it would mean that all the families of the earth would be improved through intermarriage with descendants of Avraham. Avraham having married Hagar, of Egyptian descent and siring a son from her would be a case in point. Later on, he married Keturah who was of the descendants of Yaphet and sired 6 sons from her.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ואברם בן חמש שנים ושבעים שנה בצאתו מחרן, “Avraham was 75 years of age when he emigrated from Charan.” The reason why the Torah recorded Avraham’s age at this stage was to show that he left his father in order to obey G’d’s instructions.
      According to the ancient historical text known as סדר עולם, Avraham undertook two emigrations, this being his second. He had gone to the land of Canaan the first time at the age of 70 where G’d had made the promises to him that are recorded in chapter 15. This is based on the Torah saying in Exodus 12,40 that the total period the Israelites spent in Egypt amounted to 430 years. Seeing that in chapter 15 G’d spoke about a period of 400 years during which his descendants were to be either strangers or strangers and slaves in a foreign country, it follows that until the birth of Yitzchok when Avraham was 100 years of age the fulfillment of that prophecy could not have commenced. Seeing that Avraham was in the land of Canaan for a brief period at that time, the countdown for the realization of this prophecy could begin from that time on.
      Furthermore, at the time when Avraham defeated the kings who had taken Lot prisoner he was 74 years of age. This is arrived at by the fact that he was 48 years old at the time when these city-kingdoms were founded and populated. For 12 years the political situation had remained stable with the kings of these cities paying annual taxes to Kedorleomer. Thus Avraham was 60 years old at the time when the city-kingdoms rebelled and refused to continue paying their taxes. 14 years later the four kings, including Kedorleomer, mounted the punitive expedition as a result of which Lot was taken prisoner. This means that Avraham was 74 years at the time. As the Torah reports him as 75 years of age at the time of his emigration in our chapter, he must have been in the land of Canaan previously, a time when G’d made the covenant between the pieces with him, as described in detail in chapter 15. In other words, Avraham departed from Charan twice.
      The difficulty with all this is that we read in the same סדר עולם that during the 5 years preceding his emigration from Charan Avraham had been in Charan. If so, he had been in Charan at the time when the war broke out, not as described in 14,13 in Eloney Mamre (Kiryat Arba nowadays). One can possibly answer this apparent contradiction by justifying the text in סדר עולם that Avraham spent those five years in Charan, and that the words והוא שוכן באלוני ממרא האמורי “he was living at Eloney Mamre,” in 14,13 refer to the פליט, the escapee who had brought him the news that his nephew had been taken prisoner. In order to make this plausible, consider why the Torah bothered to add that in Eloney Mamre there were in addition to Mamre also his brother Aner and Eshkol, all of whom had a mutual defense treaty with Avraham. Surely, the reason is to explain why the escapee brought the news to the three brothers in Eloney Mamre of whom he knew that they were allies of Avraham. These brothers in turn would relay to Avraham what they had heard about the fate of his nephew. In fact, the escapee may have chosen refuge in Eloney Mamre believing that Kedorleomer would not dare harm allies of Avraham. The weakness with this supposed scenario is that the author of סדר עולם lists as the year when Avraham left Charan permanently the same year in which these wars had been fought. If that were so, what difference would it make if Avraham was 70 years of age the first time he left Charan or not. Who needs to know? [furthermore, a more serious flaw in the sequence listed in סדר עולם is the question of when Lot took up residence in Sodom, and when did the falling out with Avraham which led to his being taken captive? Ed.]
      If, as stipulated, Avraham was only 70 years old at the covenant between the pieces which was reported in chapter 15, there is no alternative but to conclude that the Torah’s reports are not chronologically sequential. Another difficulty is found in the opening words of chapter 15: אחר הדברים האלה, “after these events.” If the events in this chapter occurred prior to the events related in either chapter 12 or chapter 14 what do these opening words mean? G’d reassures Avraham, (if we assume that the events of chapter 15 occurred subsequent to the events related in chapter 14) that in spite of his victory over the four kings, a victory due to G’d’s manifest assistance, his merits had not been used up so that he had reason to worry about G’d protecting him in the future.) We would have to say that the wordsאחר הדברים ,האלה, refer to the entire sequence previously related and that only the short paragraph concluding withוהאמין בה' ויחשביה לו צדקה (15,6) are related out of chronological order. That particular conversation between G’d and Avraham had taken place prior to the conquest of Sodom by the four kings.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויעבר אברם בארץ עד מקום שכם, “Avram traversed the country (traveling in a southerly direction) as far as the site of the town of Shechem.” The location is mentioned to tell us that he offered a prayer there concerning the sons of Yaakov, who he foresaw, would encounter many problems associated with that location and who would engage in a war there in order to free their sister Dinah who had been captured and raped. This in spite of the fact that when he had described himself as ערירי, unable to sire offspring, G’d had assured him that he would not only have children but that he would found a great nation. He was concerned that perhaps due to a sin on his part, this promise would be long delayed in being fulfilled.
      Nachmanides writes that all the journeys of Avraham which are recorded here, as well as those of Yitzchok and Yaakov after him, are recorded to serve as illustrations of the principle מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, that the affairs of the patriarchs foreshadow experiences which occurred in the lives of their offspring during the history of the Jews as a people. The decrees announced by the prophets (the “wakeful ones,” according to Daniel 4,14) were based on their interpreting events in the lives of the patriarchs as foreshadowing the fate of their children and children’s children. When the prophets engaged in what appear to be merely symbolic actions [such as Jeremiah 51,63-64 giving instructions to Baruch, his disciple, to tie a stone to the book of Jeremiah after he has finished reading it, and to throw it into the river Euphrates and to say at that moment: “thus shall Babylon sink and never rise again, because of the disaster that I will bring upon it.”] Baruch was instructed to perform this act so as to make G’d’s decree more than just a potential judgment on the Babylonians. By performing a tangible, visible act, the decree was transformed from something merely potential to something actual, though the time for realization had not yet been determined. In a similar manner, all the stories related in detail about the patriarchs serve as the catalyst for eventual repetition in the lives of the Jewish people. We find a similar example in the days of Elisha (Kings II 13,15) who instructed King Joash to get a bow and arrows and to shoot out the window. Having shot an arrow, Elisha proclaimed this gesture to have been a symbol of victory for the people of Israel. He then instructed the king to pick up the arrows he had shot. The King complied. He was then instructed to strike the ground. The King struck the ground three times and stopped. (without having been told to stop) Elisha was very angry at the King and told him that if only he had continued another five or six times, he would have annihilated Aram. As it were, he would defeat the armies of Aram only three times. [Elisha was already sick at the time, close to death, and therefore especially frustrated by the King’s action. Ed.] The Bible does not tell us stories like this merely to embellish the study of our history. These symbolic actions are extremely important in helping certain decrees of G’d which were in the realm of the potential only, to become translated into reality. G’d provided the patriarchs with opportunities to perform such symbolic gestures, which in the course of Jewish history would prove to have been the trigger setting in motion important historic developments. This is the meaning of מעשה אבות סימן לבנים.
      The Torah stated והכנעני אז בארץ, that “the Canaanite was then in control of the land of Canaan,” a banal statement, for why else would the land be described as the land of the Canaanites? There is a far deeper meaning to this statement. Among other meanings, the Torah is on record that Jews had already moved around unopposed in the land of Canaan at a time when the time was not yet ripe for this people to be expelled from that land on account of what the Torah described as עון האמורי, “the sin of the Emorite.” (Genesis 15,16)
      It is also possible that the reason why the Torah saw fit to write the line והכנעני אז בארץ, is to explain why it took Avraham such a long time before he built the first altar dedicated to monotheism. He had been afraid, as the land was owned by the Canaanite and he could not expect that they would take kindly to a stranger publicly challenging their religious convictions. It was only after G’d had appeared to him and given him assurances that he was no longer afraid to do what he had in mind to do already previously. The promise that his children in due course would inherit this land, a promise given in verse 7, encouraged him to become an evangelist on behalf of his G’d.
      Elon (Moreh) (verse 6) is none other than Shechem. (Nablus in our time) The addition of the word מורה appears in connection with this location which is also defined as being opposite Gilgal and Mount Gerizim elsewhere. (compare Deut. 11,30) The meaning of the words ה-אל הנראה אליו, appears to imply that G’d instructed Avraham to build the altar at that location The word מורה, from הוראה, ”instruction,” was appended to the name of the place Elon to remind us that Avraham had received Divine instructions there. The very word אליו “directly to him,” is indicative of the fact that this revelation was of a more advanced nature than any previous communication by G’d to Avraham.
      There are some commentators who feel that the words והכנעני אז בארץ, were meant to stress the loving kindness of G’d towards Avraham in that He protected Avraham every step of the way in spite of the fact that the land was owned by a hostile nation [which had already succeeded in driving the Semites out of most of that land. Ed.] Avraham traversed this land with substantial herds, as if the whole land belonged to him. He was not challenged and not molested.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויקרא בשם ה', “He proclaimed his belief in the Lord of heaven.” Onkelos translates this as Avraham simply offering a prayer there to his G’d. According to the plain meaning of the words Avraham did much more than that. He proclaimed his faith loudly for all the people to hear. We find that his son Yitzchok did something similar (Genesis 21,33). It is noteworthy that we do not find a reference in the Torah to Yaakov doing something similar. The reason is that Yaakov had many sons and that his family itself was a constant reminder to the people around them of their belief in the only G’d, the G’d in heaven, the Creator of mankind.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   הנגבה, “in a southerly direction.” According to <i>Rashi</i>, he was traveling in the southern part of the country, the area which later on formed the territory of the tribe of Yehudah. Later on, when it came to taking possession of the land, the tribe of Yehudah was also the first to take possession of these areas.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויהי רעב בארץ וירד אברם מצרימה, ”when there was a famine in the land, Avram descended to Egypt.” This too was an example of the principle of מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, that the activities of the patriarchs foreshadowed the activities of their offspring, their descendants. The family of Yaakov also moved to Egypt, and their move too had been triggered by a long famine involving also the land of Canaan. In both instances the motivation was simply survival. When the Egyptians eventually mistreated the Jews, they had not had any excuse to do so, just as Avraham had not given the Egyptians any excuse to abduct his wife. G’d, eventually, avenged the Egyptians’ abuse of the Jewish people just as He had punished Pharaoh for abducting Sarai and forcing her to be his slave [wives did not have civil rights in those days. Ed.] Just as Avraham was showered with silver and gold while in Egypt, his descendants, when leaving Egypt, took with them most of Egypt’s silver and gold. The Jewish experience in Egypt paralleled that of Avraham in even more details when the Egyptians who decreed the death of male Jewish babies also encouraged the survival of the female babies, clearly in order to make slaves of them in one way or another, just as they tried to do with Sarai. Just as Pharaoh expedited the departure from Egypt of Avraham after he had been chastised by G’d, so Pharaoh expelled the Jewish nation at the time of the Exodus.
      Nachmanides writes that Avraham sinned greatly when he moved to Egypt, seeing that he unintentionally subjected his wife to great danger. He should have had trust in G’d that He would save him from the famine. As a result of this lack of faith demonstrated by their forefather, his descendants were enslaved in Egypt at the hands of Pharaoh according to the principle that the penalty is administered at the site where the sin has been committed. (compare Kohelet 3,16)
      Avraham is not considered as having sinned when he described his wife as his sister; on the contrary, this was a meritorious act on his part, as it proves that he was loath to rely on miracles as long as he had not done what was humanly possible to save G’d from having to intervene by upsetting the laws of nature. The reputation of the Egyptians had been such that he had every reason to fear for his life if he had described Sarai as his wife. 
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   והרגו אותי ואותך יחיו, “they will kill me while allowing you to live.” They will let you live thanks to your physical beauty. As a result they will feel that they have to kill me. As to why they would rather kill Avraham instead of simply sleeping with Sarai while her husband was alive, even though all of mankind had been warned not to commit murder, no less a sin than to commit adultery with someone else’s wife, the reason is psychological. Murder is committed only once on the same person, while illegal sexual intercourse and the desire to perform it is an ongoing temptation, one that will recur again and again. It was therefore easier for them to live with the knowledge of having killed than to live with the knowledge that every time they slept with someone’s wife they committed a mortal sin. Furthermore, if they were to rape Sarai while her husband was alive, they might have to face the King after Avraham had complained about his wife being violated. Once Avraham was dead, who would complain?
      Nachmanides writes that he does not understand what Avraham was afraid at this point more than at any time in his life previously. If it was that the Egyptians were black-skinned and more immoral than other tribes, we know that even at Avimelech’s court there was no respect for someone else’s wife if the King desired her sexually. In spite of such fears being reasonable, G’d had commanded Yitzchok not to leave the land of Israel and to proceed to the land (province) of the Philistines to wait out the end of the famine! Perhaps Avraham and Yitzchok were afraid only when they took up residence in a city, as the inhabitants of those cities were in the habit of offering any especially attractive woman to their King. They would kill that woman’s husband so that their King would not be guilty of an adulterous relationship with such a woman. This approach would be supported by what Avraham explained to Avimelech in Genesis 20,13 “when G’d caused me to wander from my father’s house, I said to her, (Sarai) ‘do me this favour: at every place we come to, say about me: ’he is my brother.’” The Torah had not mentioned this stratagem previously, except when for some reason they had to fall back on an agreement which had been practiced already repeatedly. As long as that agreement forestalled any problems, there had been no need to mention it. Yitzchok had not been afraid in his own country and had resorted to a similar stratagem only when forced to move to the land of the Philistines.
      When Avraham explained the planned deception as designed to benefit him personally, i.e. as potentially saving his life, (verse 13) he had in mind the entire period of the famine when he and Sarai would be forced to be strangers in a land unknown to them. He thought that this would be the way by which G’d would enable them to survive the famine which raged at that time, until a time when they could return to the land of Canaan or to flee that region altogether.
      It appears that the plain meaning of the text is that Sarai did not agree to the deception Avraham demanded of her. However, the Egyptians were so depraved that before even giving Sarai a chance to explain her relationship to Avraham they already abducted her, having praised her beauty to their King. They never bothered to enquire how Avraham was related to her. This is what enabled the King to exclaim afterwards: “how come you have not even told me that this woman is your wife? Why did you say “she is my sister?” The King accused Avraham of having misled both his men and himself by not revealing that Sarai was his wife. He accused Avraham of treacherous conduct after Sarai had already been abducted to his palace. According to Pharaoh, Avraham should have protested Sarai’s abduction from the very first moment instead of describing her as his sister. It was most unseemly for her to deny that he was her husband.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   אמרי נא אחותי את, “Please say that you are my sister.” The word נא is an expression of an entreaty. Avraham justified the use of the white lie as he saw himself in immediate danger of being murdered. He realized that by lying he would become the beneficiary of that lie also financially.
  
     למען ייטב לי בעבורך, “in order that I will benefit on your account (and survive).” Seeing that you have to say that you are not my wife, do it in a way that will confer benefits upon me as a direct result of your situation. By saying that you are my sister they will heap gifts upon me to secure my acquiescence.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויראו אותה שרי פרעה, “When the ministers of Pharaoh saw her, etc.” When the local Egyptians saw this beautiful woman they said that she is suitable for highly placed ministers, etc. But even when they brought her to such ministers they were afraid to touch her themselves, preferring to bring her to the King, having decided that she was suitable only for the King himself.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ולאברם היטיב בעבורה, “He conferred benefits on Avram on her account.” Even though Avraham did not want to accept gifts from the King of Sodom (later on), here he was forced to accept the gifts or they would have realized that he was Sarai’s husband.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   וינגע ה' את פרעה, “The Lord smote Pharaoh with plagues, etc.” It is difficult to understand why G’d punished Pharaoh for a crime committed inadvertently. He had not been warned not to take Sarai as a wife, as had been the case with Avimelech. Some commentators are of the opinion that Pharaoh did indeed sin intentionally as G’d had informed him that Sarai was Avram’s wife. The fact that Pharaoh reacted by saying to Avraham: “here is your wife, take her and leave,” is proof that someone had informed him. Clearly, this had been G’d, although He may not have spelled it out in these words.
      According to Nachmanides when these plagues struck Pharaoh and his household suddenly, he wondered what G’d had done to him and why; he asked Sarai if she could account for this and she told him the reason. Thereupon Pharaoh called in Avraham and accused him without being specific, as he was not sure that the plagues were indeed related to this matter. Alternatively, as our sages explained this, the plague consisted of Pharaoh suddenly becoming impotent so that it dawned on him that this could be related to the fact that the woman in question was someone’s wife. He accused Avraham only tentatively, questioning him, afraid to accuse him explicitly. Had Avraham said: “she is my sister,” he would not have said to him: take your wife and go.” Avraham remained silent throughout, as he was far too afraid. Pharaoh interpreted his silence as an admission, this is why he added: “take tour wife and depart!” 
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ואקח אותה לי לאשה, “so that I took her to be my wife.” He meant that Sarai was intended to be his queen, as opposed to her being merely a concubine. He used this phraseology in order to induce Avraham to reveal whether she was indeed his wife or not. 
  
     הנה אשתך קח ולך, “here is your wife, take her and leave” They did not part on cordial terms as in the case of Avimelech, who allowed Avraham to settle anywhere he chose in his country. (Genesis 20,15) The Egyptians knew no sexual restraints and Pharaoh was afraid if Avraham stayed there he might be exposed to further dangers on account of his wife.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   וישלחו אותו ואת אשתו ואת כל אשר לו, “they escorted him and his wife and all his belongings.” Even though Avraham had treated them badly they did not take back the gifts they had given to him.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויהי ריב, “A quarrel had broken out, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the quarrel had its origin in Lot’s shepherds allowing their herds to graze in pastures belonging to others, whereas Avraham objected, respecting private property of the Canaanites.
      Nachmanides writes that they were actually not grazing in fields owned by others seeing G’d had already promised the entire country to Avraham and his descendants. Seeing that Lot was not an heir of Avraham, his sheep were not entitled to graze anywhere without express permission of the owners. The plain explanation of our verse is that the quarrel originated due to what has been written in verses 5 and 6 that due to the extensive flocks and herds of both Avraham and Lot, there was not enough grazing land (land not privately owned) so that the shepherds felt obliged to allow their flocks to eat whatever they could find. This is the reason why the Torah records that at that time the Canaanite and the Perisite were dwelling in the land, i.e. they owned it. There was no land which was <i>hefker,</i> ownerless. 
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   וה' אמר אל אברם אחרי הפרד לוט מעמו, “and G’d had spoken (again) to Avram after Lot had separated from him.” According to <i>Rashi</i> G’d had stopped communicating with Avraham while the latter kept company with the wicked Lot. The difficulty with this commentary is that we read in verse 7 that G’d appeared to Avraham and spoke to him (while he was in the company of Lot, [whom he had taken along without having been instructed to. Ed.])
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   קום התהלך בארץ, “arise and walk freely throughout the land, etc.” This is not a command; G’d merely told Avraham to feel free to travel anywhere in the land as He would protect him against any danger.
      Alternatively, it is possible to see in these words an instruction to traverse the entire land in order to establish a claim to ownership of that country. In any event, this advice or instruction did not have to be carried out immediately. Nonetheless, Avraham immediately began to carry out this advice/instruction for while we find him in the easterly part of the country at this stage, the Torah reports that he moved south to the region of Hebron (verse 18). Somewhat later, after the destruction of Sodom, he moved to the region controlled by the Philistines (20,1). According to the plain meaning of the text, wherever Avraham pitched his tent, (virgin land) he established property rights and was recognized as its owner.
  
     כי לך, “for to you, etc.” You are to establish your claim to this land already now, in your lifetime, whereas your descendants will claim it as in inalienable inheritance.
      Some commentators see in the words קום התהלך בארץ which G’d said to Avraham a criticism for Avraham voluntarily having agreed to share the land with Lot when he offered him the choice of selecting areas to his right or to his left, as if he were saying that he did not need such a vast inheritance for himself alone, seeing that he did not even have a son to bequeath it to. G’d told him that he would indeed spread out to the north, south, east and west, as his descendants would be so numerous. If Avraham were to ask why he needed all this, G’d added that his descendants would be so numerous that they would defy attempts to count them all. Still another explanation of the words כעפר הארץ, “as the dust of the earth” is that just as ordinary people use dust to step on, to thresh around in, so kingdoms will (at times) use your descendants as something to be threshed (to extract their full value from?).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהי בימי אמרפל, “It was in the days of Amrafel, etc.” Although Kedorleomer was the heavyweight among these Kings as we know from verses 4 and 9 in which he is always mentioned as the major figure, the other Kings being his subordinates, “the Kings who were with him,” in this instance Amrafel, is mentioned first, perhaps because he was senior in years,
      This war too may be viewed as מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, that events in which our forefathers were involved served as a preview of what would happen in the lives of their descendants. Four Kingdoms would emerge in human history, each one of whom would enslave Avraham’s descendants at one time or another. In the end, Avraham;s descendants would prevail over all of them and they would be forced to make full restitution of everything they had ever robbed the Jewish people of. In our chapter, the first King would correspond to the King of Babylon, Nevuchadnezzar, seeing that he was the King of Shinor, the same general area. King Aryoch would be a prototype of the Kingdom of the Medes who supplanted the Babylonians as the ruling Empire in Mesopotamia and Persia. Elassar may be the name of a city rather than the name of a King. It would describe an important city in that country. Eylom would describe what eventually would become Greece, whereas Tidal may be an early allusion to the eventual Rome. The word גויים reflects that the Roman Empire would consist of many nations all under a single Emperor.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   מלך בלע, i.e. a king who ruled only over a small city, a city boasting few inhabitants.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   עין משפט, according to <i>Rashi</i>, the name mentioned here is borrowed from the name of that place in later years. At that time Moses and Aaron would be judged in that location. (מי מריבה).     Nachmanides expresses his confusion about this commentary, referring to the קדש, which, he claims is identical with קדש ברנע that we know from Numbers 20,2 in the desert of Tzin, where Moses and Aaron failed to speak to the rock. [I will not bother to translate all he writes as it is clearly based on a misunderstanding of the location. Joshua 12,22 as well as 20,7 refers to locations known as Kedesh in the land of Canaan, There were numerous locations known by that name, so that there is nothing strange about <i>Rash’s</i> explanation, though his apparent conclusion that this was the location later on known as מי מריבה is geographically untenable.
  What may have bothered <i>Rashi</i> is the reference to שדה עמלקי, considering that also Amalek had not been born yet, seeing that he was a grandson of Esau. Ed.]     I believe (author speaking) that the reason the Torah speaks of שדה העמלקי is that there was an important person called Amalek in that region at the time, and that is the reason why Eliphaz, son of Esau, named his son (from the concubine Timnah after this original Amalek. (Genesis 36,12). Esau certainly ruled that region at one time after having separated from Yaakov.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ועמק השדים, “and the valley of Siddim, etc.” Some commentators derive the word שדים from סיד, lime, quoting ושדת אותם בשיד, as their proof, where it means to smear the stones with white lime. (Deut. 27,2) Accordingly, the region was full of depressions in which people dug for lime. The lime would be burned afterwards.
      <i>Rashi</i> quotes a <i>Midrash,</i> according to which, most people had refused to believe that Avraham had miraculously survived having been thrown into Nimrod’s furnace. When they witnessed the King of Sodom miraculously surviving falling into a lime pit, they changed their mind and retroactively gave credence to the miracle which had saved Avraham. Nachmanides is amazed at the very <i>Midrash,</i> as he cannot understand why people who failed to believe that a miracle had happened to Avraham should believe that a miracle had happened for the King of Sodom. Why would the G’d of heaven perform a miracle for an idolater such as the King of Sodom? On the contrary, if the King of Sodom could survive his fall into the lime pit, Avraham’s surviving the furnace was now far more plausible, but not in the framework of a miracle. The people who doubted the miracle of the furnace, ascribing it to magic, would most certainly also describe the King of Sodom’s escape as due to magic. It is more likely that seeing the King of Sodom’s escape made even the people who had believed that Avraham escaped by means of a miracle have second thoughts, and they now believed that Avraham had also benefited by magic.
      Another possibility could be that these commentators understand he words ויצא מלך סדום לקראתו in verse 17 to mean that the King of Sodom emerged from that lime pit at the time when Avraham passed by, i.e. that a miracle was performed for him at that time which resulted in his being saved so that he was able to honour Avraham and bless him, or that Avraham on his return from the successful battle wanted to restore their property to the five Kings, and when passing that neighbourhood, [seeing that his battle had been fought far to the north of there, Ed.] the miracle of the King of Sodom’s rescue then occurred by means of his intervention. When people observed that Avraham could perform such a miracle, they became convinced that a man such a Avraham had been saved miraculously from Nimrod’s furnace. It is quite possible that the King of Gomorrha had already died, so that we hear no more about him, or that he had fallen into a different pit, one that Avraham did not pass.
  
     ויפלו שמה, “they fell there.” Some commentators understand the word ויפלו as “they fell (dead)”, similar to וישכבו שמה, “they lay down there,” in the sense of lying down to sleep. (Joshua 2,1) Others understand it in the sense of על פני כל אחיו נפל, “he dwelled in full view of his brothers.” (Genesis 25,18) (compare Onkelos) Others understood the word ויפלו in the sense of “they hid,” i.e. deliberately lowered themselves into these pits.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויגד לאברם העברי, “he told the Hebrew Avraham.” Rabbi Joseph Karo explains this as meaning that the reason that Avraham is here described as the עברי, is to counter the answer what good it would do Lot that someone told Avraham of his plight, seeing there were only two Hebrews in the whole land, he and Avraham? By adding that this Hebrew had powerful allies in Oner, Eshkol and Mamre, the situation was not quite as hopeless. Mamre was a well known and powerful personage.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויחלק עליהם לילה ויכם וירדפם, “at night they spilt up and smote them and gave chase, etc.” The <i>Midrash</i> poses the obvious question that one does not chase after the dead, [the word ויכם being understood as “he killed them. Ed.] Therefore the word ויחלק is understood by the <i>Midrash</i> as meaning that the subject in the phrase is G’d, Who reserved part of this night for the miracle of the Exodus, Avraham’s descendants experiencing the killing of the firstborn Egyptians on the anniversary of that night. (<i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 43,3) The plain meaning of the phrase is that Avraham and his men pursued the fleeing armies by daylight as far as Dan. Seeing that after nightfall it was impossible to see in which direction the soldiers had fled, Avraham divided his men so as to continue to pursue every escape route. He kept smiting them as far north as Chovah, a place not far west from Damascus. The Torah describes this detail so that we will realize that this pursuit continued for many days, as the distance from Chevron (Eloney Mamre) is in excess of 300 km by air. Alternatively, the entire campaign was guided by a number of miracles.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ומלכי צדק מלך שלם, “and Malki Tzedek, King of Salem, etc.” he was the King of Jerusalem, as we know from Psalms 76,3 ויהי בשלם סוכו, “His hut (abode) was in Shalem.” According to tradition, the verse is a reference to G’d having His abode in Zion, Jerusalem. As soon as the gentiles had become aware that this was a chosen site, they realized that the Temple would one day be erected there.
  
     והוא כהן לאל עליון, “and he was a priest of the Supreme G’d.” This unusual sounding attribute, which almost could make one believe that we have more than one G’d, was selected by the Torah because most nations had priests who were subservient to their kings, who, in turn were addressed as אלוהים, just as the Torah refers to a judge as אלהים. In order to prevent us from thinking that Malki Tzedek was subservient to anyone but the Lord, the Creator of heaven and earth, the Torah chose to describe Him in these terms. Also, we learn from here that Avraham would not consider giving tithes to anyone who was not a servant of the Creator. Moreover, the place where Avraham gave the tithe to Malki Tzedek reputedly was the area where the Temple would be built in the future. Avraham’s descendants’ offspring would remove these tithes from the precincts of the Temple.
      <i>
      Rashi</i> derives from this verse that the land of Israel had originally been part of Shem’s heritage, but that the Canaanite had gradually deprived him of much of his heritage by force. He identifies Malki Tzedek as Noach’s son Shem.
      Nachmanides claims that this is not correct, and that the legal boundaries of the heritage of Canaan extended from Sidon in the north, comprising practically all of the land of Israel as we know it, whereas the heritage of Shem was located further to the east. If Noach had indeed allocated the surface of the globe to his several sons, then the return of the land of Israel to the descendants of Avraham, a descendant of Shem, the son of Noach, did not really represent a reallocation of lands which had once legally belonged to the descendants of Cham, the Canaanites. The Canaanites merely acted as safe-keepers of these lands until Avraham had sufficient descendants to populate them. According to our sages who say that Malki Tzedek was identical with Shem, the latter had been on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in order to serve the Lord there, and the local population had accepted him as their priest.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   קונה שמים וארץ, “owner of heaven and earth.” <i>Rashi</i> understands the word קונה here in the sense of עושה, i.e. “Maker of.” He (G’d) had acquired it by dint of having made it. Nachmanides further affirms <i>Rashi’s</i> understanding of the word קונה here, citing Deuteronomy 32,6 הלא הוא אביך קנך הוא עשך ויכוננך, “does He not own you being your father, having made you and established you firmly?” The roots קנה and עשהare used interchangeably in the Torah. Another prominent example of this usage of the word עשה in the sense off an acquisition is found in Genesis 12,5 where Avraham and Sarah are described as taking along ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן, where clearly the meaning of the word עשו is not “made,” but they acquired, in the sense that they had convinced the people in question to acknowledge the G’d in heaven, the Creator. Anything that belongs to a person is described as קנינו, “his property,” that which he has made his own. Our sages, when discussing the point at which a found object is acquired, declared that at the moment the finder picks it up it has become his, is his קנין.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויתן לו מעשר מכל, “He gave him a tithe from all of it.” According to Ibn Ezra Avraham gave these items to Malki Tzedek as tithe because the latter was a priest of Almighty G’d, and he did not want to hold on to anything which he felt was belonging to a higher power. Once he had given the tithe, the balance belonged to him rightfully, so that all the property which had once been that of the five Kings, was now returned to them by Avraham as a gift from him, not as something that was theirs legally. According to local law, spoils of war belonged to the victor, so that from that point of view Avraham did not need to return anything to the King of Sodom and his companions. This is also why the Torah reports this tithing before it reports what Avraham said to the King of Sodom concerning the oath he had sworn to the supreme Lord of heaven and earth (verse 23) that he would never allow the King of Sodom to take credit for having enriched himself (at his expense) If it had not been legal to do so, such an oath would be completely irrelevant! As soon as the King of Sodom became aware of the generosity and righteousness of Avraham, he also demanded return of his נפש, his human slaves. The entire sequence illustrates that Avraham and the King of Sodom walked all the way to the Jordan valley back together, during which time the King of Sodom had become better acquainted with Avraham. He had not even dared to ask to have the נפש restored to him until he had learned how generous a man Avraham really was. From a <i>halachic</i> point of you, i.e. that one does not give something to someone else unless it was <i>halachically</i> completely above board, Avraham had to tithe the loot so that when he would give the remainder (back) to the King of Sodom, he gave him something which was beyond question his own. 
      Some commentators feel that if the conversation about who the loot belonged to had occurred only now, what did Avraham’s soldiers eat in the meantime? To forestall such an embarrassing question, the Torah made certain that we know that prior to Avraham tithing everything to Malki Tzedek the latter had provided bread and wine for Avraham’s soldiers so that they did not have to partake of something that their master did not yet consider his to give. Still other commentators see in the words ויתן לו מעשר מכל, a veiled rebuke to Malki Tzedek who, instead of receiving a tithe, gave a tithe to Avraham as penance for having first blessed Avraham instead of first blessing the Lord. These commentators quote as their source the verse in Psalms 110,4 נשבע ה' ולא ינחם אתה כהן לעולם על דברתי מלכי צדק, “the Lord has sworn and will not relent, “You are a priest forever, a rightful king by My decree.” [also an oblique reference that G’d had killed the people slain in that war, not Avraham, who otherwise would have been disqualified as a priest. Alshich.]
    Rabbi Joseph Karo claims that Avraham did not give any tithe to Malki Tzedek, as it is conceptually impossible to give a tithe of something one had never owned, and Avraham had rejected the entire booty so that the King of Sodom could not boast of having made Avraham wealthy. He had already sworn an oath rejecting the entire loot. How could he have violated such an oath? Rabbi Karo also rejects the notion that Malki Tzedek gave a tithe to Avraham. What possible reason could Malki Tzedek have had to give a tithe to Avraham when he had come forth to welcome him with bread and wine? If he gave him a tithe, he would have sold this to him. According to Rabbi Karo this is what happened. The King of Sodom came forth to greet Avraham. When Malki Tzedek arrived he found them dividing the spoils, the King of Sodom asking for the living human beings, and offering Avraham the inert property (and the livestock, presumably). At that point, Avraham swore an oath that he would not accept anything by grace of the King of Sodom, the exception being the expenses he had incurred in feeding his men. Seeing that these men had fought a war in order to save the King of Sodom among others, they were entitled to at least that. Not only that, these men had also saved Sodom’s property, and as such were entitled to a reward. He, Avraham, was not entitled to waive the reward due to Oner, Eshkol, and Mamre. Malki Tzedek then gave Avraham a tithe of what he had received, something that Avraham accepted as being completely legal, as he first and foremost was entitled to that.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   הרימותי את ידי, “I have raised my right hand in an oath;” this is a standard formula used to describe an oath directed at G’d. In this case, Malki Tzedek was the representative of the Lord.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   אם מחוט, “if as little as some string;” he referred to the least valuable decorative string (used as jewelry) worn by girls in their hair. 
     ועד שרוך נעל, ”or even as insignificant an item as a shoelace;” in those days these were also decorative, used as a form of jewelry worn around the ankles.     The meaning of the apparent repetition אם אקח is: “may G’d punish me if I do this.”     Nachmanides views the entire sentence in the following light. Avraham considered the entire loot, now that he had tithed it, as if a gift given to G’d, something now out of bounds to him as anything which acquired <i>terumah</i> status is out of bounds to a commoner. 
  
  Verse 24
  
  בלעדי רק אשר אכלו הנערים, “Exclude me; except for what the servants have eaten;” but he did not allocate to these servants a share of the loot as he had done for Oner, Eshkol, and Mamre. Some commentators hold that these people helped themselves to their share, not waiting for Avraham to give them anything. It makes more sense to accept that Avraham gave to Oner, Eshkol, and Mamre, who were not present, and on whose behalf Avraham had no right to waive their claim, whereas the people with him had helped themselves to what they considered rightfully as theirs.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   היה דבר ה' אל אברם במחזה, “G’d’s word came to Avraham in a vision.” According to Nachmanides this wording indicates that Avraham had by now qualified to have a vision in daytime. Until now G’d had communicated with him only in his sleep at night.
  
     אנכי מגן לך, “I will act as your shield.” This promise was in response to two things Avraham was afraid of. 1) that the kings whom he had defeated would reorganize and attack him. 2) that he would die before having sired at least one child. G’d reassured him only about one of his fears.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   מה תתן לי, “what can You give me?” Seeing that You have saved me from the Kings but have not given me assurances regarding my having children. Although You promised me a great reward, what is the meaning of any reward as long as I do not have any children to whom I can pass on this reward? The thought that the “great reward” G’d had promised would refer to another dimension entirely, his life in the hereafter, did not occur to Avraham at that time. The reason it did not occur to him was that he had been convinced that anyone serving the Lord would have a share in the hereafter. He knew that if the lives of the righteous do not seem to be substantially different from that of the wicked, this is a condition which exists only in this terrestrial life. Furthermore, the wording הרבה מאד implies that the reward will not be marred by any punishment in respect of sins committed so that he will be “eating at both tables,” using the expression coined by our sages.
  
     ואנכי הולך ערירי, “seeing that I am going childless.” He meant that he would die leaving behind no biological heir. 
      According to Nachmanides he first complained about the meaninglessness of any reward in the absence of that of having children, which meant that he was wandering on the face of the earth without a permanent abode in a land which was not his birthplace. He described the only person that had constant social intercourse with him as being his servant Eliezer who himself was a stranger in those parts, having come there from Damascus, a long way off. After having said this he had added: “here You have not granted me seed as You have promised me,” so that my heir will be this Eliezer. At this stage Avraham did not believe that G’d’s promise meant that he would have children would materialise, so that G’d felt impelled to repeat in a clear manner that he would have physical heirs, genetically his, and that his descendants would be at home in this land, in fact inheriting all of it in due course. [any question about Avraham doubting G’d’s promise is predicated on the assumption that the Torah reports in chronological sequence, so that what we read here occurred after he left his father’s home on his journey to the land of Canaan as his new home. If this vision occurred before he had already moved to the land of Canaan, Avraham’s remonstrating with G’d is quite easy to understand. Ed.] At any rate, righteous people do not believe in themselves, always fearing that some sin on their part will invalidate promises made to them. Although, in the event, only half his lifetime had passed by this time, he considered himself as aging and past the stage where he could sire children easily. He feared a son born too close to his death. Some commentators are convinced that Avraham did not believe G’d’s promises now any more than he had on previous occasions, but that he was afraid that if such an heir would be born only near the end of his father’s life his servant would have to become his heir in practice, at least, until his son would be of age. 
      G’d reassured him on this score, saying that the son who would inherit Avraham would not only be his genetically, but would be adult and take over all that was his.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   והנה דבר ה', “and here came the word of the Lord, etc.” the word והנה here indicates that G’d’s response to Avraham’s concern was so immediate that He did not even wait until Avraham had voiced all his concerns.
  
  Verse 5
  
  וספור הכוכבים, “and count the stars, etc.” whereas in the previous prophecy Avraham’s offspring had been compared to the dust of the earth, now it was compared to the stars in the heaven. We are dealing with the relative positions of Esau and Yaakov, both descendants of Avraham, one compared to the earthly phenomena, i.e. dust, the other to celestial phenomena, i.e. stars. Whereas the stars are untouchable, beyond harm, dust is something people trample on.
  
  Verse 6
  
   והאמין ב' ויחשבה לו צדקה, “he had full faith in the Lord, who accounted it as a righteous deed on his part.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the meaning is that G’d accounted it as a righteous deed on the part of Avraham to trust Him completely.
      Nachmanides queries why trusting G’d should be something deemed especially meritorious. He considers the idea that someone does not trust a promise by G’d when the latter had revealed Himself to him as completely preposterous. Therefore, he considers that what is meant is that Avraham considered it as an outstanding act on G’d’s part to grant him such favour. He considered that G’d granting him physical offspring was an outstanding example of G’d’s kindness to him. Having heard the last words of G’d, Avraham was no longer worried that some sin of his at a future date might invalidate this promise.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   אני ה' אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים לתת לך את הארץ“I am the Lord Who has taken you out of Ur Casdim in order to give you this land as an inheritance.” According to Nachmanides G’d did not tell Avraham anything new concerning the gift of the land of Canaan in this line. What He meant to tell Avraham here was that already at the time when He saved him from the furnace of Nimrod it had been in order to eventually give him the land of Canaan as an inheritance for his children. The fact that G’d had not revealed this to Avraham previously, had made him think that perhaps this promise was conditional, just as he had thought that the promise of having physical offspring was a conditional promise, based on certain expectations of him in the future. This is also why he did not ask for a sign that this promise would be fulfilled, seeing that he thought it depended on additional factors, such as the Canaanites not becoming penitents, for instance, if the promise would come true. (compare Jeremiah 18,7רגע אדבר על גוי ועל ממלכה לנתוש, ולנתץ ולהאביד ושב הגוי ההוא מרעתו אשר דברתי עליו ונחמתי על הרעה אשר חשבתי לעשות לו., “At one moment I may decree that a nation or kingdom shall be uprooted and pulled down and destroyed, but if that nation against which I made the decree turns back from its wickedness I change My mind concerning the punishment I planned to bring upon it.”) Avraham wanted to be sure that here we are not dealing merely with an אות, a sign, but with a promise backed by a covenant, a promise not subject to being revoked due to the person or persons concerned not having proved worthy after the promise was made.”
      Other commentators see in the question במה אדע כי אירשנה “how will I know that I will indeed inherit it?” not a lack of faith, but an enquiry what steps he could take to ensure that there would not be a cause to revoke this promise. After all, Avraham dwelled amongst the very people whom G’d said He would displace in his favour, and it was no more than reasonable that if they should become aware of G’d’s promise to him they would make every effort to thwart the realization of this promise. One of the ways in which they would do this would be to pressure him to enter into a covenant with them asking him to forego realization of G’d’s promise to him. G’d told him that by delaying fulfillment of His promise until the fourth generation He could be sure that it would then qualify for fulfillment. These concerns by Avraham were entirely legitimate. Hence he asked for an assurance that the promise would indeed be ironclad.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   עגלה משולשת, some commentators believe that the meaning of the expression is “a fat calf,” similar to the expression עגלה שלישיה in Isaiah The requirement to select an especially fat specimen did not apply to the other species from which he was to offer a sacrifice. He took only a single animal from each species, and this was the reason G’d commanded him to cut them in half and place each half opposite its counterpart.
      Even according to <i>Rashi</i> who holds that he took 3 specimens of each species, he placed two whole animals opposite one another and divided only the third one in half, placing the halves opposite each other.
      The word עגלה משולשת is an allusion to the three basic categories of animal sacrifice, i.e. עולה, burnt offering, חטאת sin-offering, and שלמים, peace offering. The עולה and חטאת are basically similar different only in name.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויבתר אותם בתוך, “he halved them down the middle.” This was in order to conclude a covenant and to pass between them. The procedure also served as a symbol that in future all animal sacrifices would consist only of either of the species that were now in front of him. The only species of fowl acceptable as a sacrifice on the altar is the dove, either when a תר, or when a גוזל. [the difference has to do with the age of the bird. Ed.] The reason the term גוזל is used at all, is that only very young pigeons qualify as sacrifices, and we know from Deut. 32,11 כנשר יעיר קנו על גוזליו ירחף, “as the eagle that awakens its nest, hovers over her young, etc.” It is clear that גוזל is very young bird. [otherwise it would have already flown from the nest. Ed.] Avraham did not have to be told which species of bird would be acceptable to G’d as a sacrifice. It is also possible that he chose a pigeon as the species of bird in question without any direct or indirect prompting by G’d, and that the Torah respected Avraham’s choice and henceforth whenever one of his descendants brought a bird offering it had to be of that species. There is a hint here that all the animal sacrifices had to be cut up after being slaughtered, the burnt offering into its various parts, [although all of them were burned up. Ed.] and the peace offering in accordance with the parts that were allocated to the priest, rib-cage, right upper leg and cheek-bones, and the sin offering into its constituent parts so that the fat parts were separate for being burned up on the altar.
  
     ואת הצפור, “and the bird, etc,” a reference to the pigeon which is part of the generic term צפור.
  
     ואת הצפור לא בתר, “but he did not divide up the bird.” The expression בתר instead of הבדיל is a bit unusual, as in the legislation concerning bird offerings the Torah uses the expression לא יבדיל “he must not separate the head from the body completely.’ (Leviticus 1,17)
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  וירד העיט על הפגרים, “the vulture swooped down on the carcasses;” an allusion to the future when the nations of the world would endeavour to do away with the practice of animal sacrifice and the descendants of Avraham would chase them away and would uphold the practice. 
  
  Verse 12
  
   אימה חשכה גדולה, “a fear and great dread;” an allusion to the four exiles the Jewish people would experience during their history, as our sages explained in detail. 
       Nachmanides says that when G’d concluded the covenant with Avraham to give him the land of Canaan this was meant only as a gift, with the condition attached that the four Kingdoms would at one time or another enslave his descendants and would rule over their land. Such an enslavement was not an unalterable decree but was based on the Jewish people becoming disloyal to the Torah which they had accepted as their law book. Later on, G’d informed Avraham of another type of exile, the one in Egypt which would precede their becoming a nation and accepting the Torah as I have explained.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   כי גר יהיה זרעך בארץ לא להם ועבדום וענו אותם ארבע מאות שנה, “for your descendants will be strangers in a land which is not theirs, and during that period they (the owners) will enslave them and oppress them for four hundred years.” Nachmanides explains our verse as being truncated, the meaning being that while the offspring of Avraham would be strangers in a foreign land for 400 years, the nature and duration of their enslavement and oppression not having been defined.
      Ibn Ezra understands our verse as a prophecy describing the length of the enslavement but not the length of the status as exiles.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   וגם את הגוי אשר יעבודו דן אנכי, “but I will also judge the nation to whom they will be enslaved;” according to <i>Rashi</i> this prophecy includes the four exiles of the Jewish people starting with the destruction of the first Temple.
      Nachmanides explains the meaning of our verse as being: “just as I judged your descendants by decreeing exile and bondage for them for having sinned, I will also judge the nation which enslaved them for the violence they have done to this people.
      Personally, I believe that the correct interpretation of the word וגם “and also,” in our verse is: “although I decreed that your descendants would be exiles in a land not their own, I will also judge and punish the nation that has enslaved them and not exonerate them seeing that by what they did they had carried out My decree.” The reason why such treatment is not unfair has already been described in Zecharyah 1,14-16: “Thus said the Lord of Hosts: I am very jealous for Jerusalem-for Zion- and I am very angry with those nations that are at ease; for I was only angry a little, but they overdid the punishment. Assuredly, thus said the Lord, I graciously return to Jerusalem.” What G’d predicted He would do to the destroyers of Jerusalem, He did to Egypt at the end of the exile of the Jewish people in that land. This is precisely what caused Yitro to convert and to say כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם, “for He fitted the punishment to the crime, punishing them in the manner they had brutalised the Jewish people,” (by drowning them. Exodus 18,11)
      Maimonides (<i>Hilchot Teshuvah</i> chapter<i> 6)</i> writes that the reason why G’d punished the Egyptians and the nations who had oppressed the Jews throughout the centuries is that not any specific Egyptian or Babylonian or Roman had been instructed by G’d to carry out His decree against the Jews. As a result, not one of them had the right to take it upon himself to be G’d’s ”executioner.”
      Nachmanides queries Maimonides’ approach writing that if G’d had appointed a particular person or nation to be His “executioner” in this regard, surely if someone had preceded another person, carrying out G’d’s expressed will, not only would he not have been punished for doing so, but he would have been lauded, been given a reward! 
      I therefore conclude that my own reason was the correct one, namely that they used excess zeal in carrying out G’d’s decree, thereby making it their own. This is the reason Nevuchadnezzar was so severely punished although the prophet Jeremiah had foretold that it would be he who would carry out G’d’s decree. Let us not forget that the Israelites came to Egypt at the express invitation of Pharaoh and that the Egyptians by themselves did not have the slightest excuse for making slaves out of them. How could they ever have claimed to have done so at the behest of G’d? If G’d even punished Nevuchadnezzar who did carry out a specific punishment G’d had decreed to be carried out by him, (though he had not been instructed by G’d directly to do so) then the reason for his punishment must lie in the excess cruelty he applied in carrying out G’d’s purpose. The same applies to individuals who, by G’s judgment, are sentenced to be killed by man during the new year. The killer will not be able to claim exoneration arguing that the individual in question was already legally dead as G’d had decreed that he die a violent death during that year. Seeing that G’d had not instructed the killer to be His messenger, His executioner, he will be considered a simple murderer and be dealt with on that basis. The only exception was Yehu who had been instructed by the prophet, in the name of G’d, to kill the family of Achav (Kings II 10,24)
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ואתה תבא אל אבותיך בשלום, “but you will die and join your fathers in peace (before all this will happen.)” <i>Rashi</i> says that the meaning is that Avraham will not experience fulfillment of the prophecy or the decree in his lifetime. Nachmanides disagrees, seeing that Avraham has been told specifically that you will be a stranger,” a condition which will be fulfilled the moment Yitzchok was born. The Torah even refers to the fact that when he traveled to the land of the Philistines, ויגר אברהם בארץ פלשתים ימים רבים “Avraham sojourned (was an alien) in the land of the Philistines for many years.” (21,34) It follows that he himself already experienced part of the decree becoming fulfilled. Accordingly, the meaning of our verse is that he would join his forefathers immediately after death without having to experience punishment for any sins committed and not yet forgiven.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  ודור רביעי ישובו הנה, “but the fourth generation will return to here.” <i>Rashi</i> understands this to mean that after having been in Egypt for three generations the descendants of Avrham would return to the Holy Land. This was true, as when you consider that Yaakov already went into exile in Egypt and consider Yehudah-Peretz-Chetzron-Calev as his descendants in a straight line, Calev did in fact re-enter the land of Canaan and settled there. The problem with this calculation is that Chetzron in common with Yaakov, had traveled from Canaan to the land of Egypt. (Genesis 46,12) Seeing that this is so there were only 2 generations in Egypt. If being an alien in other countries would count, they actually had been in exile for 7 generations according to the calculation. Actually, there is no problem at all. The reason that the calculation begins with Yaakov, although some of his offspring also were exiled with him, is because he was the head of the clan.
      One can also explain the meaning of the words “the fourth generation,” as starting from the people who had been born already in Egypt, i.e. Kehot, son of Levi. He was followed by his son Amram, who was the father of Aaron, who was the father of Eleazar who entered the Holy Land as the High Priest.
      According to Nachmanides, the “fourth generation” mentioned in our verse, refers to the fourth generation of the Emorite, whose sin by that time will have accumulated to a degree which exceeds G’d’s patience and they will be ripe for retribution. This will enable the Jewish people to take over these lands at that time. If they were to repent at that time it would be too late for G’d to change His decree. The reason G’d mentions the “Emorite” instead of “the Canaanite,” was that the Emorite was by far the most powerful and numerous of the Canaanite tribes.
      There are some commentators who claim that father-son and grandson are all considered as one generation, and that we have proof of that from (?) so that three generations are in reality one generation (due to their lives overlapping somewhat). This would mean in our case that Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov are considered as one generation, Yehudah, Peretz and Chetzron as the second generation, followed by Ram, Aminadav, and Nachshon as the third generation. Salmon, who was the fourth generation, belonged to the people who entered the Holy Land.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ביום ההוא כרת ה' את אברהם ברית לאמור, וגו, “on that day G’d entered into a covenant with Avraham, saying, etc.'” Nachmanides draws attention to the fact that G’d promised the land of Canaan to Avraham many times over. He proceeds to show that all these repetitions were necessary within the context in which they appear.
      Originally, (12,7) He told Avraham: “I will give the land to your descendants,” without enlarging on the nature and extent of the gift. At that time Avraham walked in the land as far as Shechem, a place then called Elon Moreh. Afterwards, when his merits had increased, (by his activities in the land) He added “raise your eyes and look northward, southward, eastward and westward.” At that time G’d specified that the land would include areas well beyond what he could see in any direction (13,14). As far as G’d saying to Avraham אשר אתה רואה בעיניך, “which you behold with your eyes,” the meaning is not that he would only inherit what he could see with his physical eyes, but this is a spiritual concept referring to the mind’s eye, or that G’d expanded Avraham’s sense of sight at that time so that he could see the whole extent of the land of Israel, just as was shown to Moses before his death. G’d added a special blessing by saying that his descendants would be as numerous as the dust of the earth, and that the gift would remain his descendants’ forever. The third time G’d delineated the borders of the land G’d would give to his descendants (17,5) He also mentioned all the ten Canaanite tribes whose lands would eventually become part of the greater land of Israel. He also concluded the covenant with Avraham as a sign that the promise would not be invalidated due to any sin that might be committed before it had been fulfilled. G’d added further, that in due course He would be the exclusive G’d of Avraham’s descendants. The first time the promise was couched in the future tense, i.e.אתננה , “I will give it,” as He had not yet begun to fulfill any part of the promise. The same was still true on the second occasion G’d promised the land to Avraham’s children who did not exist yet. The covenants both concerning the land and the circumcision, make it plain that even if at some time the conditions of the covenant are broken, this will remain a temporary condition and will not result in annulment of the validity of the terms of the covenants.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   וישמע אברהם לקול שרי, “Avraham agreed with Sarai’s suggestion.” The Torah does not simply write ויעש כן that Avraham acted in consonance with Sarai’s request, but is writes that Avraham, although very desirous of siring children, would not marry another woman unless Sarai had first approved it, or, as in this case, even suggested it. 
      Even now, in fulfilling Sarai’s suggestion, he did not do so primarily to satisfy his own yearning, but to afford Sarai the satisfaction of being able to raise a child vicariously even though it had been born by her maidservant. It also possible, as our sages have remarked, that due to Sarai’s generosity in worrying that her husband should father a child, although not hers, she herself would be granted the satisfaction to have a child of her own. Sarai used the term לאישה, “as a wife,” to describe the union between Hagar and Avraham, in order to indicate that she did not want to raise a child who was the issue of a concubine. The Torah describes all these details to show the concern of Sarai for Avraham’s social standing.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   מקץ עשר שנים לשבת אברם בארץ כנען, “at the end of 10 years since Avraham had taken up residence in the land of Canaan.” <i>Rashi</i> writes that this teaches us that the years that Avraham and Sarai lived outside the land of Canaan are not relevant to the rule that when a woman fails to conceive after 10 years of marriage, her husband may or should divorce her and marry someone else. The reason that those years did not count was that while in Charan, G’d had not yet promised Avraham that He would make him into a great nation.
      Nachmanides writes that only in the case of Avraham did those years that he was in Charan or even before not count. For ordinary individuals the rule to divorce a wife after 10 years of marriage without children does apply in the Diaspora also. He continues that the commentators have made additional errors in writing on this subject when they said that the whole <i>halachah</i> requiring a husband to divorce a wife who fails to bear children for ten years does not apply outside the Holy Land. The correct interpretation of what is written on the subject is that if a childless married couple have moved to Israel they are given another ten years before the rule that the husband in order to fulfill the commandment to be fruitful has to either divorce his barren wife or marry another wife in addition. It is hoped that the merit of living in the Holy Land will result in the couple being blessed with children.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  ותענה שרי, “Sarai made life miserable for her.” Both our matriarch Sarah and her husband were guilty of a sin here. Avraham’s sin was that he did not interfere on behalf of Hagar. As a result, G’d listened to her complaints and granted her a son, whose descendants in turn would oppress the descendants of Avraham and Sarah to this day.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   שובי אל גברתך והתענו תחת ידיה, “go back to your mistress and submit to her oppression” The angel hinted to her that she would not regain her status as a free woman, and that the descendants of Sarai would rule over her descendants into the distant future.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   וקראת שמו ישמעאל, “you are to call him Yishmael.” Avraham had not heard of this revelation of an angel to Hagar, but he still named him thus (on his own).” Nachmanides explains that the angel commanded Hagar to call the boy Yishmael. Hagar, however, was afraid to arrogate to herself the right to name the son of her master, so that she revealed to him that she had been given such instructions from the angel.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   פרא אדם, “a man of the wild.” According to <i>Rashi</i> Yishmael would love the desert to hunt in.
  
     ידו בכול, “his hand will be against everyone;” a robber, a highwayman.
  
     ויד כל בו, “and everyone’s hand will be against him.” They would hate him and provoke strife with him.
      Nachmanides writes that in the expression פרא אדם the word פרא is in the construct mode to the word אדם, meaning that he will be more like a mule than a human being in character. He will constantly look for someone or something to attack and destroy, whereas people, as a result, would constantly be looking for him to neutralize him. The prediction of the angel was to characterize not so much Yishmael himself but the descendants, the Muslim nations and their method of spreading their religion with the fire and the sword.
      Ibn Ezra understands the word פרא as an alternate for the word חפשי, “free,” in the sense of “unable to submit to anyone’s authority.” The words ועל פני כל אחיו ישכון, Ibn Ezra understands to mean that Yishmael will dwell wherever his brothers, the sons of Keturah will dwell.
      Some commentators understand the term פרא אדם to mean that Yishamel will be a merchant forever in search of merchandise to buy or sell. Indeed we find that most of the Ishmaelites during the period of Yaakov already engaged in long distance trade, traveling in caravans with camels etc. (compare Genesis 37,25-27).
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   הגם הלום ראיתי, “even here I have seen (a divine vision)“ Rabbi Joseph Kimchi explains this verse as meaning that “He who sees me is the One Who has appeared to me,” for she was unaware that it was an angel. When the angel took leave of her she did no longer see him, as people who look at departing human beings until they are out of sight normally do. In commenting on this strange phenomenon she said “the one who sees me,” meaning “although I cannot see him.” She did not realize that this was a divine apparition, and that is why she said: “I have even seen him here.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   א-ל שדי, “the G’d Shaddai.” The plain meaning is: “a powerful deity.” <i>Rashi</i> interprets the word שדי, as meaning that G’d proclaims Himself as sufficient, די, for any human being, i.e. His supervision, His Providence of the human being’s fate is adequate for anyone. They do not require additional patrons.
      Ibn Ezra, quoting Shemuel Hanaggid, derives the word שדי from שודד, meaning “victorious, conquering the heavens.”
  
     התהלך לפני והיה תמים, “serve Me and become perfect.” <i>Rashi</i> understands the words היה תמים as a call to Avraham to successfully pass all the tests G’d would subject him to.
      Ibn Ezra understands these words as a warning that Avraham should not question G’d’s commands by asking why these tasks are required of him.
      Nachmanides explains the word התהלך as similar to the commandment to the Jewish people in Deut. 13,5 אחרי ה' אלוקיך תלכו, i.e. “follow all the instructions of the Lord your G’d.” (after you have been instructed about them) The command התהלך לפני goes beyond this and asks Avraham to anticipate G’d’s commandments and to act in accordance with his understanding of what G’d would later on command him. [it is difficult to imagine a greater compliment to Avraham than our verse here. Ed.]
  
     והיה תמים, “and become perfect (in being in step with the wavelength of the Creator)” We find a similar directive addressed to the whole Jewish nation, i.e. each individual separately, in Deut. 18,13 תמים תהיה עם ה' אלוקיך. In that instance, the directive follows the injunction not to employ sorcerers, magicians, etc., but to have perfect, exclusive faith in the Lord, not to consult astrologers about what your future holds in store for you. G’d intimates to Avraham here, and to the people as a whole in Deuteronomy, that He alone holds the reins of our fate in His capable hands. He is capable and willing to do good for us even, if according to our horoscope, we appear to face insurmountable obstacles. This is what our sages meant when they interpreted the words (15,5) ויוצא אותו החוצה, “He took him outside,” to mean that He showed Avraham that there is a historical dimension beyond that indicated by astrology, i.e. הוציא אותו מהאצטגנינות שלו.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויפול אברם על פניו, “Avraham prostrated himself before the Lord.” This was in order to show his readiness to receive prophetic communication from G’d.. In this instance, the commandment to circumcise himself was the physical part of fulfilling the commandment to become “perfect,” unblemished. As soon as he had received the commandment of circumcision he received the prophecy that Sarai, renamed Sarah, would bear him a son. (verses 16, and again 19) Avraham fell on his face once more preparatory to his prayer that Ishmael should be a son worthy of his father. Seeing that nothing is beyond G’d’s power, אלוקי הרוחות, “the Lord of all spirits,” he thought it appropriate to offer this prayer on behalf of Ishmael [who must have displayed signs of not following in his father’s footsteps already at that time. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   אני הנה בריתי אתך, “as far as I am concerned, here is My covenant with you.” The covenant G’d refers to here is the covenant of the circumcision. G’d instructed him to perform the sign of the covenant before Sarah would conceive, so that the baby born from her would also have been conceived in a state of purity and holiness. 
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ונתתיך לגויים, “I shall make you into nations;” <i>Rashi</i> believes that the plural “nations” refers to the Jewish people on the one hand and to Edom (Rome) on the other. Seeing that Yishmael had already been born, <i>Rashi</i> does not consider this promise/prophecy as applying to the Arab nation.
      Nachmanides considers <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary as flawed, seeing that it is most unlikely that at the time when G’d was preoccupied with the circumcision He should prophesy to Avraham concerning an as yet unborn Esau. After all, Avraham was neither in charge of Esau nor did the duty to circumcise him devolve upon him instead of upon his father Yitzchok (if and when).
      .
       According to Nachmanides both Yishmael and Esau’s descendants are called גויים, whereas the Jewish people are referred to as עם. He quotes Deut. 33,3 אף חובב עמים as proof. There are other verses of the same kind. [however, there are numerous occasions when the Jewish people are referred to as גוי, as in Exodus 33,13, Joshua 3,17, Genesis 25,23, Deut. 4,38 and numerous others. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   וערל זכר, and an uncircumcised male, etc.” according to <i>Rashi</i> this choice of words was chosen to teach us on which organ the act of circumcision has to be performed.
      According to Ibn Ezra, the part of the body on which circumcision would be performed had been well known, What was not known was the concept of ערלת הלב an uncircumcised heart and lip, as well as the uncircumcised ear. When such terms occur, the word ערלה always is in the construct mode, i.e. ערלת, “the uncircumcised state of, etc.” There was therefore no room for misunderstanding where this circumcision was to be performed. 
      Nachmanides writes that here the Torah explains that the spot where the circumcision is to be performed is on the organ which separates man from woman. According to his view, the word בשר in the expression בשר ערלתכם, clearly relates to “flesh used as a cover,” as distinct from an organ, i.e. an appendage of a fleshy nature covering the organ itself. As there is no other such in the human being, the meaning is clear. You are circumcised when this cover has been removed from the organ in question.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויצחק, “he rejoiced, laughed internally.” Onkelos renders this word as וחדי, “he rejoiced.” He reacted like someone who has been told of an unexpected fortuitous event, something that qualifies for his shouting for joy.
  
     הלבן מאה שנה ייולד, “will a child be born to a hundred year old father?” Avraham expressed amazement, but not at the fact that a hundred year old man could sire children. He himself had at least 6 children when much older, and other males fathered children at such an age. His amazement concerned the fact that he would sire a child from a woman with whom he had lived as man and wife for so many decades without having succeeded to impregnate her with his semen. His amazement was reinforced further since he knew that Sarah at 90 had long ago ceased to menstruate.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   לו ישמעאל יחיה לפניך, “if only Ishmael would live in awe of You.” According to Nachmanides what Avraham meant was that if Ishmael would live and not die prematurely. He had been under the impression up until now that seeing G’d had promised him זרע, seed, in the singular, that he would only have one child. Now that G’d promised him a son by Sarah, he was afraid that this might imply that Ishmael would die. He therefore said to G’d that he wished to accept a blessing of a son by Sarah only if it did not mean that Ishmael would die.
      <i>Rashi</i> views the word לפניך as “in awe of G’d.” Avraham prayed that Ishmael would be a G’d-fearing individual. This interpretation is not tenable, as history shows that contrary to G’d’s promise “I have accepted your prayer concerning Ishmael,” the latter did not live the life of a G’d fearing individual. The meaning of Avraham’s prayer concerning Ishmael must therefore be that his future would be ongoing, that the nation he would found would not die out.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   אבל שרה אשתך, “but your wife Sarah, etc.” The word אבל in this instance means the same as the word everywhere else, i.e. We find a parallel for this in Kings II 4,14 אבל בן אי לו, “only (except) she has no son.”
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   בעצם היום הזה, “on this very day.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the meaning of בעצם היום הזה is: “on the day Avraham completed his 99th year He circumcised himself.” Nachmanides already queried this commentary, saying that seeing we accept the view of Rabbi Eliezer according to which the patriarchs were all born in the month of Tishrey, and this circumcision took place on Passover (the future date of Passover). In that case, <i>Rash’is</i> explanation would mean that the circumcision took place on what was going to be Passover.
      Therefore, Nachmanides understands the wordsבעצם היום הזה to mean that Avraham carried out the command on the same day it was issued. All male members of Avraham’s household were circumcised on that day, including his son Ishmael. The Torah tells us this in detail in order to compliment Avraham on the prompt execution of G’d’s command. Avraham circumcised himself last, as otherwise he would not have had the strength to circumcise his entire household which numbered probably more than a hundred, a considerable portion of whom were grown men.
      According to tradition Avraham observed all the commandments of the Torah, having divined G’d’s intent through his intellect. The question therefore is why he did not observe the rite of circumcision already many years ago, seeing that he knew that this would please the Lord? Some sages answer that this tradition that attributes to Avraham the knowledge of all the commandments which would be featured in the Torah, came to him only after he had circumcised himself. He advanced spiritually by giant steps as a result of having circumcised himself.
      This answer does not appear as likely, as if Avraham was intellectually mature enough at the age of three to recognize that there was a Creator who had created the entire universe, surely he had developed further intellectually in the 96 years intervening between then and the time when he circumcised himself. The more likely reason is that he wanted to wait until he was commanded to do so, as we have a rule that if one performs a commandment because it had been commanded by G’d, this is morally/ethically a higher ranking deed than doing the same thing without having been commanded. In the case of all other commandments Avraham knew that he would be able to perform the same commandment also after he would be commanded to do so. Removal of one’s foreskin is something irreversible, and will not be possible to be repeated again. Hence in this case Avraham waited until G’d issued His command.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וירא אליו ה', “The Lord appeared to him, etc.” According to<i> Rashi,</i> G’d’s purpose in appearing to Avraham at that time was in the nature of a get well visit one makes to the sick. It was the third day after his circumcision, the most painful day. <i>Rashi</i> arrived at that commentary by noting that the Torah does not report G’d as engaging Avraham in a conversation, or giving him any verbal instructions. G’d simply wanted to honour Avraham and wish him well.
      Nachmanides writes that he does not feel comfortable with <i>Rashi’s</i> explanation, but that G’d wanted to demonstrate His appreciation of what Avraham had done and His visit was a kind of reward for this. The phenomenon is similar to what is described by Psalms 17,15 אני בצדק אחזה פניך אשבעה בהקיץ תמונתך, “Then, I, justified, will behold Your face; I am filled with the vision of You.” Yaakov experienced something similar upon his return to the land of Canaan from Lavan when the “angels of G’d came to meet and welcome him.” (Genesis 32,2) In that instance the angels are also not reported as delivering a verbal message to Yaakov. As a result of the very absence of such communication, Yaakov realized that his conduct had been approved by G’d. In this case too, Avraham’s conduct had been approved. Some commentators feel that G’d’s major purpose had been to tell Avraham about what He was going to do to Sodom, but that the arrival of the three angels interrupted the conversation.
  
     באלוני ממרא, ”in the grove belonging to Mamre.” This is not to be understood as a reference to the location per se, but the reason Mamre is mentioned here in connection with where G’d appeared to Avraham is that Avraham was granted this revelation in this location on account of having accepted the advice of Mamre to proceed with the circumcision. Other commentators ask whether Avraham really needed advice from Mamre on the subject of fulfilling a commandment by the Lord or not. They answer that the consultation did not concern if Avraham was to circumcise himself, but on which organ he was to perform this circumcision. This does not make sense to me either, as it is foolish to think that Avraham could not correctly interpret the words וערל זכר אשר לא ימול את בשר ערלתו ונכרתה הנפש ההיא, as referring to the male organ of the person referred to. Some commentators believe that seeing that so many other people were circumcised by him at the same time, Avraham wanted the stamp of approval on what he had done by a prominent person in that society. If he could not secure their approval, he in turn might lose his standing in that society.
      Maimonides, addressing the subject, writes that the whole paragraph has to be viewed as being written in the format known as כלל ופרט, a general instruction first, followed by detailed instructions later. The Torah first reports that Avraham was granted a revelation, without specifying the nature of this revelation. The Torah then proceeds that this revelation which had first consisted only of his raising his eyes and seeing the three men approach, afterwards turned out to have been the introduction to a number of messages, such as when Sarah would give birth and that Sodom would be destroyed. According to Maimonides, these three men were not real, but were part of Avraham’s visions on that occasion. [if so, debating Sarah’s denials is an exercise in futility. Ed.]
      Nachmanides contradicts Maimonides’ approach, listing a number of difficulties with such an exegesis. Among other points, he cites the fact that if Avraham is described on numerous occasions when he had visions as prostrating himself in awe of the spectacle occurring, then clearly these were not nocturnal visions in a dream but actual happenings. In this case Avraham was fully awake. He claims that any human being experiencing the appearance of an angel and being addressed by him, is not experiencing prophecy but an overwhelming revelation of divine forces. [the interested reader is referred to Rabbi Chavell’s translation of Nachmanides’ commentary for further study of the subject. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   אל נא תעבור, “please do not just pass by.” According to the commentators who perceive this plea of Avraham as being addressed to divine beings, holy ones, i.e. Avraham asking G’d to wait until he had had finished attending to something he had already started, it is difficult, seeing that we know already that he had run to meet these messengers. What reason would he have to ask G’d to wait, seeing he had already welcomed G’d’s messengers? We would have to answer that he had experienced G’d’s presence departing the moment he had given his attention to the three men (angels) he had seen. When he turned in the direction of his vision again, G’d’s presence returned, and he asked G’d to wait until he had fulfilled his obligation of hosting his guests.
  
     אל נא תעבור מעל עבדך, “do not pass your servant by.” He addressed these words to the senior one among them, including his two companions in his remarks. Alternatively, he addressed each one of these individuals separately, asking them to stop by.
      Some commentators believe that he only needed to make this request from one of them, as the other two had come to deliver a message to him (as opposed to dealing with the Sodomites.) They therefore had to stop by his house to deliver their messages.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   יוקח נא מעט מים ורחצו רגליכם, ”let a little water be brought so that you can wash your feet.” He recognized from their appearance that they were travelers passing by and had no intention to spend the night with him. This is why he only invited them for lunch and for enjoying the shade of the tree. After that, he was willing to allow them to continue on their journey without detaining them further.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   כן, תעשה כאשר דברת, ”O.K. you may do as you have suggested.” In other words, they agreed to accept just a piece of bread and to rest up under the tree’s shade. They meant that he should not bring them into his house.
      Some commentators understand the words כן תעשה כאשר דברת as an approval and warning to always practice hospitality in this fashion. Still another commentary sees in these words an allusion to the fact that they were in fact angels, and the word תעשה marks the difference between him and them, i.e. you may eat, we, being angels, do not eat.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   קמח סלת, “flour, the finest.” Coarse flour {made into a sticky mass as the grain it is made from is underdeveloped. The thin, wafer like mass, is used to absorb rising impurities of what is boiling in the pots used by the cooks in the kitchen. Although this is the way it is described in the <i>Mishnah Pessachim</i> 42, [I am not sure how it applies to baked goods such as cake, unless it is placed under the cake to prevent the underside from being burned by the oven. Ed.] Although it was Passover, there was no danger of it becoming leavened, as the heat would prevent this from happening. 
      According to Nachmanides the reason Avraham ordered Sarah to use such a huge quantity of flour for just three men (equivalent of 432 eggs), is that Avraham may have invited numerous dignitaries to share this meal with them.
      According to the plain meaning, three measures of coarse flour yield 1 measure of fine flour after it has been sieved in a fine-meshed sieve.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ואל הבקר רץ אברהם, “meanwhile Avraham had run to the cattle (pens)” From the triple description בקר (1), רך (2) וטוב,(3), we learn that he took 3 calves and served each guest a whole tongue with mustard. Why would he serve them 3 tongues? These could be prepared in a hurry, and Avraham did not want to delay his guests for longer than necessary.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויקח חמאה וחלב, “he took butter and milk;” according to our sages the bread was never served, as Sarah had begun menstruating suddenly, so that she had become ritually impure while doing her chores in the kitchen. According to the plain meaning of the text, there was no need to mention the basic ingredients of the meal, the bread. Alternately, the reason the individual components of the meal are listed, is to show the correct order in which to serve such course during a meal.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויאמרו אליו איה שרה אשתך?, They said to him: “where is your wife Sarah?” Although it is not considered proper manners to enquire after the welfare of someone else’s wife even from her own husband, this was an exceptional situation as they did not really enquire after her well being but they only asked where she was at that time.
      The letters <i>aleph, yud</i> and <i>vav</i> in the wordאליו have a dot above them, whereas the letter <i>lamed</i> does not have such a dot. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar (<i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 48,15) whenever you encounter more undotted letters in a word than dotted ones, you interpret the word according to the normal spelling. When there are more dotted than undotted letters in the word, we are guided by the dotted letters. In this instance, more letters are dotted than undotted.. According to Rabbi Azaryah, just as the angels asked Avraham where his wife was, they asked Sarah where Avraham was, i.e. איו ”where is he?” The reason is that it would have sufficed to write: “they said ויאמרו איה שרה אשתך, “where is your wife Sarah,” and the reader would have known that they were speaking to Avraham. The extra word אליו alerts us to the fact that they also spoke to someone else. The question raised against this interpretation is that if so it would have sufficed to put a dot only on the letter <i>lamed</i> in the word אליו, as we would then have concentrated on the undotted letters איו and we would have arrived at precisely the same result, saving the dots on two letters. The answer given to this objection is that seeing the letter <i>lamed</i> needed a dot in any case on account of the tone sign, the meaning of the dot would not have been clear.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   שוב אשוב אליך כעת חיה, “I will surely return to you, at the same time next year;” seeing that he was an angel he knew that he would still be alive at this time in the following year, he could afford to make such a confident-sounding statement. Elisha, though also a prophet, but a human being, did not know if he would be alive a year from a certain day. When he promised the woman in Shunem that she would embrace a son a year from the date he promised her this, did not include himself in his description of the event, and only said כעת חיה את חובקת בן, “at this time year you will embrace a son.” (Kings II 4,16). In spite of all this, there is no written record in the Torah that this angel visited Avraham and Sarah in the year following this conversation. Nachmanides suggests, that the words וה' פקד את שרה וגו', “G’d remembered Sarah as He had said,” in 21,1 includes what the angel had said here.
      Personally, I believe that the true explanation is that the angel was not referring to himself at all, when he said this, but was announcing that at the turn of the year, i.e. at <i>Rosh Hashanah,</i> Sarah would have a son. This would be exactly in line with what Avraham had been told למועד הזה בשנה האחרת “at this time of year next year” (17,21)
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   חדל להיות לשרה אורח כנשים, “Sarah had long stopped menstruating.” Here the Torah refers to the process of menstruation as אורח כנשים, whereas in connection with Rachel the Torah uses the term דרך נשים. The reason is that Rachel being in her prime at the time, experienced the flow of menstrual blood coming directly from her ovaries, whereas in the case of aged Sarah the blood had to find other conduits until it could exit from her body.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ותצחק שרה, “Sarah laughed (internally),” This was not like the joyful laughter the Torah reports Avraham as breaking out into in 17,17 upon being told something similar by G’d. Avraham rejoiced because he believed the message, whereas Sarah found the message as beyond belief. The reason that she did not match her husband in believing in this instance was that whereas he had received the message from G’d directly, she had only heard it from a man dressed like an Arab. [even though she laughed soundlessly, so as not to embarrass the messenger. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ואני זקנתי, “seeing that I have become old.” From this verse we know that it is permissible to utter a white lie if it helps preserve harmonious relations between husband and wife. Actually, Sarah had not described herself as too old, but her husband. The angel changed what she had said in a way that would not embarrass Avraham or insult him.
      Nachmanides holds that the angel had not changed anything at all, as Sarah attributed the unlikelihood of the message becoming true to her state, as she had added that she had long ago stopped menstruating and therefore was unable to conceive. She had added however, that she had suddenly experienced a rejuvenation, אחרי בלותי היתה לי עדנה, something she did not want to reveal to the messenger. Her error was in not saying (or thinking, rather) “I and my husband are too old.” Sarah laughed at both parts of the message. Some commentators believe that Sarah’s laughter was directed only at her husband; seeing that she had experienced rejuvenation, she knew that as far as she was concerned conception had become possible. However, she was not aware of anything similar having happened to her husband.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   כעת חיה, according to <i>Rashi:</i> ”at this time next year.” This happened on Passover (the date when Passover would occur in the future) Yitzchok, as we know, was born in the following year. <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary poses a problem, as, according to our tradition, (<i>Rosh Hashanah 11)</i> that these angels arrived on <i>Sukkot</i> if they promised that Yitzchok would be born by the next מועד, holiday, this would be Passover, and the baby would be 3 months premature. According to Rabbi Eliezer there that Yitzchok was born on <i>Rosh Hahanah</i> there are other difficulties, such as that if Avraham and Yaakov had both been born in <i>Tishrey,</i> and he was told about the circumcision while 99 years of age, he was 99 at the time he circumcised himself. Avraham would still have been 99 years old at the time he circumcised Yitzchok, something which contradicts Genesis
      Furthermore, there is another difficulty with a statement on folio 11 in <i>Rosh Hashanah,</i> where reference is made to the angel having told Sarah that the child would be born in the following year, based on the words למועד אשוב אליך plus the prediction in It is not possible that these words, i.e. בשנה האחרת, were said to Avraham on Passover of his 99th year when he was told about the forthcoming need to circumcise himself, whereas the actual circumcision did not occur until six months later in Tishrey, and that only then was he told the words that Yitzchok would be born at the first festival (מועד) thereafter which would then have occurred on the following Passover when Yitzchok would indeed be born. We have a tradition that Avraham carried out the commandment to circumcise himself immediately, and certainly did not let 6 or 7 months elapse before doing what G’d had told him to do. The Torah itself testifies that he circumcised himself on the day he had received the commandment, by describing the date as בעצם היום, on the day he was so commanded (17,26).
      The answer given to all these questions is by Rabbi Shimon ben Avraham. He explains that the angels actually visited Avraham on two separate occasions. The first time they visited him in <i>Nissan</i> and they told him they would return again כעת חיה, The second time they visited him in <i>Tishrey</i> and said to him that in another year, at the same season, Sarah would have a son. It was on the second occasion that Sarah laughed (to herself) seeing that 6 months had already passed since these same men’s first visit, and nothing had changed in her or her husband’s condition. Even with the explanation of Rabbi Shimon ben Avraham there remains the problem of the words אשר תלד לך שרה למועד הזה בשנה האחרת, “whom Sarah will bear for you at this season in the following year.” (17,21) These words were spoken in Tishrey and Yitzchok was born in the year following.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ותכחש שרה, “Sarah denied (having laughed derisively)” Nachmanides writes that he cannot get over the fact that a prophetess of the caliber of the matriarch Sarah denied that she had laughed at the prophecy and had not believed the prophecy delivered in the name of the Lord. The only possible answer he could accept was that seeing that these messages were delivered by people in human garb, low ranking individuals at that, this made it difficult for her to credit what they said. Avraham, in his wisdom, discerned who they were when they gave him the message that Sarah would have a son a year hence when one of them would come back. Sarah overheard what these men said without having seen them face to face, or suspecting that they were angels, as they had not introduced themselves as such. [as when these same “men” appeared to Lot later on, on the evening of the same day as “angels. (compare 19,1) This was not like the wife of Manoach to whom the angel appeared in the first place and addressed her face to face, and whose appearance already frightened her almost out of her wits. (Judges 13,3).] It is also possible that Sarah, not having seen these men at all, silently ridiculed the prophecy which she might have considered a blessing by strangers whom her husband had entertained, a situation similar to the one in which G’d is described as ridiculing man’s efforts when these efforts are intended to thwart His will. (Psalms 2,4)
      Nonetheless, G’d reprimanded Sarah by revealing her innermost thoughts, described here as laughter, to her husband. G’d’s complaint against Sarah was that she considered the prophecy as incapable of fulfillment, thereby displaying a lack of faith in G’d and in His powers. Instead of ridiculing the good tidings, she should have reacted by saying: “Amen, may it be G’d’s will.” Avraham challenged her about not having believed the prophecy by saying: “is anything impossible for the Lord,” היפלא מה' דבר?, and she, being afraid of her husband, resorted to denying that she had laughed at the prophecy. Avraham had not realized that what G’d had revealed to him, He had not revealed to Sarah. She was not sure whether Avraham had said the line היפלא מה' דבר because he wanted to flatter his guests who had made the prediction, or because he was displeased with Sarah’s silence instead of her grateful acknowledgment of the good news.
      It is proper to add here that clearly Avraham did not inform Sarah about what G’d had said to him in 17,19-21 when He had informed him that his wife Srarah would indeed bear a son for him, so that what Avraham had now heard from the angel was not news except for the time frame when the birth would take place. Avraham had not informed Sarah as he thought that G’d Himself would inform her, just as He had informed him. It is also possible that having been so preoccupied with the circumcision of his male household members, his son Ishmael, his own circumcision and the days of recuperation, it had slipped his mind to tell Sarah about this relatively minor item in the revelation he had experienced when Sarah’s name had also been changed. The sudden arrival of the angels had taken him by surprise.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   וה' אמר, “and the Lord had said, etc.” According to Nachmanides G’d had said what follows to His celestial army. It is also possible that the word אמר when applied to G’d and no specific person is being addressed, means that G’d “thought.” G’d’s “thinking” is at least equivalent to man’s “saying” with his mouth.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ואברהם היו יהיה, “seeing that Avraham will surely become, etc., etc.” According to <i>Rashi</i> as soon as G’d made mention of Avraham, He immediately also blessed him. Nachmanides claims that the true meaning of this phrase is that G’d spoke deferentially about Avraham, saying that in view of the fact that this man would become the founder of such an important nation and kingdoms, and his memory as a dispenser of blessing would never fade from mankind’s consciousness, it was no more than courtesy to inform him of His plans and to record his intercession on behalf of the people of Sodom, so that future generations could not accuse him [as they might have accused Noach who had also been informed of the impending destruction of mankind, without, however raising his voice in prayer. Ed.] of mutely, and cruelly making peace with G’d’s plan without at least inquiring into the circumstances more deeply. Having been on record as praying on behalf of people who had already been condemned, his way of life of combining charity with righteousness, justice, would prove to be an acceptable role model for his descendants, and in fact, for much of mankind as a whole. It was also important to convey to future generations that even an Avraham, with his almost boundless love of mankind, agreed with G’d that there are people who are beyond the pale of redemption.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   כי ידעתיו, “for I know him intimately.” <i>Rashi</i> follows Onkelos in understanding the word ידעתיו as: “I love him.” G’d is saying that the reason He loves Avraham is because he will command his family and people under his control to observe the ways of the Lord.
      Nachmanides understands the word ידעתיו as a description of Avraham as an individual whom G’d has endowed with greatness in order that he will pass on his lifestyle to his descendants, his lifestyle being that he emulates the ways of the Lord. It is because of this that G’d will make a great nation out of him. That nation in turn will serve the Lord just as their founder had done.
      Another meaning of the word ידעתיו in connection with the preface למען could be parallel to Deut. 5,14 למען ינוח עבדך ואמתך, “in order that your manservant and woman servant shall rest, (abstain from forbidden activities on the Sabbath)” In that instance the word למען substitutes for the prefix ש, i.e. שינוח.
      Personally, I believe that the word has to be understood as ידיעה, true knowledge of someone, like one possesses knowledge of facts. G’d hints that He supervises Avraham (and others) minutely even though we live in the world known as the עולם השפל, “the lower regions of the universe.” Although many people are assigned a role in life and are therefore exposed to what appear as accidents of nature until the day they die and hopefully qualify for residence in the higher regions of the universe, deserving individuals will always attract G’d’s attention and especial protection while on earth. Avraham will be a prime example of such people, and he can inspire them due to what people know about him.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויאמר ה' זעקת סדום, “G’d said: ‘the outcry about Sodom, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra, the line ויפנו משם האנשים“the men turned away from there” in verse 22 of our chapter, describes an event that preceded the conversation between Avraham and G’d introduced here. The whole verse has to be understood thus: After the men, i.e. angels, had taken their leave of Avraham, G’d said to him that the outcry about the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah which had come to His attention was such that, if upon closer examination, these reports would prove to be accurate, that would be the end of these cities. Thereupon Avraham began to pray on behalf of the innocent people in those cities.
  
     זעקת סדום ועמורה כי רבה, “the outcry rising from Sodom and Gomorrha is indeed of vast proportions.” According to Ibn Ezra, they either spoke out openly against G’d (the seven universal laws given by G’d to mankind,) or they indulged in violent means to enforce their views. According to Nachmanides, the wordsזעקת סדום וגו' refer to the outcry to G’d of the souls of the victims of such violence (compare Job 35,9: יזעיקו ישועו רבים, ”many oppressed cry out.”)
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ארדה נא ואראה הכצעקתה הבאה אלי עשו, כלה,”I will descend and investigate if they have indeed done in accordance with the outcry that has come to Me; that would be the end.” If all of them have sinned that will be the end of them, but if only a part of the inhabitants have been guilty of such sins, אדעה, I will take note of this and act accordingly. From Avraham’s intervention at this point it is clear that G’d had left him an opening to plead on behalf of those who had not actively been guilty. Avraham only asked to spare the righteous.
      An additional meaning of the words ארדה נא ואראה sees in the wording a change by G’d from invoking the attribute of Mercy to invoking the attribute of Justice. G’d is saying that if things are as bad as He has heard, the time has come to invoke the attribute of Justice, as a result of which there will be total destruction of these cities. If not, He will take note of this and employ the attribute of Mercy. We find a parallel verse to this in Exodus 2,25 when G’d tells Moses that now that the Jewish people themselves have turned to Him to complain about the outrageous treatment of them by the Egyptians, He will employ the attribute of Justice against them, i.e. וידע אלוקים, G’d’s attribute of Justice had now taken notice.
      After the Torah had revealed to us G’d’s thinking, it reverts to the story involving the three angels who had visited Avraham, and how these angels after having looked down on Sodom (in the deep valley) arrived there, and what happened next. During all this time, Avraham was still standing in the presence of the Lord, pleading for those who might qualify for survival. G’d had made it clear to him that the men who had visited him were His agents and had been dispatched to carry out the decree against these 5 cities.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   האף תספה צדיק עם רשע?, “are You really going to wipe out the righteous with the wicked?” Avraham meant if G’d would really apply the attribute of Justice also to the people who had not directly aroused His anger as a result of the reports which had come to His attention. חלילה לך מעשות כדבר הזה, “surely You would not do something which would make people conclude that there was no advantage in leading a righteous life if they had to die with the wicked people surrounding them.” Especially, seeing that G’d normally applies His attribute of Mercy when judging people, how could such an attribute be denied the righteous whose very existence is the reason that G’d tempers justice with mercy when judging mankind? This is why the word חלילה, “far be it,” appears twice in our verse.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   חמשים צדיקים, “fifty righteous people.” <i>Rashi</i> explains the reason why Avraham commenced with the number 50 as meaning one quorum of ten righteous people in each of these five cities, so that 40 would be able to save the inhabitants of four cities, etc. 
      Nachmanides writes that he is perplexed by <i>Rashi’s</i> comment. If indeed 50 righteous people were enough to save 5 cities, why would it be necessary to pray that 40 righteous people should be enough to save four cities, and so on down the line? Another query against <i>Rashi’s</i> explanation is that it appears that He assumes that G’d Himself can be added to 9 righteous people to complete the quorum of a “holy congregation,” why else would he have asked about 45 righteous people? (seeing that the combination of 9 righteous in each city plus the Lord, would provide 5 quorums which would save all five cities) Why would he not have asked about 9 righteous people, who, with the addition of G’d, would at least be able to save one of the cities? 
      Perhaps, what <i>Rashi</i> meant to convey was that a greater number of righteous people could save more than merely a proportionately greater number of cities. This is why Avraham had to enumerate each scenario separately and repeatedly. Actually, when G’d agreed that if He were to find 45 righteous people, i.e. 9 in each town, He would save all 5 cities, Avraham knew that if there were only 36 such people spread equally over four towns G’d would consider Himself the 10th in each group and four cities would be saved. This pattern could in theory be repeated down to 9. The reason Avraham did not have the audacity to ask about a total of only nine righteous men to whom G’d would be added to form the quorum, was that in all the other examples G’d had already indicated that He Himself would complete the quorum.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, (as understood by Nachmanides) Avraham commenced by asking about 50 righteous people in order to establish that he realized that unless there was a quorum of 10 good people per town such a town had no claim on the attribute of Mercy. According to this approach, it did not even occur to Avraham to ask for the saving of the cities piecemeal, he only wanted to establish the minimum number of righteous people that would suffice to annul the decree of the destruction of the five cities.
      According to Ibn Ezra, Avraham did not pray altogether on behalf of these people, had it not been a fact that his nephew Lot lived among them. An unresolved problem is the change for describing destruction, sometimes as לא אשחית, and sometimes לא אעשה, “I will not do it.”
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   לא אשחית בעבור העשרה, “I will not destroy on account of those ten.” He promised Avraham that He would not destroy the towns (or town) if He were to find ten such good people there. He did not add that Avraham should know that there were no ten such people in those cities. The reason G’d did not add these words was that the decree had not yet been finalized so as to become irrevocable. This was the meaning of G’d having said: “I will descend and take a personal look at the situation.” Avraham was left in doubt about the outcome until the following morning when he saw a column of smoke rising from that region. When he saw that, he knew that no ten righteous men had been found there.
  
     בתוך העיר, “within the city.” According to Ibn Ezra the condition was that these ten people are visibly G’d-fearing, display their faith in public. We find something analogous described in Jeremiah 5,1 שוטטו בחוצות ירושלים, “roam the streets of Jerusalem!” [in that instance the search would not turn up a single G’d-fearing man. Ed.]
      Nachmanides sees in the expression בתוך העיר that even if the ten men in question were sojourning in Sodom only temporarily, were not citizens, their presence at this time would help save the town from destruction. The words were a veiled reference to people such as Lot.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ולוט יושב בשער סדום, “and Lot was sitting in the public square of Sodom.” He distanced himself somewhat from the residential areas of the born and bred Sodomites. Alternately, the Torah writes these words to forestall your asking how he managed to bring the angels to his home without being afraid of being seen. When the angels arrived they found him a good distance away from the local citizenry [it was evening, after all. Ed.] He was therefore confident that he would escape detection when bringing guests to his house.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   הנה נא אדו-ני, “Look here, sirs;” a courteously phrased request. In other words, “seeing that my house is nearby, please honour me by visiting with me.”
  
     והשכמתם והלכתם לדרככם, “you may rise early and continue on your way.” He was not going to detain them until the sun was shining. He hoped thereby to escape the watchful eyes of the Sodomites also in the morning. He was not worried that they would notice them at night, or, that they would consider these men as passing through without stopping in the town.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויפצר בם מאד, “he urged them very strongly.” They had first refused, in order to increase his merit if he kept insisting to host them.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ונדעה אותם, “so that we can become intimate with them.” They meant to indulge in homosexual relations with these strangers. According to the plain meaning of the text, they wanted to examine if these men were spies. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
     הנה לי שתי בנות, “I have two daughters;“ whom I am willing for you to be intimate with. 
     אשר לא ידעו איש, “who have never yet been intimate with a man.” Actually, he should have phrased it as: ”with whom no man has as yet been intimate.” This was the phrase used in Genesis 24,16 (Rivkah) ואיש לא ידעה, “no man had been intimate with her.” The reason why he chose the phrasing he did was to hint (subconsciously) that eventually they would take the initiative in sleeping with a man, their own father. (Genesis 19,31-36)  
     אוציאה נא אתהן, “I will bring them outside.” While the Torah credits Lot with the extent to which he went to protect his guests from the local mob, we also hear about his moral depravity, i.e. that a father uses his own daughters as bargaining chips to trade one abomination for another. Clearly, casual sex, without the sanctifying element of marriage, was a minor misdemeanour in his eyes. Lot had been under the impression that his guests were men of flesh and blood. As soon as he became aware of their true identities, and that the reason they had come was to destroy the city on the one hand, and to save him at the same time, he did whatever the angels asked him to do. 
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויפצרו באיש בלוט מאד, “they coaxed the man Lot urgently;” Nachmanides claims that the word ויפצרו, [i.e. the root פצר, Ed.] only occurs as having a positive meaning, i.e. an attempt to calm someone down, to reconcile one’s differences with a person. When Lot proved impervious to the Sodomites’ attempts to compromise with him, they set about breaking down his door. Alternatively, seeing that Lot stood firm in front of the door and they did not want to harm him personally, they told him to get out of heir way, גש הלאה, i.e. that he should go elsewhere.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   עוד מי לך פה, חתן ובניך ובנותך, “who else belonging to your family is here; a son-in-law, your sons or your unmarried daughters?” According to <i>Rashi</i>, the word עוד means “apart from your wife who qualifies for being saved because she is part of you.” Although Lot did not have sons, only daughters, the angels asked in the manner ordinary people ask such a question, mentioning both sons and daughters.
      Ibn Ezra understands the word בנים as a question if Lot had sons-in-law who were as dear to him as sons would have been.
      Nachmanides presumes that it was quite likely that he had grown up sons who were married, however Lot spoke to his sons-in-law first as he was not sure they would heed his advice to flee. Concerning his sons, he was pretty sure they would heed him if he asked them to leave town immediately. When his sons-in-law laughed at him and time was being wasted in the meantime, dawn rose and there was no more time left, or he too would have been killed.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   כי משחיתים אנחנו את המקום הזה, “for we are about to destroy this place.” Nachmanides comments that surely there are many nations whose citizens are evil, wicked, etc., and nothing even remotely as drastic seems to happen to them. What happened to the people of Sodom was linked to their being located in the Holy Land, a land that has less tolerance for wickedness than any other place on earth. In the course of history it has spat out many peoples who have made their home in that land because those peoples never adjusted their lifestyles to the higher standards for human behaviour which are standard requirement for a successful residence in that land over a period of time.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ויחזיקו האנשים בידו, “the men took hold of his hand, etc.” The plural mode of ויחזיקו is puzzling, seeing that only one of the angels had been charged with saving Lot, the other having been assigned the duty to bring about the destruction. Perhaps the involvement of the second angel in saving Lot was inevitable seeing that he was unable to commence with his task until Lot was clear of the city. In other words, saving Lot was part of the process of the destruction of Sodom. Interestingly, the Torah reverts to the use of the singular mode for the angel’s activities as soon as Lot was clear of the city. Compare verse 17 כהוציאם, ”when he had taken them out.” Seeing that Lot himself was not so clear about which angel had which function to perform, [they had said: “we are about to destroy,’ Ed.] he addressed the two angels in the plural mode when asking not to be made to climb the mountain to get himself into safety. Compare אליהם in verse 18, and “<i>adonay</i>” instead of “<i>adoni</i>.” On the other hand, seeing that one angel had proven to be the one who had saved him, he reverted to use of the singular mode when saying ותגדל חסדך, “your (sing.) kindness has been great.” (verse 19). Seeing that originally the angels had used the plural mode about their task, i.e. הנני משחיתים, the angel whose task it was to carry out the destruction, now responds to Lot saying that he could not begin his real task until Lot had reached safety.
  
     ויחזיקו האנשים, according to Ibn Ezra these words prove that Lot had become immobilized from fright and that the angels had to help him to get moving. Nachmanides explains the verse as similar to Exodus 12,33 when the Egyptians urging the Israelites to get out of Egypt without delay, are described by the words ותחזק מצרים על העם למהר לשלחם. No doubt, the Egyptians did not literally take the Israelites by their hands and escorted them to the border.
  
     בחמלת ה' עליו, “out of G’d’s pity on him.” Not because he had merits that would have entitled him to be saved. Alternately, the use of the word חמלה, “pity,” is to justify the angels grabbing him by the hand before G’d’s pity had expired and he would become a victim together with his townspeople.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   אל תבט אחריך “do not look behind you!” So that you will not lose momentum in your flight and the destruction would catch up with you.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ותבט אשתו מאחריו, “His wife looked behind him.” According to Ibn Ezra, the suffix in the word מאחריו refers to Lot. <i>Rashi</i> claims that the suffix refers to her having ignored the angel’s command. In <i>Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer</i> it is said that the angels said to both Lot, his wife and daughters, not to look behind, as the Presence of the Lord raining sulphur and fire on the Sodomites was descending on earth immediately behind them. Lot’s wife Iddit, who was concerned about the fate of her married daughters, ignored the instructions, and, as a result, was turned into a pillar of salt. According to this version, the masculine suffix in the word מאחריו would refer to the שכינה, the manifestation of G’d’s presence.
  
     ותהי נציב מלח. “she turned into a pillar of salt.” Nachmanides (on verse 17) explains that mere looking at polluted air containing all kinds of harmful ingredients transfers such harmful images to the brain and thence to the rest of the body. The effect is liable to be lethal. [The Talmud claims that if one sees the reflection of a rabid dog in the surface of waters of, say a lake, the effect is also liable to be deadly. Ed.] Nachmanides speculates that the angel causing all this destruction had taken up position between the earth and the sky. An effective medication may be to isolate oneself so that one is no longer exposed to the harmful influences either visually or through inhaling them. This would explain what happened to the wife of Lot by attributing it to natural causes, rather than assuming that G’d performed a miracle in order to kill her.
      My sainted father, the רא'ש, was troubled about the timing of the death of Lot’s wife. From the plain meaning of the text it appears that the rain of fire and sulphur did not commence until Lot had safely reached the small town of Tzoar. This is also borne out by the description of the events in <i>Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer</i> chapter 25. If the destruction did not commence until Lot was in Tzoar, why would his wife be punished more severely than the people in Sodom? Rabbi Ysrael answered my father by letter that there is no doubt that the destruction did not commence until Lot had reached Tzoar, and that his wife had lagged behind so that the sulphur and fire struck her. The Torah only revealed to us the reason why she had lagged behind; she was always trailing behind her husband, and the suffix מאחוריו describes that she was at all times behind him. The reason why she kept lagging behind was that she constantly looked backwards hoping that her daughters would join her. This also explains the angel saying: ”do not look behind you.” If correct, this means that he did not forbid her the looking behind per se, but warned her that her lagging behind due to her looking behind was liable to turn her into a victim of the destructive forces overtaking Sodom and that valley. If Nachmanides’ explanation were correct, i.e. that looking at the air behind her were to cause her lethal consequences, the angel should have said: “do not look behind you so that the harmful substances will not cling to you.” The fact that the angel added the words “do not stand still in the entire valley,” proves conclusively that time was of the essence, not what he or she would see when turning around. Lot followed the instructions of the angel, whereas his wife did not, with fatal results to her. The Torah reveals that Lot’s wife died as a result of disregarding the angel’s instructions. If not for this, she would have been saved, just as her unmarried daughters were saved. The whole story may have been related by the Torah to explain what prompted Lot’s daughters to sleep with him, i.e. the death of his wife.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   בהפוך את הערים אשר ישב בהן לוט, “when He overturned the cities wherein Lot had dwelled.” The meaning is as if the Torah had written: “in one of which Lot had dwelled.”
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   כי ירא לשבת בצוער, “for he was afraid to dwell permanently in Tzoar. According to <i>Rashi</i> he was afraid to live in a town so close to Sodom.
      Nachmanides disagrees, writing that his fear was based on the fact that the decree of destruction had included Tzoar, though the timing had been amended. He felt that the angel would not extend the grace period much longer. This is also why the daughters were convinced that there would be no other men left on earth as possible marriage partners for them. (compare 31)
      Some say that Lot’s daughters definitely did not think that what had happened in Sodom had been worldwide. They only thought that there would not be any men willing to marry them, seeing they had been part of the condemned population of Sodom. They assumed that such men would feel they had been genetically harmed so that they could not bear healthy children, if at all. As a result, they would die without children unless they would be impregnated by their father.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   לכה נשקה את אבינו יין, “let us give our father wine to drink preparatory to sleeping with him.” Even though, <i>halachically</i> speaking, it was permissible for a father to have sexual relations with his daughter, so that there was no legal impediment to their father marrying them, it had become a universally accepted norm after the deluge that fathers would not touch their daughters, sexually. The matter is discussed in <i>Horiyot</i>, where deviates were described as being guilty of committing an abomination. 
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
   ותקרא שמו מואב, “she named him Moav, (by my father.)” A most inappropriate name for a child, tainting him for the future. She was punished by the Torah for naming her son thus, by the Torah only forbidding the Israelites to oppress the Moabites and Ammonites and to wage war against them, but enslaving them was not forbidden. Even so, the sages say that the older daughter who initiated sleeping with her father a single night before her sister was rewarded by G’d in that from her issue Ruth joined the Jewish people, whereas Naamah from Ammon who became the wife of Rechavam, son of Solomon, did not join the Jewish people until four generations later. Still, this did not exonerate her from the shame of naming her son in such a way. (<i>Bereshit Rabbah 51,10, and Midrash Hagadol on Genesis)</i> 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויאמר אברהם אל שרה אשתו אחותי היא, “Avraham said concerning his wife Sarah that she was his sister.” This was not like in Egypt. In Egypt he had not misrepresented his relationship until after the Egyptians had praised Sarah’s beauty to Pharaoh, and he had been aware that the Egyptians did not respect marital relations when it conflicted with their lust. Here in the land of the Philistines, Avimelech and his servants were civilized, and observed the Noachide laws, as a rule. Still, Avraham was suspicious, and that is why he himself told everyone that Sarah was his sister.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   וגם אמנה אחותי בת אבי היא אך לא בת אמי. “and she is indeed my sister, daughter of my father, though she is not the daughter of my mother.” Nachmanides writes that he does not know the point of Avraham’s apology if indeed Sarah was his half-sister and his wife at one and the same time, and when the people from the palace came to take her to the palace he revealed that she was also his sister in order to deceive them about the relationship. He had thereby caused them to commit a sin if he had not previously revealed that Sarah was his wife. It makes no difference whether this claim was true or false, as he had caused them to sin the moment he claimed that Sarah was his sister.
      Perhaps Avraham felt the need to respond to Avimelech’s accusation: “what did you see so terrible in this place that you felt the need to be devious and to bring guilt upon us?” He felt the need to justify himself vis-à-vis Avimelech personally, who had steadfastly claimed that he had never taken women for himself whom he knew to be married to other husbands. Avraham’s point was that he had no prior knowledge of the moral ethical standards prevailing among the Philistines, and had feared that they did not observe the 7 universal laws given by G’d to Noach. He cited his ample experience during previous sojourns in different countries in all of which no fear of the Lord was customary, and in all of which he conducted himself according to this assumption. Hence his caution was not a reflection on Avimelech, personally. He had been prompted by the sole motive of saving his own life. In addition, he explained that passing his wife off as his sister had not even been a lie, as indeed she was his sister by his father. According to Ibn Ezra, all Avraham’s explanations served only to confound Avimelech, his argument was basically similar to Yaakov, when challenged as to his identity, claiming in the presence of Yitzchok: אנכי, עשו בכורך, “it is I, Esau is your firstborn.” 
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויהי כאשר התעו אותי אלוקים מבית אבי, “Ever since Elohim caused me to wander away from my father’s home, etc.” He meant that the idolatry practiced in his father’s house caused him to abandon their idolatrous lifestyles and to have the strength to follow his monotheistic convictions. (based on Onkelos) As a result, he had been wandering from one place to another.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   כטוב בעיניך שב, “settle wherever it pleases you.” The contrast with Pharaoh’s reaction to having felt deceived by Avraham is quite remarkable. The former could not forgive Avraham for having been the instrument that made him suffer chastisement by G’d, although he knew himself to have been wrong..
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   הנה הוא לך כסות עינים, “let this be a visible proof of your vindication, etc.” Avimelech referred to the financial compensation he had felt forced to pay to Avraham in order to mollify him. The word אלף is not to be understood literally, but means the “thousands of shekel, etc.” The expression כסות עינים extends also to Avraham’s entire entourage, including any unattached women. Anyone even looking at these girls would be liable to a monetary fine for having done so. Knowing that even the King had been forced to pay a fine, the ordinary people would be most careful not to become subject to similar penalties.  
     ונוכחת. “and you will be vindicated.” You will have a valid argument in countering any gossip spread about you (Sarah). Alternatively, the meaning of the expression is the Torah’s way of saying that whereas the money compensated Avraham for the wrong done to him, it did not mollify Sarah’s injured dignity. She would continue to argue that the wrong done to her could not be righted by money; the Torah mentioned this in tribute to Sarah’s lofty principles.     Some commentators understand the expression כסות עינים as meaning that the monetary compensation would have the same effect as stunningly beautiful garments, which would raise the image of the wearer in the eyes of the beholder. The money would enable both her and her servant maids to buy beautiful clothes. 
     את כל ונוכחת, “he prepared all this when he purchased for her a wardrobe, in order to demonstrate to everyone that he felt the need to mollify Sarah.” The word נוכחת means preparing something, inviting someone, and appears in this context in Genesis 24,44 אשר הוכיח ה' לבן אדוני, “the one whom the Lord has prepared for the son of my master (as a wife)”.     Ibn Ezra explains the words הנה הוא לך כסות עינים as Avimelch saying to Sarah: “concerning Avraham whom you had told me that he was your brother, it fulfils the function of an “eye-cover” (veil) for you to ensure no one will dare raise his eyes to you”. At the same time his stature also protects all your maids against anyone daring to take advantage of them. They will all enjoy the protection of the status of being wives of his servants.     Yet another explanation of the words הנה הוא לך כסות עינים understands it as a reference to Sarah having described Avraham as her brother as a defensive stratagem, to protect his life, and the fact that all the entourage of Avraham and Sarah conspired together in this deception so as not to endanger their master’s life. At any, rate, Avimelech added, now that everything has been cleared up, ונוכת, you will be safe and do not need to misrepresent yourself. 
  
  Verse 17
  
   וילדו, “they proceeded to give birth.” According to <i>Rashi</i> their wombs had been as if sealed while Sarah was in Avimelech’s palace. Now their wombs were reopened. Apparently all orifices of the women had been sealed.
  
  Verse 18
  
   בעד כל רחם, “every womb.” Again, <i>Rashi</i> understands the word as applying to every bodily orifice.
      Nachmanides writes that the expression רחם cannot be applied to orifices other than the womb. He sees a further difficulty in the fact that according to the plain meaning of the text all of this transpired during a single night, and that Sarah was restored to Avraham on the morrow, immediately. If so when had the sealing of the orifices of potential mothers even been perceived as an affliction? Perhaps they experienced pains and were unable to give birth, or their menstrual cycle did not operate normally, or Avraham waited until he prayed on behalf of all these women. Personally, I feel that from the day that Sarah had been abducted to Avimelech’s palace, Avimelech’s reproductive organs had been stricken so that he could not have sexual relations with Sarah. Avimelech’s wife and servant maids were equally afflicted. This was the meaning of G’d telling Avimelech in his dream ולא נתתיך לנגוע אליה, “I did not allow you to touch her.” Whenever the term נגיעה or קרבה is used in connection with women, it has a sexual connotation. This is the meaning of וה' סגר רחמם. It is an expression applying only to prevention of the birthing process being initiated. A parallel expression is סגר ה' בעדה, when the prophet describes Channah’s being unable to have children at the beginning of the Book of Samuel. Apparently, Sarah was locked up in the palace of Avimelech for a considerable length of time, and until the night when G’d appeared to Avimelech in his dream, no one knew the cause of this peculiar affliction. At that point, G’d gave Avimelech a hint about what had caused this problem in his household. After Avraham’s prayer on behalf of those afflicted the problem was resolved.
      21.1. וה' פקד את שרה, “at this time G’d remembered Sarah benevolently;” The words כאשר אמר, “as He had said,” implies that the word פקד refers to her becoming pregnant, whereas the words כאשר אמר, refer to her giving birth, according to <i>Rashi.</i>
      Nachmanides writes that the expression פקידה always refers to remembering something pertaining to the party that is being remembered, such as פקוד יפקוד אלוקים אתכם, “G’d will surely remember you, etc.” in Genesis Therefore, the meaning of ה' פקד את שרה is that “G’d remembered Sarah and did for her as He had said.” This formula is customary in connection with women who had been barren until G’d remembered them benevolently, as in the case of Rachel Genesis 30,22 who could give birth after being benevolently remembered by G’d.
      Rabbi Joseph Kimchi points out that the reason that the Torah used the term פקידה when referring to Sarah, and the term זכירה for remembering with Rachel, was that in the case of Sarah who was already way past child bearing age, G’d had to extend Himself more than in the case of Rachel who was still in her twenties. G’d had to restore bodily functions to Sarah, functions that had not ceased functioning in the case of Rachel. The <i>Mishnaic</i> term for the days between two menstrual cycles is מפקידה לפקידה. Rachel’s menstrual cycles had not yet ceased to occur regularly at the time she became pregnant and bore Joseph as a result. In the case of Channah giving birth to Shemuel, at a time when she was still young, the prophet uses the term זכירה, when she first prayed for children, (Samuel I 1,11) whereas when we hear about her having 5 more children in Samuel I 1,21 the prophet attributes this to a פקידה by G’d. seeing she had aged greatly in the interval.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וה' פקד את שרה, “at this time G’d remembered Sarah benevolently;” The words כאשר אמר, “as He had said,” implies that the word פקד refers to her becoming pregnant, whereas the words כאשר אמר, refer to her giving birth, according to <i>Rashi.</i>
  Nachmanides writes that the expression פקידה always refers to remembering something pertaining to the party that is being remembered, such as פקוד יפקוד אלוקים אתכם, “G’d will surely remember you, etc.” in Genesis 50,23. Therefore, the meaning of ה' פקד את שרה is that “G’d remembered Sarah and did for her as He had said.” This formula is customary in connection with women who had been barren until G’d remembered them benevolently, as in the case of Rachel Genesis 30,22 who could give birth after being benevolently remembered by G’d.
  Rabbi Joseph Kimchi points out that the reason that the Torah used the term פקידה when referring to Sarah, and the term זכירה for remembering with Rachel, was that in the case of Sarah who was already way past child bearing age, G’d had to extend Himself more than in the case of Rachel who was still in her twenties. G’d had to restore bodily functions to Sarah, functions that had not ceased functioning in the case of Rachel. The <i>Mishnaic</i> term for the days between two menstrual cycles is מפקידה לפקידה. Rachel’s menstrual cycles had not yet ceased to occur regularly at the time she became pregnant and bore Joseph as a result. In the case of Channah giving birth to Shemuel, at a time when she was still young, the prophet uses the term זכירה, when she first prayed for children, (Samuel I 1,11) whereas when we hear about her having 5 more children in Samuel I 1,21 the prophet attributes this to a פקידה by G’d. seeing she had aged greatly in the interval.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   מי מלל לאברהם, “who had foretold Avraham, etc.” According to <i>Rashi,</i> the word מלל is a form of a laudatory prediction such as an exclamation of “who would have known that Avraham is so distinguished and that HE who promised him this was capable of fulfilling his promise.”
      Nachmanides, on the other hand, writes that the word מי never introduces something laudatory but the contrary. Examples cited are the expressions מי אבימלך and מי דוד ומי אנשיו, in the Book of Judges and the Book of Samuel, respectively. He explains that Sarah exclaimed “the reason why all the people who hear about me nursing children will be so happy is that none ever believed that anyone who predicted that Avraham would father children was in earnest and knew what he was talking about.” 
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   מצחק, making ”blasphemous comments” according to <i>Rashi.</i> 
      Ibn Ezra claims that Ishmael used the fact that he was older and stronger to make life somewhat difficult for Yitzchok who could not fight back. He indulged in pranks like most youngsters. Sarah could not stand watching this.
      Nachmanides claims that the incident occurred on the day Yitzchok was weaned, as appears from the context of our verse. It is therefore wrong to interpret Ishmael’s behaviour as connected to his disputing Yitzchok’s right to inherit the estate of his father when the time would come as stated by <i>Rashi.</i> Rather, Ishmael was making snide comments about the great feast Avraham had prepared in honour of Yitzchok’s being weaned. Sarah claimed that a slave who makes snide remarks about his master deserves either the death penalty or severe physical punishment. She, however would be content to see him expelled from the household to ensure he would not be a contender for Avraham’s estate claiming to share it with Yitzchok.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   על אודות בנו. “on account of his son.” According to <i>Rashi,</i> Avraham feared that expelling him would lead to his abandoning the teachings he had learned in his home.
      Nachmanides writes that the Torah praises Avraham in this verse for not objecting to the demand for the expulsion of his concubine and her son as he was so fond of Hagar, but that he was troubled that the expulsion of his son would even further inhibit his growing up in the monotheistic Abrahamitic tradition. He waited until he had been instructed by G’d to follow Sarah’s instincts when it came to pedagogy. Seeing that Avraham was concerned about the personal security of Ishmael, He promised him that his son Ishmael would develop into a great nation. On the other hand, Yitzchok would be the recipient of G’d’s comprehensive blessings.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   שם על שכמו ואת הילד, “he placed it on her shoulder together with the child.” According to our sages Avraham placed both the jug of water as well as Ishmael on Hagar’s shoulders. According to the plain meaning of the verse the meaning of the words ואת הילד is that these words mean that not only Hagar but also Ishmael would walk with Hagar (not ride) also.
  
     ותלך ותתע במדבר, ”She went and lost her way in the desert.” The water supply that Avraham had provided was exhausted only because instead of walking straight towards her destination, she procrastinated and made detours.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ותשלך את הילד, “She threw away the child.” According to the homiletical approach, she threw Ishmael off her shoulder. According to the plain meaning of the text, she dropped him under a tree, the expression being similar to וישליכם אל ארץ אחרת, “He exiled them to another country. (Deuteronomy 29,27)
      Ibn Ezra understands the word ותשלך to mean that Hagar moved him down to her lap as a result of becoming tired and exhausted from thirst. As to why Avraham gave Hagar only bread and water and no supply of silver or gold or camels to ride on, this was due to his having been commanded by G’d to obey Sarah’s instructions, and she had objected to this.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   וישמע אלוקים אל קול הנער, “G’d listened to the voice (cries) of the lad.” <i>Rashi</i> derives from this wording that the prayer of the sick person himself concerning his recovery is more likely to be heard than all the prayers of other people on his behalf. This is so although we have a principle according to which a person whose hands and feet have been tied is unable to free himself, i.e. the stricken need outside assistance. We know that Chizkiyah whose sickness had been declared by the prophet to be terminal, was healed after he personally appealed to G’d on behalf of himself.
  
     באשר הוא שם, “considering his present state of relative innocence.” When G’d asked the angels if Ishmael was guilty or innocent in their opinion at that time, they replied that he was innocent. This was in spite of the fact that he had previously been described (מצחק) as having displayed heretical behaviour. Nonetheless, concerning the matter which they (the angels) had accused him of, (harm he would cause to the Jewish people in the future) he was as yet not guilty. This is especially interesting seeing that a בן סורר ומורה, a 13 year old who steals a little meat and wine from his parents and who displays tendencies of becoming a delinquent, is executed at such a tender age. (Deuteronomy 21,21) The reason offered by our sages for what seems such a harsh way of dealing with a young boy is psychological. The Torah prefers to have him executed before he will become guilty of far worse crimes, and to thereby preserve his share in the world to come. Nonetheless, there is a difference between applying retribution for crimes decreed in heaven and those decreed on earth on the basis of the Torah. Human beings are not held accountable in heaven until they have completed 20 years on earth. Pre-emptive retribution does not exist in the vocabulary of Divine justice when it is meted out by heavenly tribunal, as opposed to justice handed out by human tribunal. The juvenile delinquent, בן סורר ומורה, although not yet guilty of the death penalty, has already begun a career of criminal acts and it is an act of love by his parents which brings about his “premature” violent death so that his eternal life may be preserved. Ishmael had not been guilty of any crime while he was in Avraham’s household for which he would have had to face a tribunal. Only his descendants would become guilty of such crimes. According to the plain meaning of the text, the words באשר הוא שם, mean that G’d listened to the prayer Ishmael offered up at the location he found himself in, in that the well which was to save his life suddenly caught his eye. He did not even need to have water brought to him from a more distant location.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   השבעה לי, “swear it to me!” He meant that Avraham should swear that if his offspring would dishonour this oath (the covenant of a non-aggression pact), he himself would be considered as having perjured himself. He was to call down curses upon himself should such a thing occur in the future.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   שבע כבשות, “seven ewes.” The number seven symbolized the word שבועה.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   וישובו אל ארץ פלשתים, “they returned to the land of the Philistines.” This means that they returned to the capital of the land of the Philistines, seeing that they had never left the land of the Philistines, the covenant having been concluded on land which was theirs.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   והאלוקים נסה, “and G’d tested.” Nachmanides describes the function of such “tests” as a device to ensure that the action undertaken by man under such conditions be perceived by him as absolutely free from external pressure, whereas from G’d’s perspective, of course, it is a commandment. (it is difficult to assume that G’d did not know beforehand how man would react to such a commandment.) G’d only wants to translate something He knew potentially into the domain of reality, a demonstration that what He knew man is capable of, man would actually carry out. Man cannot expect to be rewarded for potential acts of goodness, obedience, etc. In order to qualify for reward man must demonstrate that his goodness is more than just “potential.” Seeing that G’d’s objective is to reward man, there is no point in His subjecting the wicked to similar tests, as they will not only not garner the reward but incriminate themselves further by failing to carry out the command which constitutes the “test.” G’d subjects only the righteous to such tests, as He knows they will pass them with flying colours.
      <i>Rash’bam</i> explains the word נסה, as introducing a painful experience for the subject of such a test. An example of the use of the root נסה in such a context would be Exodus 17,7 where the Israelites had been tested in a painful manner in having gone without water before G’d provided same, miraculously. Other examples can be found in Job 4,2 or Psalms The reason Avraham was subjected to such a painful test was that although G’d had given him a son at the age of 100 years, he had seen fit to make a covenant with Avimelech covering hundreds of years in the future, when he did not even know yet if this son would not die before ever having sired any offspring himself. Avraham did not realize that G’d did not actually want him to slaughter Yitzchok, but only wanted him to “offer” him on the altar, as the words העלהו לעולה indicate.
      Some commentators understand the word נסה to mean “elevate to a higher stature” in a spiritual sense, such as Kings II The meaning would be parallel to נשאו with the letter ש instead of ס.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   אל ארץ המוריה, “to the land around Moriah.” Nachmanides understands the term מוריה as describing the region on earth whence reverence for the Lord originates. Other commentators connect it to the incense and frankincense offered on that site. Onkelos translates the term asארעא פולחנא , i.e. a land in which G’d is being worshipped. 
      The word מוריה, means fear and reverence, as at that site G’d is being revered and people are in awe of Him. This is also what <i>Midrash Rabbah</i> had in mind when focusing on the line (verse 9) ויבן שם אברהם את המזבח, “Avraham erected there the altar.” Avraham did not build a new altar, but used an altar on which religious people in former years had offered their sacrifices to the G’d in heaven.
      Regarding the plain meaning of the text, the words אל ארץ המוריה mean that this was a region where a variety of spices could be found, including first and foremost מור, myrrh. Whereas the Torah here refers to the whole region as ארץ המוריה, Ezra, in a parallel reference in Chronicles calls only the mountain הר המוריה. (Chronicles II 3,1) Avraham had been familiar with the region but not with the specific mountain G’d had in mind. This is why G’d instructed him to go to the general region, and once there, He would point out the specific mountain He had in mind. This mountain had already become a point on earth which G’d was especially fond of, and on which He had selected to make His terrestrial residence when the time was ripe. The merit Avraham would acquire by offering his beloved son there to G’d as a sacrifice would further endow this site so that prayers addressed to G’d from there in the Temple would be especially effective.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויבקע עצי עולה, “He split the kindling for use in the burnt offering.” He had made all these preparations in the event there would be no trees on that mountain. Alternately, he brought the wood from his house after he had examined that it was free from worms. We have a <i>halachah,</i> according to which worm eaten wood must not be used on the altar of the Temple. 
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   וירא את המקום מרחוק, “he saw the place from a distance.” He observed that only this particular mountain was covered by a cloud. According to the plain meaning of the text, the verse means that Avraham could recognize the region already from a distance, as he had been familiar with it.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ונשתחוה ונשובה אליכם, “we will prostrate ourselves (before the |Lord) before returning to you.” According to Ibn Ezra Avraham said this in order not to reveal to Yitzchok as yet what he had in mind. Other commentators suggest that the line be understood as a question: “do you really think that all we will do there is say a prayer and immediately return to you?”
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויבאו אל המקום אשר אמר לו האלוקים, “they arrived at the place that G’d had spoken to him about.” This was Mount Moriah, which G’d had said He would point out to him.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ויקרא אליו מלאך ה' מן השמים, “an angel of the Lord called out to him from the heaven, etc.” Why did the angel call from the celestial regions instead of first descending to earth and addressing Avraham, as had occurred on other occasions? The interference had become such an urgent matter that he was afraid that he would be too late, Avraham having already concluded the act of slaughtering Yitzchok.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   אל תשלח ידך אל הנער, “do not touch the lad!” According to the <i>Midrash</i>, the angel saw that Avraham had suddenly realized that he no longer had a knife in his hand. (this is why the angel told him not to harm Yitzchok with his hand, instead of with his knife). Avraham therefore decided to strangle Yitzchok with his bare hands in order to carry out G’d’s command. This is when the angel had to tell him not to harm Yitzchok in any manner.
  
     כי עתה ידעתי, “for now I know, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the meaning is that up until that moment the degree of reverence for G’d that Avraham was capable of existed only as a potential; now it had been translated into reality.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   והנה איל אחד, “and lo there was a ram, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra, Avraham had not seen the ram until it had become enmeshed in the thicket with its horns. Other commentators hold that Avraham had observed the same ram previously when it was unencumbered and grazing, whereas now he saw it suddenly caught in the thicket by its horns. He assumed that this was in order for him to be able to secure it easily as a substitute for Yitzchok.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   יען אשר עשית את הדבר הזה, “because you have done this thing, etc.” G’d had already assured him long before this that He would greatly increase the number of Avraham’s biological descendants and compared them to the stars in heaven and to the sand on the beaches of the sea, etc. At this point G’d adds an additional blessing in the form of an oath that Avraham’s seed will be successful in conquering the land of their enemies.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויהי אחרי, “it was after;” according to <i>Rashi</i> the words הדברים האלה refer to the עקדה, to the episode of the biding of Yitzchok immediately preceding this paragraph. Although as a general rule the word אחרי, as opposed to the word אחר, refers to matters not immediately before what had been related last, in this instance it could mean either.
  
     הנה ילדה מלכה גם היא, “Milkah also gave birth to several children.” According to Nachmanides the use of the introductory word הנה suggests that up until that moment Avraham had been unaware that Milkah had born any children. If Milkah had already born children while a young woman, it is difficult to imagine that Avraham would not have heard about this. After all, they did not live that far apart from one another. When Avraham had emigrated he had been 75 years old, whereas at this point he was 137 years old. Nachor obviously had also aged in the interval, and Milkah apparently had not been blessed with children until late in life. Nachor’s family had also become the beneficiary of G’d’s miraculous intervention in their lives. Milkah had shared the good fortune of her sister.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   קמואל אבי ארם. According to Nachmanides, Aram is mentioned in order to have an excuse to mention Kemuel, to show that Kemuel’s son Aram became far more distinguished than his father. [normally, the Torah lists the names of people as “son of such and such.” The reverse here indicates that the son outshone the father. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ובתואל ילד את רבקה, “and Bethuel sired Rivkah.” The Torah fails to mention Lavan at this stage, so that we have no clue whether he was older than Rivkah. The only reason for writing this paragraph at all was to inform us about the birth of Rivkah. 
  
  Verse 24
  
   ופילגשו ושמה ראומה, “and his concubine who was called Re-umah.” The Torah relates all the details that had been reported to Avraham about his family at that time. It is possible that the reason why the Torah bothered to record all these details is to inform us about the genealogy of Nachor, to let us know that all of his family were potentially suitable marriage partners for Avraham’s family, and that concerning all of them Avraham had instructed Eliezer to search for a wife for Yitzchok when he told him “go only to my country and to the house of my father.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהיו חיי שרה מאה שנה ועשרים שנה ושבע שנים, “Sarah lived for 127 years.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the reason why the word is repeated twice is to draw our attention to the fact that each period so designated represented a separate part of her life. She was as free from sin at 127 as she had been at the age of 7 and as beautiful at the time of her death as she had been at the age of 20.      Nachmanides writes that <i>Rashi</i> does not derive this information from the repetition of the word שנה, seeing that there is nothing exceptional in this, and the sum total of the lives of lesser individuals has been described in similar terms, Ishmael’s death being reported in a similar fashion to that of Sarah’s, for instance. Rather, we derive this interpretation quoted by <i>Rashi</i> from the superfluous sounding introduction of the words חיי שרה-followed by the words שני חיי שרה. This formulation indicates that all these years had been lived under the aegis of purity and beauty.     There are some books in which the version in the <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> is as follows בת ק כבת עשרים ליופי ובת עשרים כבת שבע לחטא, “at 100 she was as beautiful as she had been at 20, and at 20 she was as free from sin as at 7. This is the correct version, seeing that girls are more beautiful at 20 than at 7 having learned in the intervening years how to use cosmetics to bring out their beauty.
  
  Verse 2
  
  ויבא אברהם, “Avraham came, etc.” According to <i>Rashi</i> he came from Beer Sheva. Nachmanides adds that <i>Rashi</i> did not mean to imply that at that time Avraham resided in Beer Sheva on a permanent basis, whereas Sarah had resided in Kiryat Arba, (Chevron) as it is quite inconceivable that Avraham and Sarah lived in different locations from each. Avraham heard the news of Sarah’s death while he was in Beer Sheva on “business.” Some commentators think that Avraham at the time was in the process of establishing residence in Beer Sheva, and had wanted to prepare everything before bringing Sarah there also. According to the <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i>, Avraham arrived on his returned from Mount Moriah to find that Sarah had died from the distress that Yitzchok had been sacrificed. Nachmanides writes that according to the report in the Torah the commandment to offer up Yitzchok as a burnt offering was issued when Avraham was in Beer Sheva, where he resided at the time. This was the meaning of 22,34-35 “he planted an orchard in Beer Sheva and he resided there for many years.” This is why it took him three days to get to Chevron, seeing that the land of the Philistines was not that close to Chevron. If Avraham would have had to return from Mount Moriah to Chevron it would not have taken more than a single day at most, whereas the Toah reports that it took him three days to reach Mount Moriah on his way to binding Yitzchok on the altar there. If the <i>Midrash</i> were correct in saying that Sarah died [precisely during the time Avraham performed the binding of Yitzchok, we must assume that at the time of the <i>Akeydah,</i> Avraham and Sarah had both lived in Chevron, so that the meaning of 22,4 “it was on the third day (of Avraham and Yitzchok’s journey to Mount Moriah) must be that G’d for reasons best known to Him, did not want Avraham to locate the mountain until the third day of his journey. He had been walking in the neighbourhood until G’d indicated to him which of the mountains He had had in mind. The reason that he went to Beer Sheva after the binding of Yitzchok was to give thanks for the miracle he had been allowed to experience, and while there the news of Sarah’s death reached him. It is the consensus of all the commentators that Avraham was not at home at the time that Sarah died. My personal opinion is that Sarah had a tent which served as her home as well as the home for her maidservants. She died within her own tent, and the words ויבא אברהם simply mean that he came to her tent upon hearing what had happened It is also possible that the term described Avraham’s preparation to eulogize Sarah appropriately. Whenever a person prepares himself to carry out a certain assignment, the term used to describe the preparation for such an undertaking is ויבא, He came, i.e., “he became ready.” In my opinion, it is most unlikely that the word ויבא means that Avraham came from another city, as the Torah would have mentioned from which city Avraham had to come in order to make burial arrangements for Sarah.
  לספוד לשרה ולבכותה, “to eulogize Sarah and to weep for her.” At this point the Torah does not add the words: “and to bury her,” as he had not yet secured a suitable site where to bury her.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   גר ותושב אנכי עמכם, “I am both a stranger and a resident amongst you.” What he meant was that as far as not having been born in the land of Canaan he was a “stranger,” so that he did not have a piece of earth that would serve as his burial ground by right. If he were to bury Sarah on a piece of land belonging to someone else, that someone could raise valid objections and even dig up the soil forcing him to rebury Sarah elsewhere.     Nachmanides understands the prevailing custom as each family owning burial plots for members of their respective families, whereas for strangers (not born locally) there was a mass grave where all such people would be interred. Avraham pointed out that as far as local custom was concerned he was indeed a stranger, though he had lived in this land for over 60 years. Still, he had not inherited a burial site from his father as he had not lived in the land of Canaan. He now requested that he be given the benefits of the status of a resident. He did not want to deprive anyone of part of their ancestral holdings, but he required to own in perpetuity, in a manner that could not be challenged, a piece of ground wherein to bury his wife. The local inhabitants were under the mistaken impression that he requested to be given such a piece of land for free, seeing Avraham had used the expression תנו לי, “give me.” This is why they responded that his standing was such that no one would refuse to give him even a site he had earmarked for his own burial in the future. Such a piece of burial ground would indeed be deeded to him in perpetuity.     Other commentators hold that just as Avraham had used the term תנו לי, “give to me,” as a figure of speech, never intending to receive such as a present, so when the locals used the same expression they also did not mean literally   to give him such a burial place. When they used the expression במבחר קברנו, they did not refer to the “choicest,” but to a random grave site belonging to some family without adding anything about the final status of such a piece of land. Avraham paid strict attention to the nuances in the Hittites’ offer and proceeded to offer generous payment. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
      את מערת המכפלה,”the cave Machpelah;” <i>Rashi</i> explains the word מכפלה as related to כפול, double, and that it was named so because couples were buried side by side, starting with Adam and his wife Chavah.     Nachmanides disagrees seeing that the Torah described it as שדה עפרון אשר במכפלה, “the field of Efron situated at Machpelah.” The phrasing makes it clear that “Machpelah” is the name of a location that contained the cave. There is no need to investigate why certain locations had been named in a certain manner by the locals of the time     In <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i>, 23,8 we are told that G’d miraculously reduced the size of Adam’s body when he died so, that the cave could accommodate his earthly remains. If so, the name Machpelah dates back to the time of Adam’s burial in that cave. Clearly, this had not been known to Efron as he would have multiplied the amount he asked for that cave from Avraham had he known that the first human being had been buried in that cave. 
     אשר בקצה שדהו, “which is at the edge of his field.” Avraham mentioned this, implying that his burying Sarah there would not in the least interfere with Efron’s activities on the field itself. Avraham would not even need to walk across the field as it was situated at the edge, allowing access from another direction. Avraham requested to purchase only the cave from Efron, leaving him in possession of the adjoining field. Efron, ingeniously, implying that it would be unseemly for a distinguished personage such as Avraham to bury his dead in a cave without having title to the adjoining land, suggested that he would deed to him both cave and field. Avraham replied that he had already set aside the money required to purchase the entire field. [He had realised that the price was likely to be sky high. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 10
  
   לכל באי שער עירו, “in the presence of all the assembled citizens of the his town.´ In connection with the dealings of Chamor and Shechem with their subjects, the Torah uses the expression לכל יוצאי שער עירו, “in the presence of all the inhabitants of his town who had come out (to the square)”. Avraham wanted to publicise his request for a burial ground even to people who were not residents of the region. The relatives of Efron, or anyone who would witness the transaction were disqualified as witnesses, whereas total strangers were fit to testify to the transaction legally.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   לעיני בני עמי, “in full view of all my people.” He called upon everyone present to be a witness to the transaction. He implied that everyone knew that he, Avraham, would not renege on an offer made by himself. In fact, as soon as he had handed over the money he took possession of both the field and the cave adjoining it. This act of taking possession was performed in full view of the people assembled be they rich, poor, tourists passing through, or local residents.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני, “I have as good as given the money for the field, all that is needed is that you accept it from me.” He meant, not as Efron had indicated that “you” have given me the field, I have already given the money for this purpose; you only have to accept it, pick it up.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ארבע מאות שקל כסף, “400 silver shekel.” According to Onkelos this was the objective value of the field.
      Our sages understood Efron as having greatly overcharged Avraham, and they describe Efron as an individual who says a lot, but falls far short in his performance of what he promised.
      According to Rabbi Meir, (Maha’ram from Rotenburg) Efron had never meant to give Avraham more than the cave for free, a promise he kept. He only charged Avraham for the field, seeing that it did not appear as proper to acquire only the cave.
      Nachmanides, following the plain text, writes that the words ארבע מאות שקל כסף,” 400 silver shekel,” refer to the price either Efron himself or his forebears had paid when they had bought the field originally.” 
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויקם שדה עפרון, “Efron’s field ‘arose.” The Torah means that the handover of the money was not yet the conclusion of this transaction. The site had not become a recognized cemetery by Avraham handing over the purchase price, but the Torah means that after it had become his property Avraham designated the site as a burial site and then proceeded to bury his wife there. It was not admissible in those days to convert a piece of earth into a cemetery until such a change had been approved by the local community.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ואחרי כן קבר, “after (all) this he proceeded to bury, etc.” Rabbi Meir points out that throughout the entire chapter thus far, Avraham had always spoken of burying מתי, “my (singular) dead,” whereas Efron and his townspeople had spoken about Avraham being allowed to bury מתיך, “your dead (plural).” According to this Rabbi the words ואת מתך קבור (verse 15) of Efron, (after the price had been agreed upon), also have to be understood as including other dead family members in the future.
  
     ואחרי כן קבר אברהם את שרה אשתו אל מערת המכפלה...היא חברון בארץ כנען. “After this, Avraham buried his wife Sarah in the cave of Machpelah. which is in Chevron in the land of Canaan.” The Torah goes to great lengths to describe the location of this field and its adjacent cave in great detail. The reason is that throughout the inhabitants of that land had been described as members of the tribe known as Hittites, a major tribe of the Canaanite nation, Whenever “the land of Canaan” is mentioned, the Torah, by implication, reminds us of the loving Providence of G’d Who gave this ancestral land to the Jewish nation. Although Avraham had only come to that land as a stranger with no claim on any part of that land, he had risen to be a highly respected member of that society, so much so that the people ceded a little of their ancestral land to have him use it as his in perpetuity.
      An additional reason for describing this location in such detail was so that we should be aware of where our patriarchs have been buried, in order to honour their memory on the occasions when we are obligated to honour the dead of our people who had led sainted lives .by visiting their graves.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ואברהם זקן בא בימים, “Avraham had become old, advanced in years.” The Torah writes this comment at this point in order to inform us that as a result of the death of Sarah, symptoms of old age suddenly became manifest in Avraham’s whole demeanour. This is also what the sages had in mind when they said” “a wife’s death primarily affects her husband.” True, the Torah had already described both Avraham and Sarah as זקנים באים בימים, “old, advanced in years” (18,11), the matter has been repeated because as a result of Sarah having become pregnant and given birth to Yitzchok both she and her husband had become rejuvenated. Avraham now reverted to being an old man.
      It is also possible to justify the mention of Avraham having become an old man at this point in view of what follows, i.e. his empowering Eliezer to choose a wife for his son Yitzchok, seeing G’d’s promise that he would die at an old age בשלום, i.e. having seen his major hopes fulfilled, this could not occur until Yitzchok had been married and had produced an heir. We know from Psalms 128,6 וראה בנים לבניך שלום על ישראל, “and live to see children of your children, peace be unto Israel,” that until one has been blessed with grandchildren one does not consider oneself as having died בשלום. He therefore had concluded that the time was overdue to see to it that Yitzchok would marry. The Torah testifies that Avraham considered himself as blessed in all areas of life, i.e. וה' ברך את אברהם בכול, although he was too old now to undertake a strenuous journey to Aram Naharayim. The word בא in our verse is to be understood as being in the past tense as in Genesis 27,35 בא אחיך במרמה, “your brother has already come, deviously, etc.”
  
     וה' ברך את אברהם בכל, “and the Lord had blessed Avraham in every way; material wealth, property, long life, and all the things which man aspires to make his life enjoyable. The only thing missing in Avraham’s life were grandchildren who would become the heirs of his prominent stature. He therefore decided to take a hand in bringing this about.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   שים נא ידך תחת ירכי, “please place your hand beneath my hip.” This was a request to swear an oath to his master by placing his hand on the site of the circumcision. Although in Jewish law, someone who needlessly touches his own or someone else’s male organ deserves to have that hand cut off, Avraham explained that in light of his having become an old man there was no chance that touching him there would result in the wasteful ejaculation of his semen.
      Ibn Ezra writes that in those days servants (slaves) used to place their hands under the hip of their master as a sign of obeisance. The master, by sitting on the servant’s hand signaled the fact that the servant had to do his bidding. The servant, by complying signaled his acknowledgment of his status.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ואשביעך, “so that I make you swear, etc.” Avraham anticipates Eliezer’s concern that no woman in her right mind would a follow someone’s servant to a distant country on the servant’s say so that he had been empowered to select her as a wife for the son of his master. Therefore, Avraham told Eliezer that he would give him irrevocable documents, oath-like, to prove to the girl’s family that if she were to come she would indeed become the wife of Avraham’s son Yitzchok. Eliezer would have the widest possible latitude in using his good judgment.
  
     אשר לא תקח אשה לבני מבנות הכנעני, “that you will not take a wife for my son from among the girls who are of Canaanite origin.” Actually, Avraham should have made Yitzchok swear an oath that he would not marry a Canaanite girl. The reason Avraham did not proceed in this fashion was that he wanted to send someone to his family in Charan or thereabouts, but he wanted to make his servant swear that he would perform the task either while he, Avraham, was still alive, or if necessary, even after his death. To this end he had to make Eliezer take an oath anyway. Seeing that he made Eliezer swear there was no longer any need to make Yitzchok swear to the same effect. He knew that Yitzchok would not violate the wishes of his father in this matter.
      Alternatively, Avraham actually appointed Eliezer to be his executor, ordering him to see that Yitzchok would get married and restricting his choices only by excluding women of Canaanite descent. To make this point quite clear to the reader, the Torah added the words המושל בכל אשר לו, describing Eliezer as having complete power of attorney concerning the affairs of Avraham.
       Some commentators believe that that at the time in question Yitzchok was simply not at hand, a view supported by the Torah when it described the chance meeting of Yitzchok and Eliezer when the former just returned from the well named by Hagar באר לחי רואי, (compare both 24,18 and 16,14) According to <i>a Midrash</i> (Yalkut), Yitzchok returned from <i>Gan Eden</i> at that time where the wounds inflicted upon him by his father when he had been lying bound on the altar had been healed.
  
     ואשביעך בה' אלוקי השמים ואלוקי הארץ, “I will make you swear in the name of the Lord of heaven and earth.” The simile was apt as marriages are made in heaven before they are consummated on earth.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   אולי לא תאבה, “perhaps the woman does not want, etc.” He was referring to what might happen after he had located a girl he considered suitable as a future wife for Yitzchok.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   אלוקי השמים, “the Lord of the heavens.” In this verse Avraham did not refer to G’d as the “Lord of the earth,” according to <i>Rashi,</i> because when Avraham describes the state of mankind when he left Charan, G’d had not had a foothold on earth that could justify us in describing him as “the Lord of the earth.”
      Nachmanides says simply that the time frame described by Avraham in that verse refers to when he had resided outside the Holy Land, and we have a tradition that anyone residing outside the Holy Land is considered as if he did not have a G’d (protecting him individually)
  
     אשר לקחני מבית אבי, “the One Who has taken me out of my father’s house, etc.” according to <i>Rashi,</i> the words מבית אבי refer to Charan, and the words מארץ מולדתי refer to Ur Casdim. Nachmanides considers this explanation flawed as if true, when Avraham instructed Eliezer to proceed to אל ארצי ואל מולדתי, he would in fact have instructed him to go to Ur Casdim, something Eliezer did not do. Avraham’s birthplace was Aram Naharayim and not Ur Casdim. G’d forbid that the seed of Avraham should become fused to a girl stemming from that region of the most blatant idolatry. Furthermore, why did Avraham call Charan ארצו, “his homeland,” when he did not even refer to the land of Canaan as “my homeland,” but described himself as a stranger there. He had lived in Canaan for over 60 years at that time, far longer than he and his father had stayed in Charan. Avraham’s birthplace had been Aram Naharayim, and this is where his family had resided from the earliest time. This is also how the matter is explained in <i>Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer,</i> the most ancient of our <i>Midrashic</i> texts where we read: “and take a wife from my family.”
  
     אשר לקחני מבית אבי, “Who has taken me from my father’s house;” the meaning of these words which sound as if Avraham had been removed from his father’s house against his will, is that it was G’d’s promise which had been instrumental in Avraham moving to a land where he had no family, to whose members he could marry off his son.
  
     ואשר נשבע לי לאמור לזרעך אתן הארץ הזאת, “and Who has sworn to me; ‘to your descendants I will give this land, etc.” It is also written concerning the heir of Avraham :כי ביצחק יקרא לךזרע, “for your descendants will be named after Yitzchok,” so that it is quite clear that this G’d will send his angel with you to make your mission successful. Therefore I can tell you without reservation that under no circumstances are you to allow my son to move back there, seeing it was G’d Who had taken me away from there.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ונקית משבועתי זאת, “and you will be absolved from this oath to me.” According to <i>Rashi,</i> this implied that under the circumstances just described, Eliezer would be free to take one of the daughters of Oner, Eshkol, or Mamre, Avraham’s closest allies I the land of Canaan..     Nachmanides is appalled at the thought that Avraham would have given his consent for Yitzchok to marry a daughter of these Canaanites, the Torah having described Mamre specifically as an Emorite (Genesis 14,13). In fact, according to <i>Bereshit Rabbah,</i> the warning not to marry Canaanite girls was aimed especially at these girls of Oner Eshkol and Mamre as Avraham had specifically described himself as dwelling in their land. (quoting from Eliezer’s speech at the house of Bethuel). Therefore, Avraham’s warning was directed specifically at girls from Yitzchok’s immediate environment. Seeing that Avraham entertained covenantal relations with these three Emorites it would have seemed natural to reinforce such ties by intermarriage between these families.     It is quite possible that Eliezer’s oath applied to all Canaanites, and that although Eliezer would be released from the part of the oath directing him to find a wife for Yitzchok from Avraham’s family, but he would not be released from the part forbidding him to select a Canaanite wife for him. This is why Avraha,m did not say (comprehensively) “you will then be released from your oath,” but משבועתי זאת, “from this (part) oath.” Eliezer had also threatened to “turn right or left,” he had not threatened to return to Canaan to look further. He could have had in mind either Ishmael, or the family of Lot.    
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  וכל טוב אדוניו בידו, “with all the good things of his master in his hand.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the word כל טוב refers to a document bequeathing all of Avraham’s wealth to his son Yitzchok. Although we already know (25,5) that Yitzchok had been appointed the sole heir, Avraham gave this document to Eliezer in order to encourage the family of the girl Eliezer would choose as Yitzchok’s bride to allow her to leave home and move to a distant land.
  Some commentators feel that when the servant (Eliezer) had sworn to his master, he took 10 camels and loaded them with all of Avraham’s portable treasures as he had been instructed to do just that
  Nachmanides explains the verse in line with the plain meaning of the text, i.e. that Eliezer took 10 of his master’s camels and loaded them with all the valuable chattels including exotic fruit which Avraham possessed.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   הנה אנכי נצב על עין המים, “here I am standing at the well of water, etc.” He meant that at this site he could conduct the kind of experiment which should show him if his mission would be successful as he could examine any prospective girl regarding her personal virtues, such as her attitude to unknown strangers making uncalled for requests. His reasoning was that if a girl behaves in a modest manner at home this was a reflection on her mother, whereas if she behaved modestly away from home she displayed her own virtue thereby, and not fear of being reprimanded by her mother.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   אותה הוכחת לעבדך ליצחק, “her You have designated for Your servant, for Yitzchok.” <i>Rashi</i> understands the word הוכחת here as meaning “suitable.” Eliezer meant that a girl who would not only agree to draw water for him, the stranger, but would volunteer to also water his camels (although he was an able-bodied man capable of doing this by himself) had proven a fit successor for Yitzchok’s mother Sarah. 
      Nachmanides explains that the words אותה הוכחת וגו' are all still part of Eliezer’s prayer which started with the words הקרה נא, (verse 12) He would consider what appeared like a coincidence מקרה not as such but as a sign from G’d that this was indeed the girl he had been searching for. This sign would prove that G’d had shown an special kindness to his master. If the girl were to be a member of Avraham’s family, this would be an additional sign.
      If you were to object, pointing out that even non Jews are forbidden to practice any kind of witchcraft or reliance on omens, so that Eliezer’s having given the jewelry to Rivkah before she had told him whose family she belonged to, you would have to answer that he did not give her the bracelets and nose-ring until he knew whose family she belonged to. We have a rule that the Torah is not obligated to report events in their chronological order, hence the fact that here the Torah has chosen to report Eliezer as giving jewelry to Rivkah on the strength of her having helped him, even before reporting who she was, is not so surprising.
      Another approach could be the fact that actually the Torah describes Eliezer only as ויקח נזם זהב וגו', “He took a golden nose-ring, etc.,” i.e. it does not state that he had already handed over the jewelry or put it on her hands as we hear in verse 47 when the servant recounted his experiences at the well, when he describes this as something he had done after having identified her as a member of Avraham’s family. Maybe, at this stage he showed the jewelry to Rivkah and asked her about her family before giving it to her and placing the bracelets on her hands. The words על ידיה would then describe the function of the צמידים, the bracelets.
      A third possibility is that the whole question of ניחוש, reliance on magical devices, omens, subjective criteria, etc.’ to establish the truth of something, is not an issue either with Eliezer or with Yonathan, David’s friend. It is only when one bases one’s course of action exclusively on coincidences, magic formulas, etc., that one violates the Torah’s commandment not to do so. Eliezer used the criteria he had set himself to examine the character of the girl as a guideline, but not as determining the issue to the extent of abandoning his own evaluation as to her suitability. Similarly, Yonathan used the arrows to encourage the lad to search further not to determine David’s course of action a fateful course. (Samuel I chapter 20)
      Ibn Ezra wrote that many people are astounded at Eliezer’s conduct, considering it as inappropriate. He does not understand how these people’s minds work. After all, it is quite clear that if the first girl who had agreed to Eliezer’s request and beyond that had turned out not to be a member of Avraham’s family, he would look further.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   בתולה ואיש לא ידעה, “a virgin, with whom no man had been intimate.” <i>Rashi</i> explains the apparent duplication to mean that no man had even had abnormal sexual relations with her. Besides, if she had been sexually violated while being younger than three years of age, her hymen would have regenerated itself and left no visible marks of such penetration.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   וירץ העבד לקראתה, “the servant ran towards her.” He did so after witnessing that the waters in the well had risen in response to her approach. Our sages derive this from the wording of our verse ותמלא כדה ותעל, “she filled the jug and ascended.” There is no mention here of her having “drawn water,” ותשאב, something the Torah emphasis in verse 20 when she descended again in order to draw water for Eliezer’s camels. No miracle occurred in order to facilitate the watering of the camels. The first time the miracle occurred in order that Eliezer focus on the unusual speed with which this girl came up from the well, her jug already filled with water. 
      Although, when Eliezer recounts the events at the table of Bethuel and Lavan he did not mention the miracle which had occurred, but described Rivkah as having drawn the water normally, (verse 45) he omitted mention of the miracle as he was afraid Lavan and Bethuel would not believe him and would consider his having fabricated that event in order to enhance his chances of obtaining their consent for Rivkah to travel back with him to the land of Canaan. 
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   מקום לנו ללין,”we have enough room to offer guests to stay overnight.” He meant “enough room to accommodate animals overnight?” She replied מקום לנו ללון, We have enough room to accommodate visiting strangers overnight. (including their beasts).” Although Eliezer had not enquired about fodder for his camels, she volunteered that all this was included in the invitation. He was not to think that he had to pay for it. She made it plain that her father would be offended if he offered to pay for the accommodation or the fodder.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   בת בתואל אנכי בן מלכה אשר ילדה לנחור, “I am a daughter of Bethuel, who is a son of Milkah she had born for Nachor.” She was so explicit because Nachor also had a concubine named Re-umah, and she wanted it understood that her father was not the son of a concubine. It was the custom in those days to enumerate the father’s genealogy before that of the mother. When it came to other matters, girls tended to keep company and share intimacies with their mothers, as in verse 28 where Rivkah relates her encounter with Eliezer to her mother. [If she had not suddenly worn costly jewelry Lavan might not have become aware that something unusual had happened at the well. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   וירץ לבן, “Lavan ran;” some scholars ask what prompted Lavan to run to meet Eliezer even before he had seen the jewelry on the hands of his sister? They explain the sequence of what happened as follows: when Lavan realized that his sister took unusually long to return with her jug of water from the well, he ran to find out if anything had happened to her. He was afraid she might have been violated by some male. Instead of taking the normal route, he ran across orchards etc., in order to reach the well faster. When he did not find Rivkah at the well, seeing she was on the way home by her regular route, and had told her mother who had given her the jewelry, he returned home When Lavan on his return home not only heard the unlikely story of how Rivkah had come into possession of these trinkets, he turned back to confront the man she said had given her such precious gifts. There is no need for such a convoluted explanation. The words ויהי כראות את הנזם ואת הצמידים, “as soon as he saw the nose ring and the bracelets,” merely tell us the reason why וירץ לבן, “Lavan took off in a rush,” to meet this generous stranger. 
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ויבא האיש הביתה, “As soon as the man entered the house,” the man referred to was Eliezer.
  
     ויפתח הגמלים ויתן תבן ומספוא לגמלים, “he untied the camels and provided them with fodder and straw to lie on.” Here the verse reverts to activities performed by Lavan who displayed concern for the well being of his guests and their beasts. Apparently, the camels had been tied to one another while they had been wandering. He also gave water for Eliezer and his men to wash their feet after what had been a lengthy journey.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
   אלי לא תלך, “maybe she is not willing to go, etc.” the word “perhaps,” אולי, is spelled here without the customary letter ו, which prompts <i>Rashi</i> to suggest that Eliezer had a daughter whom he would have liked to be married to Yitzchok.. Since he did not dare suggest this to Avraham, the first time the word אולי appears in this connection it is spelled in the ordinary manner; only now when Avraham was not present, and the whole matter was hanging in the balance, did the Torah hint to the reader about Eliezer’s secret aspirations.
  
  
  Verse 40
  
   ישלח מלאכו, “He will send His angel, etc.” Avraham had been referring to a specific angel, as in כי ילך מלאכי לפניך, “for My angel will travel in front of you” (Exodus 23,23) [where G’d speaks of an angel that will represent Him specifically during the conquest of the land of Canaan. Ed.] He did not refer to the angel described in Exodus 33,2 ושלחתי לפניך מלאך, “I will send an angel ahead of you.” [In that instance G’d’s benevolent providence had been reduced to a more indirect level, as evidenced by the absence of the suffix ו, “His” at the end of the word מלאך. Here the word מלאכו appears twice, indicating that there were two angels active to ensure the success of Eliezer’s mission. (compare 24,7) The first angel’s mission was to keep harm from befalling Eliezer and his men; the second angel was to ensure the arrival of the right girl at the right place at the right time.
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
   והנה רבקה יוצאת, “and lo, Rivkah was coming out, etc.” Eliezer had heard while in Lavan’s house that the girl whom he had met was called Rivkah. Alternatively, she might have told him her personal name already while at the well. 
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  ויוצא העבד כלי כסף וכלי זהב ובגדים ויתן לרבקה . “The servant unpacked silver and golden trinkets and garments, and gave all of them to Rivkah.” These she was to take with them back to the home of Yitzchok. To Rivkah’s brother and mother he only gave exotic fruit and other condiments. If he had handed the silver and golden trinkets to her family, they surely would have remained in their possession.
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
   ויאמר אחיה תשב הנערה, “her brother said: let the girl stay here (for a while).” According to the plain meaning of the text, Rivkah’s father Bethuel was the one who had said: הנה רבקה לפניך קח ולך, “here is Rivkah at your command, take her and go.” When they heard this, Lavan and his mother said that she should not leave for a while, a year or at least ten months.
      Ibn Ezra claims that the ones who spoke were the ones who had received the gifts from Eliezer, whereas the father kept silent on the subject. It is possible that Lavan was a more prominent and distinguished person than his father, and this accounts for his speaking up first. This would be supported by the Torah writing ויען לבן ובתואל, instead of ויען בתואל ולבן.
  
  
  Verse 56
  
  
  
  Verse 57
  
   ויאמרו: נקרא לנערה, “They said: ‘let us call the girl herself and ask her.” This was a challenge to Eliezer who had represented her as already having agreed to come with him. Hence they asked her openly: “do you really want to go with this man?”
      Alternately, the question posed to Rivkah meant: “do you prefer to travel with this man, or would you prefer that one of us comes with you to the land of Canaan?” Her answer when she said; “I will go,” meant that she considered the man as trustworthy and that it would be unfair to delay him on account of the expensive jewelry she had already accepted from him.”
  
  
  Verse 58
  
  
  
  Verse 59
  
  
  
  Verse 60
  
  
  
  Verse 61
  
   ויקח העבד את רבקה וילך, “The servant took Rivkah and he went.” The Torah here describes the servant’s desire to quickly complete his mission, after all the women had first accompanied Rivkah to the outskirts of the town, now Eliezer personally took over the task of watching over her to protect her against any possible mishap.
      Alternatively, seeing that the entire entourage of Rivkah and her family and friends had delayed the orderly departure as they had difficulty in parting from her, Eliezer now told the locals to turn back and let him get on with his task; i.e. ויקח, he now took matters in hand, etc.
      Ibn Ezra opines that the meaning of the apparently repeated mention of Eliezer taking Rivkah is that he personally walked along side her until they eventually met Yitzchok, and that he did not mind the inconvenience of walking (instead of riding on a camel).
  
  
  Verse 62
  
   ויצחק בא מבוא לחי רואי, “Yitzchok was just returning from having visited the well named E-lohay ro-I by the angel who had predicted Ishmael’s birth to Hagar.” According to Ibn Ezra מבוא is the name of a place which was also known as באר לחי רואי.
      Nachmanides explains that Yitzchok only now returned from the place known as באר לחי רואי. If the Torah had not added the word מבוא but had written בא מבאר לחי רואי, we would have thought that this was where Yitzchok resided permanently. By adding the word מבוא it becomes clear that Yitzchok at this point was on the way home to the city where he resided permanently. His stay at באר לחי רואי had been strictly temporary.
      It is possible that he would go there for the purpose of offering up prayers seeing that it had been at that location that he had seen the angel (when he lay bound) but that he had a permanent residence far more to the south of Moriah He had reached another town situated on the route to his home town, and there he went out towards evening to have a chat with a friend who lived there. While on route, he encountered Eliezer and Rivkah. And they walked all together to his home town.
  
  
  Verse 63
  
   לשוח בשדה, “to pray in the field.” The expression שיח means “prayer.” Although the sages have said that it is bad manners for someone to pray in the outdoors, this case was special seeing the location was Mount Moriah, as our sages are on record that Yitzchok referred to G’d as שדה, “field.” [the field being the source of all nutrition for man and beast on earth. Ed.] 
      Alternately, what the sages disapproved of was prayer in the בקעה an open area frequented by travelers who would be a distraction to the person concentrating on his prayer. A שדה, an open field not frequented by people would not be a source of distraction, and offering one’s prayers there would be approved by the sages. 
  
  
  Verse 64
  
   ותרא את יצחק ותפול מעל הגמל, “when she saw Yitzchok she fell from the camel.” <i>Rashi, in common with Onkelos,</i> understands this not as a “fall,” but that Rivkah slid down to the ground from her saddle in order to greet her husband to be not from a position above him, but by observing good manners.
  The expression השמיטה used by <i>Rashi</i> means that she did not actually descend to the ground prostrating herself, but that she dutifully inclined her head in greeting. One of the parallel uses of the word quoted by <i>Rashi</i> is ויט שמים, “He inclined the heavens,” also translated by Onkelos with the same expression אתרכינת that he uses for the word ותפול in our verse here. Nachmanides disagrees with this approach by <i>Rashi</i> to the word הרכין used by Onkelos to describe what Rivkah did. He thinks, that just as elsewhere, that word merely means that she adjusted her posture so as to be able to face Yitzchok in a manner she deemed appropriate. In his view the word השמיטה would mean falling or sliding all the way to the ground. Rivkah avoided facing Yitzchok directly and turned somewhat sideways. 
  
  Verse 65
  
  
  
  Verse 66
  
  
  
  Verse 67
  
   ותהי לו לאשה ויאהביה, “she became his wife and he loved her.” Onkelos supplies the reason why the Torah felt the need to write this line saying that when Yitzchok observed that Rivkah was a righteous woman like his mother Sarah he fell in love with her.     Nachmanides writes that the reason that the Torah mentions Yitzchok’s loving Rivkah in one and the same breath as his finally comforting himself over the loss of his mother, was because Rivkah represented a replacement of all the virtues Sarah had possessed. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ושמה קטורה, “whose name was Keturah.” <i>Rashi</i> claims that Keturah was identical with Hagar, who appears in a new guise. Her new name reflected her new and improved attitudes, comparable to the incense offered on the altar, the most beloved of Israel’s sacrificial offerings. In order to reconcile this comment with what <i>Rashi</i> had written on Genesis 21,14 where Hagar is described as ותלך ותתע, as returning to the idolatrous practices she had absorbed in her home as a child, we would have to postulate that in the interval she had become a penitent. Although she was of Egyptian origin [and therefore no better than a Canaanite from the point of view of Avraham’s criteria for intermarriage Ed.] she was not only of perfectly good character, but seeing that the first time Avraham had married he had done so with Divine approval, she was now also permissible to him as a wife.
      I have seen a comment in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 61,4 that even at this stage Avraham married her at G’d’s instructions This is why the Torah wrote ויוסף אברהם ויקח, “he again married, etc.” The word ויוסף is to tell us that just as it had been with G’d’s approval that he had married Hagar the first time, he still enjoyed G’d’s approval when he took her back. The <i>Midrash</i> describes an argument between two scholars of the Talmud who debated this subject.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ותלד לו את זמרן,”she bore Zimron for him.” Concerning Isaiah 29,22 אשר פדה אברהם, “who redeemed Avraham,” which according to our sages means that Avraham was freed from the burden of raising children, and which seems incompatible with the fact that he had to raise 6 children by Keturah, apart from the fact that most fathers enjoy having many children to raise, we must assume that what the author of that comment had in mind was that Avraham dd not have to experience the problems his grandson Yaakov faced when his son Joseph went missing, when his daughter Dinah was raped, and when various of his sons at different times behaved in a manner unacceptable to him.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   אשורים ולטושים ולאומים. According to <i>Rashi</i> these are all names of the eventual nations they developed into. Personally, I fail to reconcile what Onkelos says on these name with the wording of the text.
      Nachmanides writes that he understands Onkelos as saying that אשורים are camps and caravans which move from city to city, similar tote caravans of Ishmaelite traders described in the story of the sale of Joseph. The word is related to Job 23,11 באשורו אחזה רגלי, “I have followed in his tracks.” The word לטושים he understands as referring to Bedouins, dwellers in tents, instead of people housed in permanent structures. These are apt to be abandoned in time of need. The letter ל and נ are often used interchangeably as in נשכה instead of לשכה.”office.” (Nechemyah 13,7) Onkelos translates לאומים as נגון, i.e. a word meaning “islands.” (island dwellers) Probably Onkelos was alerted to the change in the text from יקשן ילד, “Yakshon sired,” to בני דן היו instead of בני דן ילדו, to see in the three wordsאשורים, ולטושים, and ולאומים something other than additional offspring. We would have expected a formulation parallel to Genesis 10,13 ומצרים ילד.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויתן אברהם את כל אשר לו ליצחק, “Avraham deeded all that was his to Yitzchok. Some people question this procedure, basing themselves on <i>Ketuvot</i> 53 where the Talmud rules that a father must not re-allocate part of his estate from a son who is morally unfit to one who has developed morally and ethically to his liking, seeing he does not know how the grandson from either son will turn out. It is stated there that a convert the son of Hagar, i.e. a slave woman, cannot inherit at any rate, as whatever is his belongs to his master. Whereas this is a good answer concerning the status of Yishmael, it leaves unanswered the question how Avraham could disinherit the sons of Keturah. I believe that there is no difficulty at all, seeing the Torah had told Avraham specifically that his seed will only be known through Yitzchok, i.e. that Yitzchok will be his only heir. It does not mean that the other sons were intrinsically unfit because of their character or some other impediment,
      According to <i>Rashi,</i> quoting <i>Sanhedrin 91,</i> Avraham handed to these sons שם טומאה, i.e. seeing they referred to their idols by the sacred name of the Creator, he taught them to refer to these idols by some other name.
      It is also possible that the meaning of this strange sounding comment by the Talmud is that he informed them of a name for G’d which it is permissible to use even in their state of ritual impurity. All this, because he observed that these sons of Keturah were practicing different forms of idolatry and worshipping those idols. The reason that these sons of Avraham also practiced this form of idolatry was their being so anxious to obtain information about their impending fate, something which the religion of their time promised to have for those who practiced their cults. By informing them of this name for the true G’d, he told them that by invoking it they would become privy to knowledge of the future. [According to the Maharal from Prague the reason Avraham taught his sons the “names” of these idolatries, i.e. the essence of their teachings, was to enable them to counter the damaging influence the power of these demons exercised upon them. According to the author of the כתב והקבלה, Rabbi Mecklenburg, the מתנות, “gifts” Avraham gave to his sons was the know how to protect themselves against the insidious influence of the various religious cults prevalent in their neighborhood.. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ולבני הפילגשים, “and to the sons of the concubines, etc” No doubt Hagar’s status in the household of Avraham had been that of a concubine, whereas Keturah was his wife in the full sense of that term. If she had been a servant maid in his household and he had raised her to the status of concubine the Torah would not have described this as ויקח אשה ושמה קטורה, “He married a woman named Keturah.” If the Torah here describes Keturah as a concubine, this was only since G’d had decreed that Yitzchok would be Avraham’s sole heir, so that sons from any other woman would have to content themselves with gifts handed to them during their father’s lifetime. Avraham had taken these women from the Caaanite women, for if Keturah had been an Egyptian or Philistine by birth the Torah could not have said that Avraham dispatched these sons somewhere to the Far East, but he would have sent them back to Egypt or the land of the Philistines when their mother had come. The prohibition of marrying Canaanite women applied only to Avraham’s heirs, not to children who would not inherit his estate, and thus represent his outlook on life.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   זקן ושבע ימים, “in a ripe old age.” He had seen all his aspirations fulfilled. The Torah here describes an attitude to life by the pious who do not demand more than has been granted to them by G’d’s grace without their pleading for this.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   וישב יצחק עם באר לחי רואי, “Yitzchok settled near the well which had been named א-לוהי רואי (by the angel who had foretold Ishmael’s birth and rise to greatness. Perhaps the cumbersome description of Yitzchok’s home is due to the fact that it was not an urban location.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ואלה שני חיי ישמעאל, “these are the years that Ishmael lived, etc.” According to Nachmanides our sages offer a variety of reasons why the Torah bothered to go into such detail about the years of Ishmael, as well as his offspring.
      According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah details much about the lives of the righteous, their offspring, etc.; whereas it is sparse with information about the wicked, so that he have no data about how old Esau was when he died, although it is clear that he survived his twin Yaakov. The story of the patriarchs is considered closed with the death of Yaakov, so that no further reference is made to his brother.
  
     ויגוע, “he died.” Our sages have said that the formula combining ויגוע ויאסף is used only in connection with the righteous. When the term ויגוע is used without the word ויאסף אל עמיו following, this is an indication that the person concerned did not die as a righteous person.
      Nachmanides writes that the reason why the word גויעה means “death” is that it describes death not preceded b terminal sickness. When the word is accompanied further by the word וימת or ויאסף, it means that the individual thus described was a righteous person and that he died suddenly. When death is described as גויעה alone, it means the person concerned was a wicked person. Examples are the death of the people during the generation of the flood, and the death of the Jews in the desert as a result of the sin with the spies.
  
     ויאסף אל עמיו, “he was gathered in to his people.” Ibn Ezra writes that (according to some) this is a description of the honour being paid to the soul of the deceased. While the relatives are busy with interring the physical remains of the deceased, his soul meanwhile rises to the celestial regions, this being the first time that body and soul are each going their separate ways. Others claim that there is no ulterior meaning to this formulation but that it described the deceased now starting the journey to join his forebears, having already followed in their footsteps while still here on earth. This is what G’d promised Avraham when He said to him: “ואתה תבוא אל אבותיך בשלום, “but you will join your fathers in peace.”(prior to the commencement of the 400 years of being strangers or enslaved, Genesis 15,15)
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, אברהם הוליד את יצחק. “These are the generations of Yitzchok the son of Avraham, Avraham sired Yitzchok.” <i>Rashi</i> explained that the new element the Torah informs us of here, is that Yitzchok’s facial features were almost identical to that of his father Avraham. This was important because it made it impossible for people to claim that Sarah had been impregnated by Avimelech while being kept a prisoner there.     Others believe that the reason that the Torah here repeated information we have long been familiar with, is to tell us that Avraham did not only produce Yitzchok physically, but he raised him in his image so that he represented a true continuation of Avraham’s teachings and their impact on his surroundings. This is why people would refer to him primarily as בן אברהם, although he had been named יצחק.     Ibn Ezra explains that that the very word הוליד, does not only mean to provide the semen for such a child, but to raise it, educate it, etc. This was also what the Torah had in mind in Genesis 50,23 when the children of Machir, son of Menashe, are described as יולדו על ברכי יוסף, normally translated as “were born on the knees of Joseph.” Surely, what the Torah meant was that Joseph, their grandfather, was still able to become an influence in shaping these children’s character.     Nachmanides writes that it is appropriate when speaking of someone’s descendants, to first list his own genealogy. <i>Yichuss</i>, never starts in a vacuum, except with the first man, of course. It is the Torah’s custom, when dealing with people who are of the elite, to list their founding father. The Torah was compelled to do this here in light of having written in 25,12 ואלה תולדות ישמעאל בן אברהם אשר ילדה לו הגר, “these are the generations of Ishmael, son of Avraham, whom Hagar had born for him.” If the Torah had only written:ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, without adding אברהם הוליד את יצחק, we would have equated Yitzchok to Ishmael. As it is, the Torah made plain that we would understand that the only תולדה of Avraham which counts is Yitzchok, and no other biological offspring of Avraham. This is again to remind us that G’d had told Avraham כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, “you will forever be exclusively identified with Yitzchok as your true seed.”     25.20 בקחתו את רבקה, “when he married Rivkah, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> claims that Rivkah was only three years old when she became married to Yitzchok. This is very difficult to accept in view of the fact that the Torah had referred to her repeatedly as נערה, a term used for girls at least 12 years old. This in turn would raise the question why Yitzchok did not divorce Rivkah after she had not born a child after 10 years of marriage, and according to the Talmud <i>Ketuvot</i> 64, in that event a husband should divorce his wife. If so why did Yitzchok even wait for 20 years before he prayed for Rivkah to have children? The Talmud answers the question by explaining that Yitzchok’s situation was unusual in that Rivkah had been biologically unable to have children during the first ten years of her marriage as she had been too young to bear a healthy child.     In the <i>Sifri,</i> a sage is quoted giving Rivkah’s age at her marriage as 14 years. Such divergences of opinion between different sages quoted in a <i>Midrash</i> are not unusual, although in this instance that sage has to confront the question why it took Yitzchok 20 years before he prayed for children.
  
  Verse 20
  
  קחתו את רבקה, “when he married Rivkah, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> claims that Rivkah was only three years old when she became married to Yitzchok. This is very difficult to accept in view of the fact that the Torah had referred to her repeatedly as נערה, a term used for girls at least 12 years old. This in turn would raise the question why Yitzchok did not divorce Rivkah after she had not born a child after 10 years of marriage, and according to the Talmud <i>Ketuvot</i> 64, in that event a husband should divorce his wife. If so why did Yitzchok even wait for 20 years before he prayed for Rivkah to have children? The Talmud answers the question by explaining that Yitzchok’s situation was unusual in that Rivkah had been biologically unable to have children during the first ten years of her marriage as she had been too young to bear a healthy child. In the <i>Sifri,</i> a sage is quoted giving Rivkah’s age at her marriage as 14 years. Such divergences of opinion between different sages quoted in a <i>Midrash</i> are not unusual, although in this instance that sage has to confront the question why it took Yitzchok 20 years before he prayed for children.
  אחות לבן הארמי, “sister of Lavan from Aram.” It is customary for the Torah to provide the name of the elder brother of a girl as part of her genealogy. 
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויעתר לו, “G’d responded to his prayer.” The emphasis on the word לו is meant to tell us that G’d did not respond to her prayer. The reason is that we have a principle that a prisoner is unable to free himself (without external help) [In this instance it was Rivkah who could not have children, hence she is comparable to someone who is handicapped, like a prisoner in a cell. Compare <i>Sifssey Chachamim</i> on Genesis Ed.] 
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויתרוצצו, “They quarreled.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the wrangle inside Rivkah’s womb concerned two worlds. According to the plain meaning of the text, seeing that Esau developed a lot of body hair whereas Yaakov was smooth skinned, Esau’s hair kept rubbing Yaakov’s skin, resulting in violent movement inside her womb, Yaakov trying to escape being scratched.
  
     ותאמר: אם כן וגו', “she said: ”if so, etc.” according to <i>Rashi</i> she said that “if my desire to found a nation of twelve tribes involves so much pain as part of the pregnancies, why did I ever aspire to become the founding mother of such a nation?” According to a <i>Midrash,</i> Rivkah’s complaint of למה זה אנכי was the reason that it was not she who became the founding mother of the twelve tribes. In practice, it was Esau who inadvertently damaged Rivkah’s uterus to the extent that she could not again become pregnant.
      Other commentators interpret Rivkah’s complaint not as directed against future pregnancies, but as her immediate fear of her embryos seeing the light of the world too soon due to their conduct within her womb. She was afraid of giving birth to premature babies, babies that would die at birth or shortly thereafter. Her complaint was that if she had to undergo all these pains only in order to abort at the end, what was the point in her becoming pregnant in the first place? Why would she have been singled out for such a difficult pregnancy?
      Yet other scholars see Rivkah’s question as not addressed to G’d, but to other women who had born children successfully. After these women told her that they had not experienced any of the symptoms Rivkah had been plagued by during her pregnancy, she then addressed the question of why she had been singled out to G’d, (using the head of the academy of Shem and Ever as her intermediary)
      Nachmanides understands Rivkah’s question as wanting to know if her children were already quarrelling before they were born, her own life would not be worth living and she would be better off dead.
  
     ותלך לדרוש את ה', “she went in order to enquire from G’d.” <i>Rashi</i> understands her question as pertaining to the future of these children. Perhaps the reason she preferred to address her enquiry to the head of the Academy of Shem instead of to her father-in-law Avraham, who was still alive at the time, was that she did not want to let him know that she was so beset by mental and physical anguish.
      Nachmanides understands the words ותלך לדרוש את ה', to mean that Rivkah appealed directly to G’d in prayer seeing that she felt so much anguish.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   שני גויים בבטמנך, “there are two nations within your womb.” G’d informed her not to worry, that her condition was due to the fact that she would give birth to twins. All the commotion going on within her was due to that fact; women who are pregnant with twins usually experience these violent upheavals within their wombs.
      Alternately, it is possible that G’d informed her that the convulsions she had experienced foreshadowed that these twins would not live harmoniously together, especially at the time preceding the redemption of mankind. In the meantime, these convulsions would cease forthwith. 
  
     ורב יעבוד צעיר, “and the senior one would serve the junior one.” This can be interpreted in various directions. Either, literally, the older one will serve the younger one, or as in Ezekiel 26,2 אמלאה החרבה, where the prophet describes the city Tzor (Tyre) as discontent as long as Jerusalem has not been destroyed. The philosophies of Esau and Yaakov are mutually exclusive, and as long as both are alive and vibrant the other can not be content.
      Another approach to the word רב sees in it a reference to “abundance, surfeit,” as in ’ורב מקולות וגו, “enough, too much of the thunder, etc.” (Exodus 9,28) Translated into our verse here, the meaning of the prophecy would be that the many would serve the few. (Yaakov’s descendants being “the few.”)
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   וידו אוחזת בעקב עשו, “and his hand was holding on to the heel of Esau.” He tried to keep Esau from becoming the firstborn. Possibly, Yaakov only wanted to emerge from his mother’s womb simultaneously with his brother. He did not want his mother to experience separate birth pangs on his account.
  
     ויקרא שמו יעקב, “his father called him ‘Yaakov.’” Seeing that Yitzchok’s name is not mentioned here as such, <i>Rashi</i> considers G’d Himself as the subject of the word ויקרא. His view has been confirmed by the <i>Midrash.</i> When the Jerusalem Talmud states that whereas both Yaakov and Avraham whose names had been given by their respective fathers, underwent changes of name, Yitzchok who had been named by G’d in the first place, never underwent such a change of name, this may not be a contradiction to the <i>Midrash,</i> but may mean that the reason Yitzchok’s name was never changed was that he was so named before Sarah had even conceived him. Seeing that Yaakov was not named by G’d until after he had been born, his name could be subject to change, [or in his case to an addition, seeing that the name Yaakov was never abolished. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   ויגדלו הנערים, “the lads grew up, etc.” According to <i>Rashi</i> it was not evident until they reached the age of 13 that their actions were noticeably different, one from the other. This was so in spite of the prediction that they would be distinctly different from one another already from birth, i.e.ממעיך יפרדו. To the outsider it was impossible to tell which of the two was the righteous son and which was the sinner. <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary is difficult in that it describes the age of 13 as the one at which it became plain that Esau was the son disloyal to his father’s teachings, as according to our <i>Midrashim</i> the reason that Avraham died at 175 instead of living to the age of 180, was to spare him the anguish of seeing one of his grandchildren rejecting his teachings. If Esau became delinquent at 13, Avraham would only have been 178 years old at that time. There is a <i>Midrash</i> according to which Yitzchok spent 2 years in <i>Gan Eden</i> immediately after the <i>Akeydah,</i> years which are not included when we combine the various periods of his life. According to such a count, Avraham would have been 162 years old at the birth of Yaakov and Esau, and when these boys reached the age of 13, Avraham would have been 175 years old, so that he would have died before becoming aware of Esau, his grandson, rejecting his spiritual heritage
      If we consider that on occasion, a single day in a year can be equivalent to an entire year, -such as when a King ascends the throne on the last day of the month of Adar, so that the following day is considered as part of the second year of his reign, since in Jewish law the calendar year for kings commences on the first day of <i>Nissan</i>, then by allowing for such an occurrence at the beginning of Yitzchok’s life, and something similar at the beginning of Avraham’s life, we would not have to resort to the <i>Midrash</i> which describes Yitzchok as spending 2 years in <i>Gan Eden</i> in a state of suspended animation from the point of view of calendar calculations.- Even this calculation involves contradictions, seeing that G’d promised the righteous את מספר ימיך אמלא, “I will make the days of your life’s year full,” i. e. no year of the life of a person such as Yitzchok or Avraham could possibly contain only a single day. 
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   כי ציד בפיו, “for he would provide venison to eat.” Onkelos explains that Yitzchok would eat from the proceeds of Esau’s hunting expeditions. Accordingly, our verse is slightly abbreviated and should have read: כי יתן ציד בפיו, “for he would feed him venison.” Alternately, the expression בפיו refers to Yitzchok’s mouth, and informs us that Yitzchok was in the habit of dining on venison. He loved Esau, seeing Esau was an expert in providing choice venison.
      Nachmanides holds that the statement is a euphemism describing Esau as deceiving his father into thinking he was loyal to his teachings by flattering him. The use of euphemisms by the Torah is nothing unusual.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ויבא עשו מן השדה והוא עיף, “Esau came home from the field, very tired;” he was so tired that he was overcome by a dizzy spell, fainting, so that he concluded that he was about to die soon. He meant that unless he would get something to eat immediately, his condition would deteriorate and result in his death. This being so, what good would the birthright be to him?
      One of the allegorical explanations of the <i>Midrash</i> claims that his condition was due to his having lost his bearings in the field and the forest, areas that do not abound with markers showing the way; instead of finding deer to kill, he exhausted himself finding the way home. When he found his brother Yaakov tending his father’s flocks in the field, he remarked that he would die soon as there was no one who had the power to restore him except his saintly father. [in the <i>ספר הישר,</i> Esau’s exhaustion is even described as fatigue after having successfully battled two of Nimrod’s soldiers, and his fearing for his life as a result. Ed.] 
      The expression הלעיטני נא, “spoon-feed me,” indicates that this commentary may be close to the truth, as otherwise Esau would have said something like “תן לי,” “give to me!” He was so weak that he could not even lift his hand to his mouth.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   מן האדום האדום הזה, “from this reddish looking dish.” Some commentators understand the second word אדום as a reference to Esau himself who was known as אדום, “the red one.” It was a play on words, the “red one” saying that the reddish looking dish is fit for the reddish looking man, meaning himself.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   מכרה כיום, “sell me as of this day!” <i>Rashi</i> understands the word כיום as describing the transaction about to take place to be as clear and beyond misunderstanding as daylight, which illuminates everything clearly. The plain meaning of the word is: “immediately,” as, for instance in Samuel I 2,16 קטר יקטירון כיום את החלה, “let me first burn the fat presently, etc.”     Onkelos, taking into account that the sale under discussion will become effective only after Yitzchok’s death, understands the word כיום to mean “as and when, with retroactive closing date as of today.”     Some commentators understand Yaakov as saying that the sale, trade, will be effective only today when you are close to death. It is appropriate that you receive some of this dish now for once you have died the entire inheritance of our father will automatically come to me. Esau admitted that Yaakov was right and proceeded to gulp down the red dish.     The major problem with the whole transaction is that a birthright has never been understood as something that can be acquired or disposed of by selling and buying. What kind of procedure represents the transfer of the object being sold to the buyer, i.e. what מעשה קנין is there possible? If the object of the sale was the double share of the father’s inheritance decreed by the Torah for the firstborn, we have learned that if someone says “I sell you what I will inherit from my father,” that such a declaration is legally quite meaningless. (<i>Baba Metzia 16)</i> Some resolve this problem by saying that seeing Yaakov should by rights have been the firstborn as he was formed out of Yitzchok’s first drop of semen, and that Esau was born first only because he pushed himself ahead at the time of the delivery, he did not even need to make a קנין, act of acquisition, for something which rightfully was his in the first place. We do not think that this argument is tenable, as the Torah specifically calls the “first born” the one that emerges first from the mother’s womb. (Exodus 13,2)     Others hold that Yaakov was convinced that his father was going to deed him all his belongings during his lifetime, just as Avraham had deeded all his belongings to Yitzchok during his lifetime. He would do so in order to forestall any legal protest by Esau when the time came.     Still other Rabbis claim that the word בכורתך did not refer to inherited wealth at all, but to the dignity, the standing among his peers that the senior brother usually commands. Yaakov wanted to trade the dish of lentils he was about to give to Esau for that intangible symbol of dignity.     Still other sages say that all Yaakov was about to buy from Esau was anything that he might inherit from his father on this very day, (if his father were to die on that day). If so, such a sale would be legally valid. Yaakov used the words מכרה כיום to clarify that legal point. When hearing this, Esau said: ”what good is the birthright to me that you want to buy from me only what might accrue to me this day, seeing that I am not going to outlive my father anyway, you might as will buy my future share in any birthright also.” This is why the Torah testifies in a line later on that Esau displayed his disdain for the birthright. (verse 34) In any event, seeing that the part of the transaction described by Yaakov with the words מכרה כיום was legally valid, any codicil, such as proposed by Esau, would be valid also. Esau seized upon that point later on when he accused Yaakov of ויעקבני זה פעמים (27,36) referring to the fact that Yaakov had tricked him into this codicil, something that would not have had legal standing but for his having first agreed to the sale of limited duration, i.e. מכרה כיום.     My late father, the רא'ש of blessed memory, seized on this detail to rule that when someone sells something to one’s neighbour which is not subject to regular methods of acquisition, such as “what I am going to inherit from my father,” or “a loan which I have outstanding for repayment with X and secured only by an oral promise to repay,” both objects not subject to sale in the accepted sense of the word, and the seller adds an oath to his verbal sale, such a sale has become valid, and the court can enforce the terms of the sale from the seller due to the seller having obligated himself by oath. This is all derived from the pains Yaakov took to legalise the sale for the day on which it was concluded by adding the words “swear it to me,“ to Esau.
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  ויעקב נתן לעשו, “meanwhile Yaakov had already given to Esau, etc.” Some commentators believe that the food Yaakov had given to Esau had not been in exchange for the birthright, but had been an ordinary human gesture, something everybody does when faced with an extremely hungry person whom he is able to help. The type and amount of payment Yaakov gave Esau in exchange for the birthright has not been recorded in the Torah. 
     ויבז עשו את הבכורה, “Esau displayed disdain for the birthright.” According to Ibn Ezra, Esau’s disdain for the birthright was rooted in the fact that his father Yitzchok, though initially heir to an immense fortune, had become poor, so that he even depended on his food supply on his son Esau who supplied his meat diet. If bread had been plentiful in Yitzchok’s home at that time, Esau would not have sold his birthright for a mere dish of lentils. Even assuming that Yitzchok had been eating delicacies on a daily basis, how are we to account for the fact that Rivkah sent her son Yaakov empty-handed to find a match in the house of Lavan who was known to cherish money above all else? Yaakov even had to pray to G’d that He should provide him with bread to eat and clothes to wear! (Genesis 28,20)     Nachmanides accuses Ibn Ezra of misunderstanding or misrepresenting the state of affairs in Yitzchok’s household. The Torah testifies that Yitzchok had inherited great wealth. If he had been poor, why would Avimelech have been afraid of the influence which his great wealth bestowed on Yitzchok so that he described him as being more powerful than he, the king of the Philistines? (26,26) It is unreasonable to suppose that in the short interval between Avraham’s death (or even his “retirement,”) and the sale of the birthright he had lost all his wealth. Moreover, the Torah testifies after the death of Avraham that G’d blessed Yitzchok (seeing that Avraham had neglected to do this, so as not to offend Ishmael) If Yitzchok had become a pauper, how would G’d’s blessing have manifested itself as such? The fact that Rivkah did not send a dowry with Yitzchok was not because they were poor, but because she was afraid that this would give Esau additional reason to ambush him and kill him. As to the venison Esau supplied for his father, his father happened to be fond of venison, and he used this supply of venison brought to him by his son Esau in order to strengthen the mutual bond of love between father and firstborn son. [Yitzchok was keenly aware that additional external prompts were needed to firm that relationship. Ed.] The Torah sees the example of Esau’s selling the birthright for a dish of lentils as an illustration of his general lack of moral stature. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   מלבד הרעב הראשון, “in addition to the first famine, etc.” Nachmanides, basing himself on the word הראשון, “the first ever,” speculates that the famine in Avraham’s time may have been the first famine on record in antiquity. If not, why was there a need to once more refer to a famine, which, at this time, does not interest the reader at all?
      It is possible that the reason that the Torah does refer to the previous famine is that people in Yitzchok’s generation still recalled the famine which had occurred some 70-80 years earlier, and they recalled that Avraham had moved to Egypt at the time on account of that famine. They also remembered that Avraham had become a very wealthy man during his stay in Egypt, and had even retained all that newly acquired wealth despite his confrontation with the Pharaoh of Egypt. It was natural then to expect that like father like son, Yitzchok too, would move to Egypt to await the end of the famine there. This is why G’d told him not to leave the Holy Land, or, more specifically, not to move to Egypt. G’d added that He would extend His blessing to him. He renewed the oath He had sworn to Avraham at the time.
      <i>
      Rashi</i> explains the reason why Yitzchok was not to descend to Egypt being the fact that someone who had been a burnt offering on the altar on the Holy Mount Moriah is not to demean himself by leaving the Holy Land.
      Other commentators feel that G’d stopped Yitzchok from traveling to Egypt because in the Heavenly Court the decree that the Jewish people would be enslaved in Egypt had already been promulgated, so that if he had traveled there he could not have left until the end of that period of enslavement.
      Nachmanides writes that G’d’s directive to Yitzchok was also a סימן, a historical preview of what the Jewish people would experience when the time came, i.e. that any move to Egypt was a move to eventual exile, and that Yitzchok’s sojourn in the part of the Holy Land occupied by the Philistines under Avimelech was not considered as part of that exile. The very fact that our patriarchs resided in that land is proof that it is ancestral land and will forever remain part of the Holy Land promised to Avraham by G’d. The fact remains that in spite of Avimelech having been a partner of Avraham in a non-aggression pact extending for 3 generations, this did not prevent him or his son from expelling Yitzchok. Eventually,.Avimelech personally, did not harm Yitzchok seeing he had sworn an oath of friendship to Avraham; His subjects, however, did what they could to make life miserable for Yitzchok. The Jewish exile experience in Babylonia is compared to Yitzchok’s experience in the land of the Philistines, welcome turning into hatred and even the destruction of our Temple by the Babylonians. This was followed by another change of heart, this time by the Persians. [Rabbi Chavell traces the Ramban’s historical analysis by quoting both from the Book of Ezra and the Book of Daniel. Ed.]
      At any rate, the Philistines remembered that G’d had protected Avraham against outrages done by both the Egyptians and the previous Avimelch, so that they were careful not to harass him too much.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   שכון בארץ אשר אומר אליך, “reside in the land which I will tell you about.” Nachmanides explains that the negative “do not go down to Egypt,” was not followed immediately by a directive to settle in Gerar, but that the words “reside in the land which I will tell you,” were a sort of hint that in due course G’d would give more specific instructions. In this respect Yitzchok’s experience paralleled that of his father, who also traveled through different parts of the Holy Land in order to have already established a presence there when the time would come for G’d’s promise to give the entire land to his descendants to be fulfilled. It goes without saying that Yitzchok complied with G’d’s directive until G’d eventually told him to settle in Gerar.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   והקימותי את השבועה אשר נשבעתי לאברהם אביך, “so that I can fulfill the oath I have sworn to your father Avraham.” There is, of course, no need for G’d to give an assurance that He will not renege on His oath. Besides, Avraham did not have any other seed which would qualify for the promise of G’d to give the land to Yitzchok’s offspring to create doubt to whom G’d would give the land. After all, only he was in a covenantal relationship with G’d. When it came to G’d repeating His promise to Yaakov, in due course, this was necessary in order to make clear that Esau, though included in the promise: “your seed will be known through Yitzchok” did not automatically exclude Esau. The meaning of והקימותי את השבועה וגו' therefore is that G’d swears a separate oath to Yitzchok concerning who He will give the land of Israel to. When we read in Exodus 33,1 Numbers 32 11, and Deuteronomy 34,4 the formulaאשר נשבעתי לאברהם, ליצחק, וליעקב, we would be hard pressed to find where exactly G’d swore such an oath to Yitzchok, if not in our verse here. 
      It is also possible that the reason why Yitzchok was added to be a beneficiary of G’d’s oath was in order to confer upon him also the blessing which G’d had bestowed at the beginning of chapter 12, i.e. that just as Avraham was to be a blessing for the nations, so his son Yitzchok’s very existence would do the same for the nations of the earth. G’d had promised that the nations of the earth would be blessed through Avraham’s seed; now the same blessing was in effect for the seed of Yitzchok.. Accordingly, the meaning of the entire verse would be: “I will keep My oath to Avraham your father through you. The same promise was repeated in due course to Yaakov when the time was ripe for that.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקולי וישמר משמרתי, “as a result of Avraham heeding My instructions and observing My directives.” <i>Rashi</i> understands the word בקולי as referring to such instructions as offering his son as a sacrifice, whereas the word משמרתי is supposed to refer to rules governing incest with blood relations of the second tier of relatives, and such rules as adding a few minutes to the Sabbath before it actually begins, and similar Rabbinic prohibitions ensuring the sanctity of the Sabbath will not be violated inadvertently, i.e. שבות.
      Nachmanides queries this, writing that if it were correct, then, if indeed Avraham kept not only the 613 commandments but also Rabbinic regulations, how could Yaakov have been allowed to marry two sisters while both were alive? How could he have erected a מצבה, seeing that the Torah prohibits the erecting of such monuments? How could Amram have married his aunt Yocheved the daughter of Levi? If the fathers and grandfathers of these people had already adopted these Rabbinic rules, surely their children and grandchildren would have been obligated to observe them also? After all G’d specifically revealed certain aspects of His manner of meting out justice “in order that Avraham teach his descendants to emulate the ways of the Lord!?” (Genesis 18,19)
      One could answer that the word משמרתי refers to the 7 Noachide commandments, laws to which all of mankind is committed. and that the additional words חקות, refer to the prohibition of crossbreeding, and the word מצוותי to finer points of the law, as well as the word תורתי referring to the establishment of courts, the banning of idolatry, etc. The fact is that according to our sages, the wagons Joseph sent to transport his father on his journey to Egypt, were to symbolically remind his father that he had not forgotten the law of עגלה ערופה, the last lesson his father had instructed him in before his fateful journey to Shechem. (compare Deuteronomy 21,1-9)
      It is clear from what our sages have described that they all agreed that Avraham observed the Sabbath meticulously with all its details, as he had divined G’d’s intention through his holy spirit. However, he did so as something voluntary; He therefore observed these commandments revealed in the Torah later only while he was on Holy Soil, in the land of Israel. The statement that someone kept all the <i>mitzvoth</i> such as Joseph in Egypt, is most likely to be understood as Joseph observing the Sabbath, and thus observing the whole Torah, as in the parlance of our sages Sabbath observance is equivalent to observance of the entire Torah.
      From the perspective of the plain meaning of the text, the <i>peshat,</i> the word משמרתי refers to basic belief in the sole Creator, something that drove him to preach monotheism publicly, and to decry all forms of idolatry. He was the first “evangelist” preaching G’d’s attributes since Chanoch, emphasizing the benevolent nature of G’d, and His love for His creatures. The word מצותי refers to Avraham’s suppressing his own feelings when carrying out G’d’s command to offer his only son Yitzchok as a total burnt offering to this G’d.. He expelled his maidservant Hagar against his own better judgment, in order to comply with G’d’s orders. The word חוקותי refers to his emulating G’d’s attributes, being hospitable, charitable, etc, to the deserving and the not so deserving. Finally, the word תורותי, refers to his performing circumcision on himself and all members of his household, and teaching this rite as a condition of calling oneself a true descendant of Avraham. 
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויאמר אחותי היא, He said: “she is my sister.” The local people did not enquire as to the maternity and paternity of the children (Esau and Yaakov.) They might have been children from a former wife, for instance.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   והנה יצחק מצחק את רבקה אשתו, “and lo, Yitzchok was fondling his wife Rivkah.” Even though, according to Jewish law, marital relations between husband and wife during daylight hours are forbidden, and there is no reason to assume that Yitzchok’s house was in darkness at the time, seeing that Avimelech could see what was going on.
      One may resolve the problem by saying that when a saintly and learned person such as Yitzchok wraps himself in his <i>Tallit</i> at the time, it is as if he was wrapping himself in darkness, so that he may indulge in marital relations in such conditions. However, this does not answer the question how he could indulge at a time when famine was raging, and we have a long standing rule that in conditions of famine marital relations are to be shunned. Possibly, the fact that he, personally, was not suffering famine, and no other Jew was suffering from famine at that time either, this consideration would suffice to waive the rule not to sleep with his wife during famine.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ויהי לו מקנה צאן ובקר, ועדה רבה, “and he had acquired masses of sheep, cattle and servants.” The reason the Torah does not mention Yitzchok as having accumulated silver and gold, is that in that country wealth was not measured in terms of money, but in terms of herds and flocks. When Yitzchok possessed more than the king, the matter became embarrassing for the king to host a commoner richer than himself. This is why he expelled Yitzchok, being careful to word that expulsion in a courteous manner.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   וימצאו שם באר מים חיים, “they found a well of spring water in that region.” The reason the Torah stresses the origin of this water is that the shepherds of the region had accused Yitzchok’s shepherds of diminishing their own water supply by letting their sheep drink from the water of the נחל, the local stream. The water found by Yitzchok’s shepherds did not originate in that stream, but represented a new and additional water supply. Yitzchok’s herds and flocks did not need to use the locally available sources of water.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויקרא שם הבאר עשק, “He named the well in question “strife.’” Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah devotes so much space to relating these incidents although at first glance they do not appear to contain any new kind of information, is, that although these verses do not contain new information on the surface, they do hint at hidden mystical connections. Torah is described in the parlance of the prophets as מקור מים חיים, “the source of truly life-giving water.” With the building of the Temples by Yitzchok’s descendants, the Torah became ever more firmly established among the nation, and though several Temples were subject to eventual destruction, the time will come when a permanent Temple will be erected, no longer subject to dispute and destruction, and at a time when G’d will expand the inheritance of the Jewish people, just as at Rechovot, Yitzchok felt that he had achieved the ability to expand. 
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   אל תירא, “do not fear!” G’d reassures Yitzchok that his expulsion was not the beginning of a downturn in his fortunes, As proof, immediately thereafter it is Avimelech who begs Yitzchok to observe the treaty obligations his father had entered into with the (previous) Avimelech. Yitzchok is accorded far more respect and reverence after his expulsion than while he was a guest at Avimelech, needing the latter’s protection.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   תהי נא אלה בינותינו, בינינו ובינך, “let there be a treaty confirmed by a mutual oath between us, between us and between you.” From the phrasing it is clear that Avimelech was not prepared to swear an oath in the name of Yitzchok’s G’d. Hence he used the expression בינותינו to indicate that he meant to swear by the deity he was in the habit of swearing by. 
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   אם תעשה עמנו רעה, “If you will do us any harm, etc.” Nachmanides writes that Avimelech’s concern was not that Yitzchok would invade his country, an unlikely scenario, seeing that he was only a stranger in his country, but he was concerned because of the treaty Avraham had concluded with his father and committing several generations into the future. Now that he had been guilty of expelling a descendant of Avraham, he worried that Avraham’s descendants, in due course, would no longer feel bound by the original non-aggression pact between the Philistines and themselves. 
     כאשר לא נגענוך, “just as we have not laid a hand on you, etc.” We issued a decree that anyone harming you would be severely punished. 
     וכאשר עשינו עמך רק טוב, “and seeing that we have only treated you well.” We protected your property against looting, etc., and warned the people not to damage what is yours.
  ונשלחך בשלום, “and we let you depart in peace.” Even though all my countrymen had become jealous of your new found wealth, all of which originated in our land, and they would have liked nothing better than to deprive you of it, we did not allow this to happen. In view of all the foregoing, we are entitled to ask you to renew the pact your father made with my father. It is entirely possible that, although, in his time, Avraham was very powerful so that he had defeated the four most powerful kings with an army of only 318 men, Yitzchok may have become even more powerful so that Avimelech had reason to fear him if he would incur his displeasure. 
     אתה עתה ברוך ה', “clearly you are now blessed by the Lord.” The word “now” is important here. Avimelech, while acknowledging that Yitzchok at this time is more powerful than he is, hints that times may change, and a time may come when their relative positions will be reversed, so that having a treaty will also be of benefit to him. 
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ויבאו עבדי יצחק, “The servants of Yitzchok arrived just then, etc.” According to Nachmanides this statement refers back to what had been written in verse 25 i.e. ויכרו שם, “they dug there (Beer Sheva). The digging had already begun before Avimelech set out to conclude this treaty with Yitzchok. Their efforts were rewarded with success on the very day the agreement was concluded.
      I believe that it is most likely that this was the same well which Avraham had dug in the same location, and that he had at the time given 7 sheep to Avimelech as testimony that that well had been dug by his servants and that the water was his. (Genesis 21,24) The Philistines had stopped up that well after the death of Avraham. Yitzchok now renamed the well with the name given to it by his father at the time.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   על כן שם העיר באר שבע, “this is why the town became known as באר שבע.” The fact that both Avraham the father, and Yitzchok the son, had called the well באר שבע resulted in the urban center surrounding it becoming known by the name given to it by these two prominent people.
      From a mystical perspective, this name is an allusion to the Tabernacle which stood at Shiloh for over 300 years When the Philistines captured the holy ark which Eli’s sons had taken to war with them, they stopped up that well again, until the Israelites, once the Hoy Ark was returned by the Philistines, reopened it.
      Ibn Ezra comments that there were two separate reasons why the well and the town were called Beer Sheva. On the other hand, seeing that this is somewhat unlikely, it is possible that the city Beer Sheva is not the site at which this well was dug and the treaty concluded.
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   ותהיינה מורת רוח, “Their conduct caused both Yitzchok and Rivkah mental anguish.” The Torah writes this so as to explain that due to their not visiting Yitzchok and Rivkah often, it is not surprising that they were not on hand to reveal Yaakov’s masquerading as Esau.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהי כי זקן יצחק, “it happened when Yitzchok aged, noticeably;” According to Nachmanides, Yitzchok at that point had intended to bless Esau seeing that he would inherit the land of Canaan being the firstborn, and as such it would be his duty to uphold the covenant G’d had made with Avraham. Rivkah had never revealed to her husband the prophecy she had received while pregnant with the twins in her womb, according to which the older of the brothers would be subservient to the younger one. Had Rivkah revealed this information to him, Yitzchok would have been violating an express commandment by G’d if he had accorded the blessing of Avraham to his son Esau. The reason Rivkah had not revealed this information to her husband, was her innate modesty. She did not want Yitzchok to feel slighted that G’d had revealed information to her that He had not seen fit to reveal to her husband. Alternately, she thought that Yitzchok, being a saint, had to be aware of anything she knew and more than that, so that revealing to him something that he already knew would appear as if she had underestimated her husband’s close relations to his Creator. At any rate, she feared that due to his open preference for Esau, Yitzchok might not bestow a blessing on Yaakov at all. She was afraid that if she would reveal her prophetic vision to Yitzchok at this time, he would decide not to bestow a blessing on either son, but leave everything to heaven, as his father had done before him.
      Rabbi Joseph Kimchi does not believe that Yitzchok ever had the intention of bestowing on Esau the blessing of Avraham [which carried with it the power to bless or to curse effectively, Ed.] He did not feel that Yaakov needed a blessing, seeing that he was a righteous individual in his own right. He felt that Esau was in need of a blessing precisely because he was a wicked individual. He hoped that by providing Esau with the opportunity of pleasing his father by bringing him venison to eat, the pleasure he would experience eating it would restore a measure of Holy Spirit to him, something that had been lacking in his life of late. Even the prophet Elisha had suffered from the absence of such Holy Spirit until it had been restored to him as a result of the music played for him, something that relieved his mental depression. [in both cases the mental depression had been brought on by the person’s failure to see his words of benevolent instruction take root in the listener. Ed.] (Kings II 3,15)
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  הנה נא זקנתי לא ידעתי יום מותי, “here I have aged and I do not know how soon I will die.” If I were to die now, you would lose your share of the inheritance seeing that Yaakov bought it from you. I therefore decided to divide my estate in accordance with the principle that when a father decides to divide his estate between the sons allotting more to one than to the other, but not disinheriting one of them, this is legally acceptable, (<i>Baba Batra 8,5</i> compare<i> Bartenurah)</i> even if the firstborn thereby loses his extra share of the inheritance.
  
  Verse 3
  
   תלייך, “your quiver.” According to <i>Rashi</i> this is a reference to Esau’s sword, swords being hung in their scabbard. [based on the root תלה, “he hung” Ed.]
      According to Ibn Ezra the word means “quiver,” i.e. the container within which the arrows are stored. Yitzchok told Esau to equip himself with his hunting tools, these consisting of a bow and arrows and their container, or the sword and its scabbard.
  
     וצודה לי ציד, “and hunt some venison for me.” This reveals that Yitzchok was quite unfamiliar with Esau’s lifestyle, as if he had been familiar with it he would not have eaten anything that had been killed by his son. Still, it is problematic how Yitzchok could have eaten animals that had been killed by an arrow. Some commentators therefore explain that Esau had perfected a technique of luring animals by imitating their voices so that when they came close he could slaughter them. This is what the Torah alluded to when it wrote כי ציד בפיו, “he hunted with his mouth.”
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ועשה לי מטעמים ואוכלה, “and prepare it for me into a delicacy so that I will eat it.” Seeing you had forfeited your birthright through something that you ate, I will help you to regain it through the food you give me to eat.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ואברכה לפני ה', “I will bless you in the presence of G’d.” Although Yitzchok had only said: בעבור תברכך נפשי, “in order that my soul will bless you, without adding the name of the Lord, he was certain that G’d would fulfill such a blessing when pronounced by him. After all, all blessings originate with the Lord.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   אולי ימושני אבי, “perhaps my father will subject me to a “touch-test.” Yaakov did not worry that his father would need such a test to recognise him, but he was concerned that in the process of offering and serving him the meal, Yitzchok would unintentionally touch him, even wanting to kiss him, something which could alert him to the fact that he was not Esau. Actually, it is remarkable that Yaakov did not worry that his voce would betray him for who he was in reality. We know that in the event, Yitzchok became immediately aware that the voice speaking to him sounded like that of Yaakov (Genesis 27,22). It is possible that the brothers, being twins, had very similar sounding voices, and that is why Yaakov was not worried about being recognised by his voice. When the Torah wrote: “the voice sounds like the voice of Yaakov,” this is not a reference to the tone of voice, etc., but to the manner of Yaakov’s speech, which was so totally different from the mode of speech used by his brother. It is also possible that he had tried to fake his voice to sound like that of his brother. The art of impersonating other people’s voices is a well known phenomenon.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ותאמר לו אמו עלי קללתך בני, “His mother said to him: “any curse will devolve upon me, my son.” According to Onkelos, Rivkah said what she said in view of the prophecy which had been revealed to her during her pregnancy that her older son would serve the younger one as his master.
      Another approach suggests that she meant: “he will not curse you but he will curse him or her who made you deceive him.” (in other words, “he will curse me”.) Yet another commentary offered is that the word קללה, loosely translated as “curse,” actually implies that the victimised party will be deprived of something. Rivkah assured Yaakov that if he were to be deprived of his inheritance as a result of this charade, she could make it up to him out of her marriage settlement.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   את בגדי עשו בנו הגדול, ”the garments of her older son Esau.” The use by the Torah of the terms בנו הגדול and בנו הקטן, instead of the customary בנו הבכור and בנו הצעיר, for the older son (the firstborn) or the younger son, is intended to underline that although, usually, honour is accorded to the firstborn, etc., Rivkah being aware that her firstborn son had forfeited any claim to such honour, thought of her two children in terms of the physically older one and the physically younger one, i.e. הגדול והקטון, respectively. She was now concerned with arranging for the transfer of the undeserved privileges of birth from her undeserving older son to her deserving younger son.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   הקול קול יעקב, “the voice sounds like the voice of Yaakov, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> writes that Yitzchok meant it was not the habit of Esau to mention the name of the Lord in his conversation, something that made Yitzchok wonder who stood before him.
      Nachmanides writes that it his hard to imagine that Yitzchok viewed Esau as a wicked person and yet he was about to give him the blessing of Avraham. Possibly, he thought that seeing that Esau was a man of the field, he deliberately refrained from mentioning the name of the Lord, as he might utter it in a location where it would not be appropriate to do so. In other words, Yitzchok considered the very fact that Esau did not usually mention the name of the Lord as a point in his favour.
      From the point of view of the plain text, we are being told that the voices of the two sons were quite different from one another, and Yitzchok could not fail to notice this.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויבא לו יין וישת, “he brought him wine, and he (Yizchok) drank it.” Where did Yaakov take the wine from, seeing that his mother had only given him bread to accompany the delicacies she had prepared? According to the <i>Midrash</i> the angel Gavriel brought the wine whose origin was in <i>Gan Eden</i> to Yaakov. Presumably, the words of the <i>Midrash</i> were inspired by the fact that this is the only time in Scripture that the drinking of wine is described as having only positive results. When wine is mentioned as a gift by Malki Tzedek to Avraham, it was a subsidiary to the bread. (Genesis 14,18) 
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   גשה נא ושקה לי בני, “come closer please and kiss me, my son.” Yitzchok was confused seeing that on the one hand, the voice of the person serving him sounded like that of Yaakov, whereas his skin felt like that of Esau. By making a third test, the fragrance of his clothing, something that could not be determined unless the person came very close to him, Yitzchok meant to decide who this person was. When he smelled the familiar fragrance of Esau’s clothes, he conferred the blessing having been convinced that Esau was in front of him.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   ראה ריח בני כריח שדה, “indeed the fragrance of my son is like the fragrance of the field.” The meaning of the word ראה here is that the expression does not reflect something Yitzchok saw with his eyes, but that this is what he observed internally, when thinking about what his son Esau’s presence projected. He felt that there could not be any doubt that of his two sons it was Esau who represented the fragrance of blossoming flowers and all the blessings associated with nature when it unfolds. This is why he determined to accord him the blessing.     Other commentators see in this statement about the fragrance simply a reference to the perfume with which Esau sprayed his garments, something which matched what could be found in the field.
  
  Verse 28
  
   ויתן לך האלוקים, “and may G’d grant you, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> emphasizes that Yitzchok deliberately chose the attribute of Justice to be the origin of Esau’s blessing, i.e. אלוקים, instead of <i>Hashem,</i> as this implied that the blessing would be fulfilled only if Esau remained worthy of it in the eyes of the attribute of Justice. [note that when Yaakov made his vow after the dream of the ladder, he too conditioned fulfillment on the promise that he would be worthy of what he asked for in the eyes of the attribute of Justice. (Genesis 28,21) Ed.] Later on, when Yitzchok knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was Esau who had stood before him, he promised him material blessings without conditioning this on his worthiness. (Genesis 27,39-40) This is remarkable, as by then Yitzchok had been made aware of Esau’s true character and he had confirmed the blessing he had given to Yaakov. 
     ויתן לך האלוקים מטל השמים, “and G’d will give you from the dew of the heaven, etc.” According to Nachmanides this is not a formula appropriate for use in blessings. Dew descends on the earth all over the earth, and does not require a special blessing to make it happen. If Yitzchok had implored G’d to give Esau an additional amount of dew, this would be different, but all he did was to assure him that he would participate on an equal basis in the blessing of dew, something that every farmer enjoys. Yitzchok’s blessing meant that Esau should enjoy the blessing of dew and the other blessings G’d bestows on the earth, and through it on His creatures, without any interruption through famine of drought, etc.     Alternately, the letter ו at the beginning of the word ורב דגן ותירוש means that the ordinary amount of dew, etc., should result in his crops being especially abundant. [I have difficulty with this kind of blessing, seeing Esau was a hunter, not farmer. Maybe Yitzchok suggested obliquely that Esau should stop hunting and become a farmer instead. Ed.]     Possibly, what is introduced as a consolation prize for Esau, the blessing in verse 40 that he would survive by means of his sword, was in fact a denial of the blessings he had given Yaakov while he thought that Yaakov was Esau. 
  
  Verse 29
  
   יעבדוך עמים וישתחוו לך לאומים, “nations will serve you, and states will pay homage to you.” This promise/blessing was fulfilled at the threshing grounds of Atad, (Genesis 50,11) when the various Canaanite kings, and representatives all paid homage to Yaakov’s coffin as it was on the way to burial in the cave of Machpelah. According to tradition, these kings saluted Yaakov by placing their crowns on the fence of that threshing ground.
  
     הוי גביר לאחיך, “be your brother’s superior, etc.” Seeing that at this point Yitzchok thought that Esau stood in front of him, we cannot escape the conclusion that Rivkah had never told him of the prophecy that the younger son would be the superior one, otherwise Yitzchok would have now rebelled against the prophecy. 
  
     אורריך ארור ומברכיך ברוך, “the ones who will curse you will themselves become cursed, and those who will bless you will themselves become blessed.” In Bileam’s blessings, the order is reversed; he said מברכיך ברוך ואורריך ארור, “those who bless you will themselves be blessed, and those that curse you will find themselves cursed.” The righteous will endure problems before finding themselves rewarded and blessed, whereas the wicked may start out as if enjoying blessings, whereas in reality they will wind up being accursed. Still, when G’d spoke to Avraham in chapter 12,2-3 He phrased it thus: ונברכו בך כל משפחות האדמה, “all the families of the earth will enjoy blessing, thanks to you.” Seeing G’d wanted to conclude with this blessing, He commenced also with a blessing.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   ויהי אך יצא יצא, “and as soon as Yaakov had left the presence of his father,” The reason why the Torah speaks of 2 exits, i.e. יצא, יצא, indicates that as soon as Yaakov saw Esau approach he quickly hid himself, and when the way was clear he emerged from his hiding place and left the house of his father.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   מי אתה?, “Who are you?” He thought that he was addressing Yaakov who when he had heard that his father had eaten of Esau’s venison, had also prepared a dish for him in order to secure a blessing for himself. He therefore asked: “who are you?” in order to ascertain the true facts.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   גם ברוך יהיה,”he shall also retain his blessing.” Since when is the reaction to someone who complains that he has been tricked out of a blessing, that one tells him that the party who received the blessing in his place is to keep it? Surely, the normal reaction would be to curse the swindler who came by the blessing by devious means! Moreover, seeing that Yitzchok repeated the blessing he had given to Yaakov a second time, this clearly indicates that Yaakov did not obtain the blessing by deceitful means in the first place! Why else would he now bless Yaakov willingly and knowingly?
      This is why Nachmanides explains the entire verse commencing with the words: מי איפוא הצד ציד ויבא לי ואכל מכל as referring to Esau, i.e. “who is the person who has fed me a line which I swallowed hook line and sinker all these years so that I was befuddled enough to bestow the blessing on him?” 
      Alternately, what Yitzchok meant was that once he had uttered the blessing it was too late for him to recall it and to invalidate it, even if it had been obtained under a false premises. Yitzchok had realized as soon as he had finished blessing Yaakov, that he had indeed blessed the son who deserved the blessing. It was this belated inspiration supplied by the Holy Spirit, which made him tremble in the sudden realization that he had lost his beloved son permanently..
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   בא אחיך במרמה, “your brother came using trickery.” Even though initially, Yitzchok had asked: ”who then is the one who came, etc.”, having had the revelation from the Holy Spirit, now he knew for certain that it had been Yaakov who had come and snatched the blessing from his father.
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
   ואת כל אחיו נתתי לו לעבדים, “and I have designated that all his bothers be his servants.” These words are not a reference to the line הוי גביר לאחיך in verse 29. It is possible that someone is senior to his brothers without the brothers therefore considering themselves as subservient to that brother. The best example in Scripture is that of Yehudah, who was the leader of his brothers without his brothers ever considering themselves as servants of Yehudah. 
  
     ואת כל אחיו, “and all his brothers, etc.” Even though he had only one brother, Yitzchok speaks of him in the plural, as he meant to include all of Esau’s future descendants in his remarks. Other commentators feel that the plural extends to Ishmael, as well as Ishmael’s descendants as well as the sons of Keturah.
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
   הנה משמני הארץ יהיה מושבך, “here you are assured that the region in which you will dwell will belong to the most productive ones on earth.” According to Nachmanides, the expression הנה here introduces the limitation of any blessing Yitzchok can bestow now. He says, that although I can assure you of a materially brilliant future, riches based on what the earth you dwell on will produce, but the political power, ממשלה, will belong to your brother.
      Yitzchok did not bless Esau with the parallel blessing of רוב דגן ותירוש, “an overabundance of grain and wine, either, as he had done when he blessed Yaakov thinking that he was Esau. (verse 28) Both of them, Esau and Ishmael, are sufficiently blessed with the wish that they will dwell on the fertile parts of the earth. Yitzchok was concerned that the one whom he had blessed first would enjoy a clear advantage even in the wording of the blessing he had obtained. This is also why, before sending Yaakov to look for a wife, he added specifically; ויתן לך את ברכת אברהם וגו', “and may G’d grant you the blessing conferred upon Avraham, etc.” The fulfillment of the blessing of “overabundance of grain and wine,” was thus deferred to the period after the land of the Canaanites had been conquered by Yaakov’s descendants. (28,4) The dew of the heaven and the fatness of the land promised to Esau applied to some country other than the land of Israel. There was a distinct difference in the qualities of the blessings extended before Yaakov was dispatched to look for a wife, and the blessings resulting from Yitzchok’s eating the venison. In the first and last blessing the name of G’d as the source of the blessing does appear, whereas in the blessing to Esau, the “consolation prize,” Yitzchok does not even mention the name of G’d. The reason was that Esau had not mentioned the name of G’d either.
      It is of significance that when blessing Esau as Esau, Yitzchok mentions the fatness of the earth before mentioning the dew of the heavens, whereas when speaking of the same phenomena to Yaakov, Yitzchok reversed the order by mentioning the heavenly part, the dew before mentioning the earth’s contribution to man’s success as a farmer. The reason is that when blessing Yaakov, Yitzchok had already blessed him specifically by invoking the name of G’d.
  
  
  Verse 40
  
   ועל חרבך תחיה. “and by means of your sword you will survive.” The expression על חרבך is equivalent to בחרבך,”through your sword.” Yitzchok meant that the hands of the one who had pleased him by feeding him venison will be saved through the successful use of the sword that these hands make. Yitzchok most certainly did not wish Esau to become a conqueror and to survive by consuming the loot he had acquired from the enemies he had slain. Having blessed Esau with success in agriculture in the previous verse, there certainly was no call for wishing him success as warrior. He did, however, assure him that in his war against adversaries he would not become the victim of the swords of his enemies.
      Some commentators hold that the words ועל חרבך תחיה are a consolation to Esau, seeing his father had blessed his brother by appointing him Esau’s superior. Yitzchok now hedged his blessing by assuring Esau that he would not become the victim of any abuse of his stronger brother’s power. Esau’s service to his brother would consist of being employed as his brother’s mercenary, using his sword to what are essentially Yaakov’s battles.
      Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon, questions why Yitzchok chose such an unusual wording for his blessing to Esau, instead of saying: “may the Lord give you from the fatness of the earth and the dew of the heaven.” The reason is, according to Rabbeinu Saadyah, that in fact Yitzchok did not bless Esau at all; he merely stated that seeing he had already said to Yaakov that those that curse him would be cursed, if he were to accord something to Esau at the expense of Yaakov, He would make Himself liable to a curse by having diminished what had been promised to Yaakov. However, he consoled Esau by assuring him that his fate already included the fact that bounty of nature would always be at his disposal in the shape of the fatness of the land and the dew of the heaven that would ensure bountiful harvests.
  
     והיה כאשר תריד, “it will come to pass when you have reason to grieve, etc.” when Yaakov will abuse this power of superiority by giving you justifiable reason to complain especially since at a time when Yaakov’s descendants do not live up to the terms of their covenant with G’d, you will be able to shake off his yoke. Yaakov then will not regain his superiority, as Bileam already stated in Numbers 24,19 וירד מיעקב והאביד שריד מעיר, [the root of the word תריד is not ירד “to descend,” but רדה, “to rule, exercise authority.”] “The one who ruled obtaining his power from Yaakov, will lose it, retaining only a city.” This is a reference to the time when the Romans would rule over the entire region of Mesopotamia. Bileam describes the period in the distant future at the time of the redemption when Yaakov/Israel will regain its position of dominance. After that Esau will never again experience a rise in stature.
  
     והיה כאשר תריד, the word תריד is used in a sense similar to Psalms 55,3 “if the Israelites oppress you more than is justified, turn to G’d in prayerful complaint and He will throw off his yoke from you.”
      Yitzchok hints to Esau that Yaakov will not be at liberty to use his power over him injudiciously. Another explanation sees in the word תריד a variant of רדוי, being vanquished, captive, as if Yitzchok were saying to Esau: “when you do not wish to endure Yaakov’s dominance, conquer his land and shake off his yoke.”
  
  
  Verse 41
  
   ויאמר עשו בלבו, “Esau said to himself: etc.” According to Ibn Ezra, Esau may have revealed his intention to one of his intimate friends. Nachmanides feels that there is no need to resort to such an explanation, [which distorts the meaning of the text, Ed.] seeing that something that a person resolves in his heart is often described by Scripture as אמירה, “something that has been said.” Esau’s resolve to eventually murder Yaakov was as good as if he had actually said so with his lips. The fact that he had made such a resolution consoled him over the present situation.
  
     יקרבו ימי אבל אבי, “the days of mourning for my father’s death are approaching;” according to the plain meaning, Esau looked forward to his father’s death as he would not have wanted to cause his father such a painful experience as losing a son. Not only that, his father might curse him for what he had done. Other commentators believe that the words do not mean that Esau looked forward to his father’s death, but that he said: ”I will bring my father’s mourning Yaakov’s death closer by murdering Yaakov.”
  
  
  Verse 42
  
   ותשלח ותקרא ליעקב, “she sent a message to Yaakov calling him to come and see her.” She had to send him a message as he was not at his usual place, being in hiding, either in fear of Esau’s revenge or because he was too embarrassed to face his brother, being ashamed of what he had done, and Esau having loudly complained about him to all who would listen.
  
     מתנחם לך להרגך, “he is consoling himself with the plan to kill you.” According to <i>Rashi</i> this either means that he consoles himself over the loss of the blessings by killing you, or that he had already prepared the cup of wine given to a mourner to allow him to comfort himself over the loss of a dear relative.
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
   למה אשכול שניכם יום אחד?, “why should I be bereaved of both of you on the same day?” According to the plain meaning of the text she referred to the death of both Yaakov and Esau. Some commentators believe she was referring to the death of Yaakov and Yitzchok, as Esau had said he would kill Yaakov as soon as Yitzchok would die.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   אחי רבקה, אם יעקב ועשו, “the brother of Rivkah, who was the mother of Yaakov and Esau. Nachmanides explains that the reason why Rivkah is described here by the Torah as “the mother of Yaakov and Esau,” [something that we all know perfectly well, Ed.] is because Yitzchok had commanded Yaakov to select a wife from among the daughters of Lavan, “the brother of your mother.” The Torah is at pains to remind us that Lavan was also the brother of Esau’s mother, and because of this it would have been appropriate for Yitzchok to command Esau also to take a wife from among his uncle’s daughters. However, seeing that the seed of Avraham would be carried on only through Yaakov, there was no point in Esau marrying someone from Lavan’s family.
      Other commentators feel that the Torah was at pains to give Yaakov precedence over Esau who was biologically his senior, as soon as Yaakov had secured the blessing of his father. The Torah’s mentioning “Yaakov and Esau” in that order, serves as proof that the blessing was indeed fulfilled, and that Yaakov would henceforth be deemed as senior to his brothers, i.e.הוי גביר לאחיך as we read in All of this, in spite of the fact that after Yitzchok’s death the Torah reverts to mentioning Esau first when it reports Yitzchok’s funeral. This was because Esau had never left the land of Israel, attending to his father’s needs, whereas Yaakov had been outside the Holy Land for over 20 years. [I find this difficult as Esau had voluntarily left the Holy Land (Genesis 36,6), not because of his life being in danger and his father having sent him out of the land to get a wife without giving him a dowry, 11 years before his father died. Ed.]
      Some commentators say that the reason why the Torah repeats these details about Yaakov’s genealogy is in order for you not to be dismayed that from two such righteous parents as Yitzchok and Rivkah, a wicked person such as Esau could have been produced. The Torah does not want us to forget for a moment that Rivkah herself had a brother who was everything but righteous. Our sages have established a rule (based on empirical knowledge, Ed.] according to which most children have a tendency to develop in accordance with their mother’s brother(s).
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע, ”Yaakov left Beer Sheva, etc. “
      According to allegorical commentaries, the earth literally contracted beneath his feet so that the words וילך חרנה mean that he arrived at Charan on the same day.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the verse described that Yaakov was headed for Charan. Other commentators understand the words וילך חרנה as telling us where Yaakov would take up residence from now on, the Torah then filling in what happened on the way before Yaakov reached his destination, his nocturnal encounter with the angels climbing the ladder, etc.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ויקח מאבני המקום, “he took from the stones of that place, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text, he took a single one of these stones. The sages explaining the allegorical meaning of the text, say that Yaakov took quite a number of such stones, but that these stones miraculously all became fused into a single stone.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויחלום, והנה סולם מוצב ארצה, “he dreamt, and here in his dream there was a ladder which had been placed on earth, etc.” There are numerous allegorical explanations which our sages have offered in explaining the purpose of this phenomenon in Yaakov’s dream.
      Some say that the ladder represents Mount Sinai, and that the angels ascending and descending on it symbolise Moses and Aaron. Others believe that the ladder represents an altar and that the angels represent the priests, who in real life, ascend and descend from the altar.
      I believe that the correct explanation is that G’d showed Yaakov by means of a dream, that whatever occurs on earth is engineered by angels carrying out G’d’s will, and though G’d had known long in advance whatever would come pass, He showed Yaakov an image purporting the angels telling G’d that they had now carried out His will. Moreover, He wanted Yaakov to know that although the angels are His messengers, carrying out His will, this did not mean that G’d personally, left the earth and the angels to their own devices, but that He took an ongoing interest in the affairs unraveling on earth, and was ever ready to intervene when the need would arise. Thus He assured Yaakov of His ongoing protection on the journey fraught with danger that he had undertaken. In <i>Bereshit Rabbah 68,13</i> we are also told that the angels ascending and descending represented the ascent and subsequent descent of the 4 super powers which ruled over the Jewish people in their respective exiles.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   והארץ אשר אתה שוכב עליה, “and the earth that you are lying upon, etc.” What did G’d’s gift amount to, seeing that Yaakov occupied only 4 cubits square of earth on the spot he lay on? <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 69,4 quotes an opinion according to which G’d had compressed the entire surface of the Land of Israel beneath Yaakov at the time when he had this dream. He meant to show him that the conquest of the land would not be difficult at all when the time came.
      My sainted father, the רא'ש, explained the plain meaning of our verse as follows: the location where Yaakov was sleeping was in fact the site of the future Temple, as pointed out by the <i>Midrash</i>; whereas Avraham had described that site as הר, “mountain,” i.e. something not easily accessible, Yaakov viewed it as בית, a house, a place where everyone can feel at home, in this instance the אבן השתיה, stone covering the orifice in the earth, the “navel” of the earth in the parlance of our sages, leading to the innermost part of earth, a site covered by the altar in the future. Seeing that whatever blessing there is on earth is distributed centrifugally to all parts of the earth, Yaakov was in fact lying on the entire earth. (By the way, Yitzchok had viewed the site of the temple, i.e. G’d’s manifestation on earth as שדה, as we know from Genesis) [whereas originally, G’d walked on earth just as did man; He withdrew after Adam’s sin, and He kept withdrawing until Avraham reversed the process, beginning with viewing His manifestation while on earth, yet not easily accessible. Ed.] G’d’s blessing comparing Yaakov’s offspring to the dust of the earth, meant that just as dust scatters all over the globe, so Yaakov’s offspring would scatter all over the globe at one time or another.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   אין זה כי אם בית אלוקים,וזה שער השמים, “this must be the House of G’d, and at the same time the gateway to heaven.” This is a reference to the eventual Temple, the site from which the prayers of mankind will ascend to heaven without making any detours. The reason why prayers ascend more swiftly towards heaven from here, is the fact that they accompany the fragrance of the smoke of the various sacrifices.
      <i>Rashi</i> explains that according to the view of Rabbi Yossi ben Zimra, the feet of the ladder were standing in Beer Sheva, whereas its head was above Bet El, whereas the middle point of its slope was directly above the site that would become the site of the Temple. When Yaakov eventually returned to the land of Israel, and he remembered that he had not prayed at that site, he retraced his steps as far as Bet El to make up for that failure. The site of the Temple, Mount Moriah “jumped” to meet him. This is what our sages described as קפיצת הארץ, “a jump by the earth.” (a contraction of the earth’s surface) 
      Nachmanides queries that the Talmud <i>Sanhedrin</i> 95 appears to attribute the earth’s “jump” both to Eliezer and to Yaakov, seeing we are told there that there were three individuals for whose benefit the earth’s surface contracted in such a manner, the three being Eliezer, Yaakov, and Avishai. The meaning is not that the earth repeatedly jumped to yet another location, but that just as it had accommodated Eliezer, whose purpose had been lofty, so it accommodated, facilitated Yaakov’s journey. Yaakov, being angry at himself for passing a holy site without offering a prayer there, set out to retrace his steps to make up for his omission. Before he could do so, the earth moved in his direction to forestall his having to turn back. Nachmanides speculates that although, apparently there is a divergence of opinions as to where precisely the feet of the ladder in Yaakov’s dream were anchored, it is possible that all the sages agree that Yaakov experienced three occasions when the earth contracted to enable him to fulfill a meritorious deed more easily. The three occasions were: when he went from Beer Sheva to Charan and wanted to turn back in order to pray at Chevron where his fathers had prayed. Similarly, on his return from Charan. to Mount Moriah, and his return from there back to Charan after having prayed there. [the speculative nature of how to reconcile conflicting interpretations is due to the apparent contradiction of where precisely Yaakov spent that night, seeing that the text speaks of Luz, i.e. Beyt El, neither of which can be identified with Moriah.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויקח את האבן אשר שם מראשותיו, “He took the stone which he had made into a pillow for his head.” This was in spite of what we learned in <i>Zevachim 116</i> that it is forbidden to construct an altar made of matter which has already been used secularly. When it concerns a new structure that one built oneself for the purpose, it is acceptable for a layman to do so.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   אם יהיה אלוקים עמדי, “if G’d will be with me, etc.” He referred to G’d’s personal promise to him that He would not become a victim of the way of the righteous who are forever fearful of not possessing sufficient merit, and therefore consider any assurance to them by G’d as only conditional, i.e. אם. [the problem in the text is how did Yaakov dare to apply the word “if” to G’d’s promise. Ed.]
      Another view of this line is the reason why Yaakov prefaced this line with the word אם, “if,” is not that he conditioned his continued righteous way of life on G’d’s protection, but that seeing it was based on a dream, he could not be sure that this was a divine revelation rather than wishful thinking on his part. Divine promises experienced in a dream may be just that, a dream without substance.
      Still another interpretation of this verse is that it was an oath. “Just as I am certain that G’d will be with me and that I will return safely to my father’s house, so I am certain that after that I will erect a house of G’d on this site.”
      Nachmanides states that the word אם does not necessarily have to mean a conditional “if.” An example of such a different meaning of the word אם is found in Numbers 36,4 ואם יהיה היובל לבני ישראל, where it means: “and when the Jubilee year will arrive for the Children of Israel, etc.” Yaakov refers to what he will do as soon as G’d’s promise to him has been fulfilled.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   והיה ה' לי לאלוקים, “the Lord will then be even my G’d as attribute of Justice.” According to <i>Rashi,</i> these words are a continuation of those that preceded them, i.e. the words אם יהיה אלוקים עמדי, so that Yaakov is saying that once the Lord will be his G’d in practice, having displayed His personal benevolent providence to Yaakov by extending His protection to him, he will convert this stone into a house of worship for that G’d where he will bring the tithes that he spoke about.     Some commentators understand the words ושבתי בשלום אל בית אבי, “and I will return hale and hearty to my father’s house, etc.,” as the source of the <i>halachic</i> ruling that travelers, while engaged on their journeys, are relieved from the need to perform certain commandments that would make their getting home safely more difficult.     
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  וילך ארצה בני קדם, “he proceeded in the direction of the land of the people of the East.” It is a mystery why Yaakov should go to the land of the people of the East, seeing the Torah already wrote that he was heading for <i>Charan,</i> (28,10). On the other hand, according to the tradition that Yaakov had reached Charan on the day he set out in that direction, but that he had turned back to pray at Moriah, not having been aware at the time that he had inadvertently gone past that site without doing so, the meaning of the verse becomes abundantly clear. From Moriah he went forth to the land of the people of the East, where he remained for 14 years before again going to Charan and joining the household of Lavan. 
  
  Verse 2
  
   וירא והנה באר בשדה, “he looked and saw a well in the field.” The plain meaning of this verse is a practical illustration of Isaiah 40,31 וקווי ה' יחליפו כח, “the people placing their hope and trust in the Lord will experience physical rejuvenation, etc.” Yaakov’s ability to roll the rock from the well, something several shepherds had been unable to do even jointly, proves that the new hope he had been given through his dream about the ladder had left its mark also on his body.
      Our sages also derived from the description in the text that the well mentioned is an allusion to the Temple, and that the three flocks of sheep described as lying around the well represent the three annual holydays on which the Jewish people would make pilgrimages to the Temple, seeing that the Temple serves the Jewish people as their spiritual inspiration, just as water serves as the liquid which keeps the body alive and healthy. Not only that, but the Torah itself has been compared to spring-water, seeing that it makes life meaningful, and the people who study it and observe it become people who see a purpose in their existence. The “various flocks“ which are described as lying around that well symbolize the people congregating around the Temple, or around Torah scholars, waiting to become inspired. The replacing of the stone on the well symbolizes the period after the pilgrimages when the Temple is in a relatively dormant condition.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   הידעתם את לבן בן נחור?, “do you know Lavan, son of Nachor?” The reason why the Torah does not write: “Lavan, son of Bethuel,” is that Nachor was by far more prominent in that town, and Lavan himself did not like to be referred to as his father’s son, but as his grandfather’s grandson.
      Some commentators write that “Lavan son of Nachor,” means “Lavan citizen of Nachor,” seeing that the town had been named after its founder, Nachor. It was likely that the shepherds did know the mayor of the town Nachor, without knowing Bethuel, father of Lavan.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויאמר השלום לו, “He said: “is he o.k.?” Yaakov wanted to know if Nachor was powerful enough to protect him against Esau, should the latter try and attack him. The shepherds answered in the affirmative, adding that after all, Nachor was the ruling power in that city. 
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   כי רועה היא, “for she was a shepherdess.” The Torah meant that Lavan had only one daughter who was the shepherdess, as opposed to Yitro who had seven daughters all of whom were tending flocks. The reason why Rachel was the only daughter of Lavan who was entrusted with his flocks was that her sister Leah’s eyes were weak so that she could not perform the tasks expected from a shepherd or shepherdess. 
      It is also possible that Lavan did not want to send Leah to the well where she would meet with the male shepherds, seeing she was older than her sister and should not go about unchaperoned. Yitro, on the other hand, was a highly respected and prominent personality, and no one would have dared molest his daughters sexually. It is also possible that Lavan, who was of the same family as Avraham, observed stricter standards of modesty than did Yitro, and therefore he would not let a girl above a certain age go out alone to where she was apt to meet men.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   את רחל בת לבן אחי אמו, “Rachel, daughter of Lavan, the brother of his mother.” The words “the brother of his mother,” appear three times in this verse. Apparently Rachel told Yaakov first that her father was a swindler, and that it would be a mistake on the part of Yaakov to live in his house. Yaakov replied to her that seeing that her father was a brother of his mother, he was aware, and would know how to protect himself against trickery on the part of her father.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויגד יעקב לרחל כי אחי אביה הוא, ”Yaakov told Rachel that he was the brother of her father.” According to Ibn Ezra, the Torah now fills us in on something Yaakov had told Rachel already earlier in their conversation, before he had kissed her.
  
     ותרץ ותגד לאביה, “she ran home and told her father.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the reason she told her father, not her mother, as when Rivkah had encountered Eliezer, was that her mother had died already.
      Nachmanides writes that we do not need to resort to <i>Rashi’s</i> explanation and assume that Rachel was a semi-orphan. Seeing that Yaakov was a relative of her father’s and not of her mother’s, it was natural that she would bring this news first to her father. Rivkah, running to her mother was natural, as she wanted to entrust the jewelry she had received to her mother’s safe keeping.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   אך עצמי ובשרי אתה, “after all, you are of my own flesh and bone.” The word אך usually denotes an expression of pain, regret, i.e. in this instance: “how sad it is that you are penniless; but seeing you are my flesh and bone, etc.” Alternately, Lavan meant:: “although seeing that you deceived your brother, and I should by rights keep my distance from you, the fact that you are my own flesh and blood causes me to deal with you differently.”
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   הכי אחי אתה ועבדתני חנם?, ”do you have to serve me without recompense just because you are my family?” Nachmanides points out that the Torah had not even mentioned that Yaakov “served” Lavan, It is possible, that as soon as Yaakov had met Rachel, he had taken over her former duties of tending Lavan’s flocks. He did so because he had fallen in love with her. It is also possible that Lavan had immediately spoken to him with deceitful intent, saying that seeing he was family, he would provide for him as a family member. After a month had passed, he suggested to Yaakov that surely as a moral individual he would not expect Lavan to continue doing this without Yaakov compensating him. Since he did not want him to have to be in the service of people unrelated to him by blood, and he also could not afford to feed him for an indefinite period without Yaakov compensating him, he suggested that Yaakov work for him and that he tell him what he expected in the way of wages. Yaakov realized what was on his mind, and suggested that he would work for Lavan for 7 years in order to receive Rachel’s hand in marriage. The עבודה that the Torah refers to here, is simply the tending of Lavan’s sheep. Lest we think that this was an easy vocation, Yaakov in Genesis 31,38-42 describes in detail what extreme discomfort was involved when one took one’s responsibilities in this regard seriously, as he did.
      Some commentators believe that what Lavan had in mind was to appoint Yaakov as what is known in <i>halachah</i> as שומר שכר, a paid guard, someone who is responsible for the items entrusted to him, being liable for theft, loss from a variety of causes, as opposed to an unpaid guard who is liable to make restitution for any loss only when negligence or worse can be proved against him.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ועיני לאה רכות, “Leah’s eyes were sensitive;” according to Onkelos, this is a compliment, Leah’s eyes being round and lustrous like those of a young and beautiful calf. Targum Yonathan omits the comparison with a calf. Apparently, when the Torah points out Leah’s eyes as being beautiful, this is in contrast to the remainder of her physical features which were not attractive.
      Other commentators who view the comment as describing a flaw, feel that the Torah was at pains to point out that Leah’s only physical flaw were her eyes. Her sister Rachel, however, was flawlessly beautiful.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   אעבדך שבע שנים ברחל בתך, “I will serve you for seven years in return for your daughter Rachel.” Under normal circumstances it is not good manners, is inappropriate, to serve for a woman. The only reason that Yaakov agreed to this arrangement was that his father had commanded him not to marry a Canaanite woman but to marry one of Lavan’s daughters. He therefore told Lavan that if he would not give him Rachel as a wife now, he would not violate his father’s command by marrying some other local girl, but would serve for Rachel for seven years. The reason why he offered to wait seven years for consummation of this arrangement may have been that at the time Rachel was so young that he could not expect to have children from her at her tender age.
  
     ברחל בתך הקטנה, “for your younger daughter Rachel.” He did not want to marry Leah, seeing she was the older of the two and therefore was meant for his older brother Esau. It would have been impolite to speak about her directly; this is why he chose to add the words “your younger daughter.” 
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויהיו בעיניו כימים אחדים באהבתו אותה, “they were in his eyes like a few days because of his love for her.” According to our yardsticks such a long wait is extremely difficult. The Torah reports that after the seven years were over, in retrospect, these seven years appeared as if they had been only a few days, as he was so in love with Rachel that he considered the price he had to pay as cheap.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   מלא שבוע זאת, “let this week pass.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the week in question were the seven days of celebration following the nuptials.
      Nachmanides writes that he has found no record of such a practice prior to Moses having instituted it for the Israelites. Perhaps in earlier times only the elite of the people observed 7 days of festivities after the wedding, just as they observed seven days of mourning after the death of prominent personages. (Compare Genesis 50,10 when Joseph decreed seven days of mourning for Yaakov)
      It is also possible to explain that when Yaakov entered the seventh and final year of his service, the year known as שנת מלואים, the final year, he asked Lavan to give him Rachel, arguing that now Lavan did not worry about Yaakov leaving his employ as he had so much more to gain by staying for a relatively short period. At that time Lavan refused. Now that he was about to assuage Yaakov’s feelings of bitterness of Lavan’s deception, he told him that Rachel would be given to him at the end of seven more years of service to make plain that he would have to wait until then, as if he were to give him now, on account as it were, Yaakov might not honour the terms of the contract and would abscond with both women before carrying out his duties. [the anomaly causing the commentators difficulty is that on the one hand Yaakov refers to מלאו ימי, “my days are complete,” whereas twice the Torah refers to שבוע instead of either ימים or שנים, “days, or years.” In verse 28 it is difficult to explain the word שבוע as meaning “week,” as <i>Rashi</i> does in verse verse 26. Ed.]
  
     ונתנה לך גם את זאת, “and we will give you also this one.” <i>Rashi</i> explains the word ונתנה as an active form of the word נתן in the first person plural of the future conjugation. As in Genesis 11,7 הבה נרדה ונבלה [as opposed to the third person singular passive mode with the prefix ו changing the meaning to the future tense of the same root, meaning “it will be given.” Ed.] 
      Nachmanides writes that everything Lavan said was deceptive in nature, and when he said that it was not the custom in his town to give the younger daughter’s hand in marriage to anyone until the older daughter had been married, and that the people of the town would not let him get away with making such a precedent, as it would offend their sense of propriety, he added that if Yaakov would agree to these terms, i.e. to complete another term of service,מלא שבוע זאת, they would then honour him greatly by their making a feast for him when he would wed Rachel.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   ויאהב גם את רחל, “he loved Rachel also.” Concerning Yaakov also loving Rachel, when he had loved her all along, Nachmanides explains that normally a man loves the first woman he marries, i.e. has intimate relations with.. In this instance, the Torah informs us that in spite of this general rule, and Yaakov having had intimate relations with Leah, he continued also to love Rachel.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   וירא ה' כי שנואה לאה, “The Lord took note of the fact that Leah was hated, etc.” According to <i>Bereshit Rabbah, 70,2</i> the reason Yaakov hated Leah was that she had betrayed her sister. Seeing that G’d knew that her intentions were pure, that she wanted to be married to a righteous person such as Yaakov, He had compassion with her.
      Some commentators believe that we must not understand the word שנואה at face value; the Torah merely describes Yaakov’s relations with Leah by comparing them to his relations with Rachel. When looked at from that angle, Leah appeared as if she were hated. We would have to say that G’d saw that Leah was “hated,” [not just by Yaakov, but when compared to her sister who was popular, Ed] so that G’d compensated her by granting her motherhood in spite of natural biological obstacles to this.
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   הפעם אודה את ה', “this time I will give thanks to the Lord, etc.” She had now received her entire share of blessings seeing that she had born four children for Yaakov. Seeing that she considered herself fulfilled, she no longer became pregnant, ותעמוד מלדת.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   הבה לי בנים, “get me children!” Rachel demanded that Yaakov pray on her behalf, failing which she would die She considered any woman who had no children as “dead.”
      Nachmanides expresses his amazement at such an interpretation as he cannot understand why this was something that would infuriate Yaakov, as the Torah reports in the next verse when he upbraids her by asking if he was in place of the G’d Who had denied her children. One even prays on behalf of people to whom one is not married, so why should he feel offended by her demand that he pray on behalf of his wife? As to the comment by the <i>Midrash</i> that Yaakov rejected the comparison with Yitzchok praying for Rivkah to have children as inappropriate, seeing that Yitzchok at the time did not have children, whereas he, Yaakov did have already four children, surely that is not a reason why he should not pray on behalf of his favorite wife!?
      According to the plain meaning of the text, Rachel demanded children from her husband. She threatened that if he refused to pray on her behalf she would kill herself. She would not lay a hand on herself, but she explained that she would simply die from frustration and shame, and would blame her death on her husband. 
      Yaakov’s anger was aroused because she so misunderstood the power of prayer that she felt that the prayer of a צדיק automatically commits G’d to fulfill it. Yaakov thought that Rachel used the threat of her death as a ploy, something not unknown when women are denied having their way. At any rate, after telling Rachel that the matter was not really in his hands, seeing that G’d had granted him children but not from her, she decided to pray on her own behalf. This is what the Torah means in verse 22 that G’d “listened to her,” as a result of which she bore Joseph.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   הנה אמתי בלהה, בא אליה ואבנה גם אנכי, “here is my maidservant Bilhah, sleep with her and I too will be built through her (child).” Sarah, when suggesting that Avraham sleep with Hagar, had phrased it differently, saying “perhaps I will be built up though her.” (Genesis 16,7). Rachel appeared certain that Bilhah would have a son. The reason for her feeling certain that she would succeed was that Avraham had not yet been told by G’d that he would have a son by Sarah. Rachel, having revealed to her sister the secret code between her and Yaakov so that she would not be embarrassed under the wedding canopy, was certain that this merit would work in her favour now. Her preparedness to allow a competitor to sleep with her husband would, she was sure, produce in the desired result.
      Some commentators believe that Rachel’s certainty was based on the extra letter ה in Bilhah’s name, this being an allusion to offspring as per הא לכם זרע, or כי בי-ה ה' צור עולמו, this world having been created under the aegis of the letter ה. Rachel, רחל was the only of one of the matriarchs who did not have the letter ה in her name. She meant to make up for this deficiency by giving בלהה to her husband as her alter ego.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ותלד ליעקב בן, “She bore a son for Yaakov.” Nachmanides draws our attention to the fact that with all the births by the maidservants the Torah writes the formula: “she bore a son for Yaakov,” to indicate that Yaakov wanted these sons and acknowledged them as his, and that is why they are not referred to as “sons of the maid.” When the Torah speaks of “a fifth son and a sixth son” (verses 17 and 19) when Leah bore them, whereas no such ordinal numbers had been used in connection with her first 4 sons, and we could have expected these ordinal numbers to have been applied to the two sons Bilhah bore, the Torah wanted to emphasise how welcome these sons were not only to Leah but also to Yaakov. The repetition of “for Yaakov,” was more important seeing that Leah had already borne him four sons. 
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   נפתולי אלוקים נפתלתי, “I have writhed repeatedly in prayer before G’d, etc.” (a prophetic pronouncement) I have become closer to G’d through him (Naftali) as Chirom of the tribe of Naftali did for the construction of Solomon’s Temple what Betzalel had done for the building of the Tabernacle in Moses’ time. (Kings I 5,24,32) Other commentators view Rachel’s struggles with G’d as concerning the inclusion of Bilhah’s sons in the 12 tribes, “the tribes of the Lord.”
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ותרא לאה כי עמדה מלדת, “Leah became aware that she had stopped becoming pregnant, etc.” Nachmanides endeavours to justify Leah giving her servant maid Zilpah to Yaakov as a wife although she was not barren and had already born 4 sons for her husband. He suggests that Leah, as a prophetess, was aware that 12 sons would be born for Yaakov, and she wanted to be sure that the majority would be from her or her family. The reason that Yaakov agreed was that he, too, wanted to have more sons.
      It is possible that seeing that Yaakov knew that the land of Canaan had been given to Avraham, and both Avraham and Yitzchok had not produced many children, Yaakov wanted to make up for this by marrying a number of women. He knew that the fourth generation of Avraham’s descendants would return to the land of Canaan to take possession of it.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ותאמר לאה בגד, “Leah said: ‘good fortune has come.’” Some commentators, in zeroing in on the name גד, point out that members of the tribe of Gad were the first ones to receive their ancestral portion of land in the land of Israel, as documented in Numbers 32,2 “the members of the tribes of Gad and Reuven came, etc.”
      Other commentators hold that that the word בגד means that Leah said: “now I know that my husband has betrayed me, seeing that he has taken my maid servant as a competing wife.” When Avraham took Hagar he had not had any children by Sarah. When Rachel gave her maid servant to Yaakov, she too had not born any children for him. But I have born my husband four children, so there was no reason for him to take her as a wife. If, nonetheless I have started being capable of having children again this must be my reward for allowing him to take my maid servant. When she bore another son she called him אשר to reinforce this feeling of joyous gratitude to G’d Who had blessed her with 6 sons.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   דודאים, “jasmines.” According to Ibn Ezra jasmines exude a pleasant fragrance and also possess the shape of a human being with head and hands like extrusions. Other commentators claim that these flowers are conducive to its owner conceiving. Ibn Ezra himself doubts this as in his estimation theses flowers are “cold,” i.e. do not stimulate sexual arousal.
      Nachmanides writes these jasmines were not intended to make her pregnant, but she wanted to enjoy their fragrance, being aware that Rachel had become pregnant as a result of her prayers and not as a result of inhaling the fragrance of jasmines. Reuven brought his mother the branches of the jasmine plants, not the roots which resemble human features. This may be why people say that these roots may somehow help a woman to get pregnant, although Nachmanides did not find reference to this in any medical text at his disposal.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ותקרא שמו יששכר, “she named him Issachar.” Actually, she should have called him שכר, “reward.” Since she felt she had been rewarded for two actions, the handing over of her maid servant, as well as the handing over of her son’s jasmines, she indicated this by the second letter ש in the word שכר calling this son יששכר.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   הפעם יזבלני אישי, “this time my husband will reside with me.” Seeing I have so many children my “tent” is no longer adequate for my needs. My husband now has to take me into his tent.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ואחר ילדה בת, “after that she bore a daughter.” In this instance the Torah fails to mention that Leah was pregnant prior to giving birth. The <i>Midrash</i> explains the real pregnancy producing Dinah (should have ?) commenced with Rachel who was supposed to give birth to Dinah. However, Leah her sister prayed, asking that Rachel should not become embarrassed by producing fewer sons than either of the maid servants. As a result of this prayer, the embryo in Leah’s womb at that time was changed to being a female and was born as a girl. 
      [The Talmud <i>Berachot</i> 60 attributes the prayer to Leah who was pregnant, but does not mention the transfer of an embryo to her womb. According to the version in the <i>Bereshit Rabbah 72,6</i> before me, the embryo was not transferred, but its sex was changed, something which the <i>Midrash</i> claims is possible even at a much later stage, such as the woman being already on the birth stool. Rachel had prayed for one more son, G’d fulfilling her prayer later when Binyamin was born. There is no reason to believe that Rachel was pregnant at the time Yaakov left Lavan, as she could hardly have claimed to be menstruating when her father searched her tent for the <i>teraphim</i> in Genesis 31,35 if she had been pregnant. The Talmud warns that a miracle such as occurred here, should not be used as a precedent for praying for male or female children, after the pregnancy has been in effect for 40 days. Ed.] 
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויהי כאשר ילדה רחל את יוסף, “it was as soon as Rachel had given birth to Joseph, etc.” Yaakov felt certain that now Lavan would permit him to leave, as there was no further reason for him to fear that Yaakov would divorce Rachel seeing that he had a child by her; it is also possible that before this even Rachel might not have been willing to leave her father’s house and town. She herself might have been afraid that Yaakov would divorce her if she failed to bear him any children. 
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   נחשתי ויברכני, “I have myself come to feel that the Lord has blessed me on your account.” The expression נחש usually implies that the knowledge one has acquired is empirical, the result of experimentation. Lavan had made all kinds of experiments to determine to what he owed his good fortune during the 14 years that Yaakov had been with him.
      Another explanation is that he used his “<i>teraphim</i>,” his oracles, to determine this, and even those indicated that Lavan’s new found wealth was due to Yaakov’s presence. It is interesting that later on in verse 30 Yaakov does not attribute Lavan’s wealth to his presence but to לרגלי, from the day I came, i.e. not because of anything I did. Yaakov was a model of modesty.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   מתי אעשה גם אנכי לביתי, “when will I also be able to do something for my family?” According to <i>Rashi</i> he meant that up to now only his children had supported him with their work, whereas, i.e, their father had been fully occupied in providing wealth for his father-in-law.
      According to Nachmanides there is no evidence that Yaakov owned any flocks which his sons could have tended. Besides, Reuven, his oldest son was only 6 years old at this time, so that his efforts could not have amounted to much. Therefore, what Yaakov meant was: ”when can I start doing for my family what I have been doing for your family?”
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   אעבור בכל צאנך היום הסר משם כל שה נקוד וטלוא, “I will go through all your flocks today. Remove from these every dappled or blotched lamb, etc.” The word וטלוא means או טלוא, “or blotched,” not that the same sheep displays both dappled and blotched skin patterns. The males are the subject of discussion here.
  
     וטלוא ונקוד בעיזים, “or the blotched or dappled among the kids.” These are the female goats. This is spelled out again when in verse 35 Lavan carries out the suggestion Yaakov had made.
  
     וכל שה חום בכבשים, “and all the brown sheep.” Lavan set aside (for himself) all the male sheep which had any brown coloured spots on their pelts, and all the female sheep which had any white spots on their skins. Lavan gave those animals to his sons to tend, and henceforth any of the remaining flocks that would give birth to animals with such markings would be Yaakov’s wages. [He thought that he had made certain there would be only a minute number of such births, seeing that the animals that were likely to provide such genetic input had already been removed. Ed.]
      I find it difficult to understand to what end sheep are suddenly introduced in a context that dealt with different kinds of skin patterns of goats, both of males and females of the species.(verse 35) We would have expected the Torah to write: sequentially, התישים והעזים, just as the Torah describes this when writing את התישים העקודים...ואת כל העיזים וכו'. 
      Nachmanides writes that the males of the goats were generally dappled and blotched, whereas the male sheep were generally brown. He proceeds to explain our verses as follows: [starting with verse 32. Ed] “remove from there all the lambs that are dappled or blotched, and from the sheep also the brown ones place with the dappled and blotched ones, so that my wages will consist of animals born having these markings on their skin. He wanted the same to apply to the dappled and blotched goats.” He did not mention male goats at all, just as he had not mentioned the male sheep separately. Nachmanides quotes as proof that his interpretation is correct that when Yaakov peeled off some bark from the staves near the water troughs so that they resembled the desired skin patterns, no mention is made of the colour “brown” at all. (compare verses 37-38). If Yaakov had among his flocks of prime sheep only brown ones, i.e. the choicest animals of the flocks, it would follow that he made no attempt at all to increase the number of brown patterned lambs that would be born and would be part of his wages. We must also note that in Yaakov’s dream (31,10) which he relates to his wives, not a word is mentioned about any brown-coloured animals. From the animals and their behaviour which appeared in Yaakov’s, dream it is evident that his wages, or rather the wages that he and Lavan had agreed upon, had been the עקודים, נקודים, and ברודים, not the brown ones. If he had mentioned brown ones in verse 33 it was because among the brown sheep or goats for that matter, these never reproduced in a variety of skin colours other that their original brown. If he had attempted to increase the number of animals with illegal machinations, why did he not try to increase the number of brown sheep that would be born? He did not do so because only brown sheep reproduce brown skinned lambs. 
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   ויסר ביום ההוא את התישים, “On that day Lavan removed the he-goats (of special skin patterns).” Nachmanides writes that Yaakov had been imprecise and had spoken only about טלוא ונקוד בעזים, the dappled and blotched she goats, whereas Lavan was aware that the male genetics are paramount in determining the skin pattern of the young; this is why by removing the male goats he hoped to effectively prevent goats being born which bore the skin markings which would have made them Yaakov’s. Lavan had even removed the עתודים, animals with just a little white around their ankles. (According to many commentators what is described here as חום, brown, refers to generalized spotting of a brownish colour, the basic colour of sheep being white). 
      According to the way we explained matters this is all logical, as Yaakov also did mention the male animals since it is written הסר משם כל שה וגו', “remove from there every lamb, etc.” The word כל included the males, the billy-goats.
      Alternately, one may explain that the words כל אשר לבן בו in verse 35, refer back to the goats from which he had separated all those that had any white stripes or spots. The meaning of the words וכל חום בכבשים in the same line, would mean “every sheep displaying the skin pattern mentioned earlier,” i.e. נקוד וטלוא, referring to brownish dapples and blotches.
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
   ויקח לו יעקב מקל לבנה,”Yaakov took for his use an aspen stick, etc.” Some people are amazed at why Yaakov the righteous person could resort to such a device. Nachmanides counters that seeing that they had made an agreement that the animals born with such skin patterns would be his wages, Yaakov was well within his rights to do everything to ensure that as many animals showing such skin patterns would be born.
      Perhaps Yaakov had even conditioned his acceptance on his being allowed to do what he could to encourage the birth of animals with the skin patterns that were to remain his. Seeing that Lavan did not have the expertise in genetics which Yaakov possessed, [or the angel taught him in the dream, Ed.] he did not object to such a request. The other shepherds did not become aware of Yaakov’s stratagem as he used it only twice each year in the spring and fall when the animals are in heat. If Yaakov had used the stratagem every time before the animals were at the troughs, Lavan would not have had any lambs born to him at all.
      Some commentators say that in the first year many lambs were born to the flocks by the grace of G’d, the angel having revealed to him that by the use of the aspen sticks whose bark was peeled in the right way, the sheep while in heat would exercise their imagination and their young would reflect this in their skin pattern. Yaakov made no use of this information until the second year, so as to avoid being accused of having stolen some of Lavan’s sheep. Once he had sheep with such skin patterns of his own, he was no longer suspect.
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
   והכבשים הפריד יעקב, “Yaakov had already separated the sheep, etc.” According to <i>Rashi</i> this means that he set aside as his own flocks all those that had been born with the skin patterns agreed upon as his wages. He made separate herds of them and made them walk in front of the mature flocks in a manner that caused them to face those flocks. This is the meaning of the line ויתן פני הצאן אל עקוד וכל חום בצאן לבן, “he made them face all the ankle-striped and the brown ones among the sheep.” 
      The problem with this commentary, writes Nachmanides, is that it does not explain why he had separated the sheep only and not the goats, both male and female, so that they too would reproduce young ones of the desired skin pattern. Why did he not make a separate herd of the goats also? Furthermore, seeing that according to <i>Rashi’s</i> opinion the sheep do not produce the skin pattern called עקוד as we surmise by the fact that Yaakov was not given such as part of his wages, as opposed to brown (speckled) ones, there was no point in his peeling aspen sticks when these sheep came to the water troughs. It therefore made perfect sense that Yaakov kept the sheep completely apart from the goats. He had a flock of goats, both male and female, which were נקוד וטלוא; these he made walk in front of the senior generation of sheep. All this makes sense according to those who hold that any נקוד וטלוא among the sheep would not belong to Yaakov in any event.
      According to <i>Rashi’s</i> own opinion that all the skin patterns mentioned applied to both goats and sheep, the reason he separated the herds of sheep from those of the goats was that among the goats there were not (as yet) any which showed brown patches of skin.
  
  
  Verse 41
  
   המקושרות, “the early-bearing ones,” some commentators understand the word as “the strong ones.” They believe that it refers to those whose limbs were firmly attached to each other. Such firm attachment between the various limbs is considered a sign of good health. By contrast, the עטופים (verse 42) are the ones whose health was more precarious. They were the weak ones. The word occurs in this context in Lamentations 2,19 העטופים ברעב, “the ones weakened by famine.”
      Nachmanides writes that הקשורים are the male animals which follow the females very close on their heels and never stay far away from them as they are usually in heat. A parallel expression in the Torah would be ונפשו קשורה בנפשו, the manner in which Yehudah describes the spiritual bond between his father and Binyamin. (Genesis 44,30).
      Ibn Ezra explains that in the month of <i>Nissan</i>, all the young lambs born to the sheep were strong and healthy, to wit מקושרות. Seeing they are so healthy and strong, they have a strong sex drive, always staying close behind the females. On the other hand, the ones born in fall, in <i>Tishrey</i>, are by nature weak, and Yaakov was not particularly interested in them, hence he did not bother with the aspen sticks at that time of year. At least, he refrained from doing so in order to minimize the chance of Lavan learning of his stratagem.
  
  
  Verse 42
  
   ובהעטיף הצאן לא ישים, והיה העטופים ללבן. “When the ewes and she-goats were late he would not place the aspen sticks in their path to the troughs.” This was because at that time they did not give birth to lambs or kids with the desired skin pattern. As a result, all the blotched ones would belong to Yaakov, being strong animals born in spring. 
      Some commentators understand that the fact that these skin patterns appeared was not even due to Yaakov’s stratagem, but was a divine assistance Yaakov experienced, a minor miracle. This explains why Lavan did not check regularly on what Yaakov was up to, as he had been unaware of what had been happening. He did not even view the use of the aspen sticks as responsible for the fact that the young sheep and goats born under Yaakov’s supervision mostly had the skin patterns favouring him. Most miracles are not of the type of splitting the sea, or water turning into blood, but they are “additives” to initiatives undertaken by man. [According to that view, had Yaakov not used this stratagem the miracle could not have occurred, just as if the woman whose oil the prophet Elisha increased manifold could not have experienced this miracle if her jar had been totally empty of oil. Ed.] (compare Kings II 4,1-6) This commentary, is not valid in our situation, as without question the stratagem used by Yaakov can be successfully applied by other shepherds whom G’d does not favour with miraculous intervention.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   אם כה יאמר: נקודים יהיה שכרך, וגו', “if he would say thus: “the blotched ones will be your wages, etc.” Originally, Yaakov had stipulated two skin patterns among the goats, as well as the colour brown when it would show up among the sheep. When the result favoured Yaakov, Lavan changed the terms of the agreement, substituting skin patterns which had been rare up to that point. However, as soon as he did so, the animals bore young with the skin patterns which favoured Yaakov disproportionately. The new skin patterns were already totally unrelated to anything Yaakov could do by peeling them and patterning them. It was clear that without Divine intervention on behalf of Yaakov, he could not have become so rich in so short a period of time. We know this from the fact that Yaakov did not add that he had to use these stratagems again and again.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   והנה העתודים העולים על הצאן עקודים, נקודים וברודים. “and behold, the he-goats were ankle striped, dappled, and blotch-striped.” If the male possessed one of each of these skin patterns, the lamb born by the female which it had mounted would have the corresponding skin pattern.
      According to Nachmanides, whenever the Torah mentions the term עתודים, what are meant are the rams or billy-goats, the אילים, the fully grown, even outsize specimen. Other commentators understand the term עתודים as describing fat animals of their species The reason that they are mentioned separately is that although these animals are raised only for eventual slaughter to serve as meat, and not for siring lambs, the phenomenon of the lambs which they sired having the skin pattern favouring Yaakov was in evidence. According to <i>Rashi,</i> angels brought these animals from Lavan’s flock to Yaakov’s flocks in order to help him increase the proportion of appropriately skin-patterned animals. According to Nachmanides, the plain meaning is that appropriately skin patterned males had to be seen as mounting the females which would later on bear the young reflecting the father-animal’s genes. The word הנה, which Yaakov uses in describing his dream, is meant to show how vividly he experienced this in his dream.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   אנכי הא-ל בית א-ל, “I am the G’d of Beyt-El, etc.” According to Nachmanides, Yaakov recounted all that the angel had said to him in his dream to his wives in order to win their agreement to leave their father’s house and to return with him to the land of Canaan. This was not all a single dream. The revelations involving the aspen sticks occurred while Yaakov was still in Lavan’s employ, whereas the revelation in our verse here occurred during their journey, for as soon as Yaakov had been instructed by G’d to leave Charan and to return to Canaan he did so. He sent for Rachel and Leah, told them of the Divine instructions in his dream, and they left forthwith.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ותען רחל ולאה, “Rachel and Leah replied, etc.” I have been bothered by the fact that Rachel did not display courtesy for her older sister and spoke first. In the meantime I have seen a comment in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i>, 74,4 where the author quotes an opinion that the reason that Rachel died before her sister was that she spoke up before her sister. In that connection Rabbi Yossi questioned the author of that statement by asking him if he had ever seen that when someone calls Reuven that Shimon will answer that call (instead of Reuven?) What did Rachel do wrong? The Torah reports that Yaakov called Rachel and Leah to the field in that order. Why should not Rachel have replied first? Rabbi Yossi must explain Rachel’s death as due to a different circumstance, i.e. Yaakov’s conditional curse of the person who had stolen Lavan’s <i>teraphim.</i>
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ותגנב רחל את התרפים, “Rachel stole the <i>teraphim.”</i> According to <i>Rashi,</i> she intended to wean her father from idolatry by removing the idol from him.
      Nachmanides admits that it is possible that Lavan had been using the <i>teraphim</i> in his worship of idolatry. It is however by no means certain that <i>teraphim</i> served only as idols. We certainly would not expect to come across idols in King David’s residence, and yet we are told in Samuel I 19,13 that Michal, David’s wife placed such <i>teraphim</i> in David’s bed, feigning that it was he who was sleeping in that bed. Surely, David did not keep idolatrous figures in his home.
      It is most likely that the <i>teraphim</i> were objects which enabled people to know the time of day, and in that connection they were also used to help them to predict future events. The root of the word is from רפה, “weak” as in רפי ידים, “weak-handed,” or נרפים אתם, “you are weak” (in the sense of lazy, not pulling one’s weight.) The reason people call these objects תרפים is to hint that the reliability of these objects in predicting future events is not very strong, although in the majority of instances the predictions prove more or less accurate. Only people who do not pray to the Lord, the Creator, would be foolish enough to put their trust in them.
      Some people argue that astrologers possess the power to summon up certain images at a time which they can accurately predict.
      Ibn Ezra writes that <i>teraphim</i> are objects made of copper which are designed to help us determine portions of an hour, such as minutes. Some people claim that some astrologers possess the skill to raise some life-like shapes at a predetermined hour, and that apparition appears to speak intelligently.
      Personally, I believe that <i>teraphim</i> are replicas of human beings, constructed in a manner designed to endow them with some divine powers.
      Some commentators believe that Rachel stole the <i>teraphim</i> in order to wean her father from practicing idolatry. If that were so indeed, why did she keep these <i>teraphim</i> with her instead of at least burying them? It is far more likely that Rachel, being aware that her father was an astrologer, was afraid that by a combination of astrology and the <i>teraphim</i> he would succeed in tracking the movements of Yaakov and his family and he would overtake them in short order. Another view is that she took the <i>teraphim</i> so that these would not reveal to him where Yaakov was at that time. [according to that view she did not really ”steal” them but denied him their use at a critical point in time. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויגד ללבן ביום השלישי, “Lavan was informed on the third day, etc.” <i>Rashi e</i>xplains the time lag by the fact that Lavan’s flocks grazed a distance of three days travel from those which Yaakov tended. It does not refer to a distance between the town and the area where Lavan’s flocks were grazing. 
      Nachmanides questions <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary that there is no proof for his contention as Yaakov hardly set out from the middle of the field, but went back to town to gather up his and his family’s belongings.
      It is possible that Lavan’s flocks grazed close to the town, these flocks being on the east side of town, whereas Yaakov grazed his flocks on the west side of the town. Yaakov returned home, gathered up his belongings. Seeing that he had not given Lavan reason to suspect that he was about to leave him, he gained an initial advantage and Lavan only found out that he was gone when he had occasion to return to the town. By the time Lavan had organized his sons and sheepshearers, arranged for a pursuit, plus the time spent riding in pursuit, seven days had elapsed until he caught up with Yaakov.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   וידבק אותו בהר הגלעד, “He caught up with him at Mount Gilead.” Lavan reached the slopes of the mountain on the evening of the sixth day after Yaakov’s departure and he saw Yaakov’s encampment from a distance. During the night G’d appeared to him and warned him not to molest Yaakov in any shape or form.
      Ibn Ezra explains the sequence וידבק, “he caught up,” followed by ויבא, “he arrived,” as one of many examples in the Torah when a major point is being made before something which actually had happened earlier, but was subordinate in importance.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   אל לבן הארמי, “to Lavan from Aram.” The reason this detail-with which we are already familiar- was mentioned here, was to emphasize that although Lavan, as an Aramite like the other members of his town, was an idolater, G’d appeared to him in a dream for the sake of the righteous Yaakov..
  
     מטוב עד רע, “either good or evil (threats).” When wicked people do you favours, “טוב”, such favours are tainted because they originate with the wicked. Sooner or later, something רע, “evil,” will happen as a consequence of such a “favour.”
      According to Nachmanides, G’d did not permit Lavan to try and convince him to come back with him, in return for favourable conditions which he would provide for him. Neither was he allowed to try and frighten Yaakov by warning him of what he would do to him if he did not come back.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ואלוקי אביכם אמש אמר אלי, וגו', “and the G’d of your father has said to me last night.” I find it difficult to understand why Lavan told Yaakov that G’d had told him not to do harm to him. After all, it was a known fact that Lavan hated Yaakov and wanted to totally uproot him. Seeing that G’d had forbidden him to do so, why did he mention this to Yaakov? Yaakov would have been more afraid of him if he had not mentioned his nocturnal experience at all? I believe the reason is that Lavan was aware that Yaakov was a prophet and he thought that G’d would have revealed to him what He had said to Lavan. Under those circumstances he felt it would be better for him to come clean right away and admit that G’d had warned him.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   עם אשר תמצא את אלוקיך לא יחיה, “the one in whose possession you will find your deities shall not live.” Some commentators hold that this is not the formula used in a curse, but that Yaakov meant to say that such a person did not deserve to live, but deserved to be hung as a thief. If he were to be convicted of the death penalty, Yaakov promised to be the first one to assist in the execution.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   באהל יעקב ובאהל לאה, “in Yaakov’s tent and in Leah’s tent.” According to <i>Rashi</i> Yaakov’s tent was in fact Rachel’s tent as he spent most of his nights in her tent. Even when he left the tent of Leah, he, Lavan, went back a second time to Rachel’s tent as he was aware that she was fond of rummaging around. (<i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> on that section. Ed.] .
      Nachmanides does not agree that the same tent in the same verse is referred to once as Rachel’s tent and another time as Yaakov’s tent.
      Ibn Ezra wrote that Lavan searched in this order: 1) the tent of Yaakov, 2) the tent of Leah, followed by the tent of the two maidservants who shared a tent, or to each of their tents separately, Afterwards he went back once more to Leah’s tent. The proof is that the Torah writes: “he departed from the tent of Leah.” The Torah describes this procedure in a manner which enables it to say that Lavan had failed to locate the <i>teraphim</i> in any of these tents. as they had not been hidden there. In verse 34 when he came to a tent that did contain the <i>teraphim,</i> the Torah reports this search separately, to stress that although this tent contained the <i>teraphim,</i> Lavan failed to find them. Hence the words “he did not find” are repeated again. He continues that he feels that what most likely happened is that Lavan proceeded in order by first searching Yaakov’s tent, followed by searching the tent of Leah, followed by searching the tent of Rachel, and that of the two servant maids. The reason why the Torah describes Rachel’s tent as being searched last was to emphasise that in spite of the fact that the <i>teraphim</i> were in her tent, he did not find them as by then she had hidden them under the saddle of the camel that she was sitting on.
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   אל יחר בעיני אדוני כי לא אוכל לקום מפניך. “may my lord not be angry, for I am suffering from my monthly menstrual pains.” Nachmanides writes that he does not understand what kind of an excuse Rachel offered with these words. Who has ever heard of women who experience these pains being unable to get up and stand on the floor? Perhaps she meant that all women suffer from pains in their head and in their limbs when these pains begin.
      I believe it is far more likely that the women in those days were quarantined during their monthly cycles so that men would not approach them and speak to them as it was considered that they could thereby confer disease through their exhaling bad breath. Our sages have already confirmed this in a <i>Baraitha</i> in the tractate<i> Niddah</i>. Even to be looked upon by a menstruating woman was considered hazardous. This is why special huts were set aside for the use of women in such a condition. [this editor has seen such a hut in Hawai with his own eyes. Ed.] According to the aforementioned <i>Baraitha</i>, a Torah scholar is forbidden to even enquire after the well being of such a woman. Rachel said that good manners require that she give a kiss to her father but that due to her present condition she was unable to do so, etc.
      Some commentators do not understand the words דרך נשים as applying to menstruation pains but, on the contrary, to the state of pregnancy.
  
  
  Verse 36
  
   ויחר ליעקב,”Yaakov became angry.” Even though, originally, Yaakov had given Lavan permission to search, seeing that he had said that the person with whom the <i>teraphim</i> would be found should not live, and he had said in front of everybody “please identify anything in my entourage as yours if you are able to,” how would Lavan be able to find anything unless he searched all of Yaakov’s belongings? Originally, Yaakov had thought that Lavan suspects one of his servants to have stolen the <i>teraphim;</i> he therefore permitted the search. It had not occurred to him that Lavan would suspect even him or his wives of being thieves. When Lavan had not found anything in his camp, he concluded that he had come with a trumped up charge. This is why he accused Lavan of having staged a pursuit for nefarious reasons, other than that he wanted to retrieve his property. He now told him that if anyone had been robbed it was him, whose wages Lavan had changed so many times, that he, Yaakov, would have been in his rights to search among Lavan’s belongings what he had robbed Yaakov of.
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
   טריפה לא הבאתי אליך, “I did not present to you wounded animals.” Even animals which had been wounded or killed by wolves and lions, for which I was not legally liable, I did not bring you as proof that I had not caused you the loss of an animal. I rather made restitution out of my own pocket. Seeing that according to Jewish law, a paid guard is responsible for this type of loss, how did Yaakov excel in any way by making good such losses to Lavan? When he speaks about stolen (not by violence) animals he refers still to the above-mentioned torn animals. He is only describing various situations which are all classed as <i>force majeure,</i> conditions beyond man’s control, for which he could not have been held responsible. Losing an animal to wolves or lions is something that no shepherd can be blamed for.
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
   ופחד יצחק היה לי, “and the one whom Yitzchok fears was on my side.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that Yaakov did not want to use the name of G’d outright by saying אלוקי יצחק, “the G’d of “Yitzchok,” as we have a tradition that G’d does not associate His name with the living, as the chance always exists that even a righteous person may become corrupted before he dies. This “rule” is contradicted when Eliezer spoke of אלוקי אדוני אברהם, “the G’d of my master Avraham. [besides G’d Himself associated His name with the living in Yaakov’s dream of the ladder. Ed.]
      Ibn Ezra explains the words פחד יצחק as meaning that the fact that Yaakov’s father Yitzchok had been G’d fearing now came to the assistance of his son, something known as זכות אבות, the merit of the fathers.
  
     ויוכח אמש, “when He reproved you last night.” <i>Rashi</i> understands the word יוכח as a derivative of תוכחה, rebuke, and not as a derivative of הוכחה, proof. 
      It is more likely that the word has the same meaning as in 31,37 ויוכיחו בין שנינו, “and let them judge between us.” At this point Yaakov says that the G’d Who is aware of all the things that are hidden from man, has intervened and shown who is upright and who is not. Proof that this is the correct interpretation is that Yaakov did not say ויוכח אותך אמש, “and He has judged you last night.”
  
  
  Verse 43
  
   ולבנותי מה אעשה לאלה, “as to my daughters, what (harm) should I do to these?” We must understand this as if he had said ולבנותי מה אעשה להן,. “what could I possibly do to my daughters?”
      Nachmanides explains the whole expression as one expressing pity, i.e. Lavan when looking at his daughters and grandchildren is overcome, and exclaims: “how could I possibly be cruel enough to cause any harm to my own family?” This is why he added the words אשר ילדו, “the children that they have given birth to in my own house?” He says this in the form of an apology to Yaakov who had accused him of pursuing him with evil intent. He asks Yaakov rhetorically how he could accuse him of harming them when all he wanted was to see his grandchildren, and kiss them! He now wants to do them a favour by making Yaakov promise that he would not marry any additional wives, depriving his grandchildren of part of their inheritance.
  
  
  Verse 44
  
   והיה לעד ביני וביני, “which will be a witness between me and between you.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the subject of the word והיה is G’d, i.e. G’d will be the witness.
      Nachmanides says that G’d is not a part of this covenant at all, but the word ברית is the subject of the word והיה. In other words: “the covenant will serve as witness.” Anyone violating this covenant will become the victim of the curses associated with the sin of violating a solemn agreement.
      It is also possible to understand what happened here as follows: Lavan wanted to select a witness that endures throughout the lifetime and beyond of the parties making the agreement. This is why Yaakov erected a stone to serve as the witness. (verse 45) This is also why Lavan said in verse 48 that this heap of stones would serve as the witness to this agreement.
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
   ויאמר יעקב לאחיו, “Yaakov said to his brothers” A reference to Yaakov’s sons, seeing that the people accompanying Lavan were all his supporters, members of his immediate family, as well as members of Nachor’s family generally. Yaakov’s sons were like brothers to him. Lavan had refrained from bringing strangers with him, people who for one reason or another might side with Yaakov in the approaching confrontation.
      Some commentators believe that Yaakov did speak to Lavan’s supporters asking them to help collect stones. His addressing them as “brothers,” was intended to be a rebuke, i.e. they ought to behave like brothers and not like opponents.
      Nachmanides also interprets the word לאחיו as applying to Lavan’s brothers. He did not want to ask for such assistance from his father’s-in-law directly, as he related to him with respect. He wanted to avoid giving the impression that everything was under his sole control. The situation is similar to Pharaoh’s enquiring from Joseph’s brothers what their occupational skills were in Genesis 
  
     ויאכלו שם על הגל, “they ate there next to the heap of stones.” There, as a symbolic gesture cementing the conclusion of the covenant, something that was customary when any pact or alliance was concluded between two or more parties. The point was that both the parties involved ate from the same loaf of bread as a sign of friendship. Having partaken of that symbolic meal, they swore to one another to maintain that agreement and not to breach it.
      It is also possible that they had the meal described in verse 54 next to this monument to their reconciliation. In that event, the purpose of the collecting of stones may have been to erect tables and seating arrangements around which the meal would be consumed. 
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
   ויאמר לבן הגל הזה עד, “Lavan said: “this pile of stones will be witness.” After Yaakov had named this pile of stones “Gilad,” (a pile of stones that is testimony), Lavan adopted Hebrew for the sake of confirming the agreement, seeing that they were able to agree on a mutually acceptable name for the monument in question. Alternatively, the Torah renders what Lavan said in Aramaic in Hebrew for the sake of the readers who do not understand Aramaic.
  
  
  Verse 49
  
   והמצפה אשר אמר, “he also called it <i>mitzpah, (lookout)</i> as he said.” According to <i>Rashi</i> this mountain which appears by that name in Judges 11,29, got its name from the fact that that both Yaakov and Lavan had said to the other that G’d would look down upon this monument to ensure that neither party would breach the agreement.
      Nachmanides, on the other hand, claims that if <i>Rashi</i> were correct there must have been a high platform on top of this pile of stones. In view of the unlikelihood of this, he believes that our verse is a continuation of verse 47, which had been interrupted by Lavan in verse 48. The words ויעקב קרא לו גלעד והמצפה על כן, must be read as a single sequence, i.e. Yaakov called the pile of stones “Gilad” as well as “<i>hamitzpah</i>.” The reason he did so was because he invited G’d to supervise the agreement which had been sealed between him and Lavan, and to protect him against any attempt to violate that agreement.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the words אשר אמר, (verse 49) refer back to Lavan, so that the meaning of the line is: “Yaakov called the pile “Mitzpah” because Lavan had said to him: “may G’d look upon (יצף) this monument, etc.”
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
   עד הגל הזה, “this pile of stones is a witness, etc.” This is why Bileam (re-incarnate of Lavan) had his foot squeezed against the wall by the she-ass when he was on the way to curse the descendants of Yaakov, the “wall” described in Numbers The “wall” is a euphemism for this pile of stones, Bileam, being the re-incarnate of Lavan. [this may account for the fact that when Bileam arrived at Balak he was limping. Ed.]
  
     אם אני לא אעבור אליך את הגל הזה ואם אתה לא תעבור אלי את הגל הזה ואת המצבה הזאת לרעה. “that I will not pass this pile of stones and neither will you pass this monument with hostile intent.” According to Ibn Ezra the words את הגל הזה are not to be taken literally, but are a symbol for the agreement confirmed by both Yaakov and Lavan when they erected the pile of stones and ate a sacrificial meal together to seal the covenant. The word אם here has the same meaning as the word אשר, “that.” The word תעבור, too, does not refer to walking past an imaginary line, but is a euphemism for action, i.e. hostile action.
      Other commentators see in the verse a mutual promise to cross this symbolic boundary in order to come to the assistance of the other party when this is called for. It is a boundary only to prevent hostile invasion of the other party’s realm.
      Still other commentators believe that Lavan did not want to say something offensive, negative, hence he couched it in a manner that describes it as an inactivity, although the final word לרעה strictly speaking, only makes sense if the opening words had been אם אעבור, instead of to אם לא אעבור.
   	 Still another opinion understands the negative opening as a hint that Lavan agrees that when either one of them is in difficulties which the other party can save him from, that in such a situation it is, of course, in order to cross this new boundary between their respective realms. This would be in line with other agreements called ברית, alliance, when either party promises the other to assist them when the need arises.
  
  
  Verse 53
  
   אלוקי אברהם ואלוקי נחור ישפטו בינינו, “the God of Avraham and the gods of Nachor may judge who between us is righteous.” We have to understand this verse as each of the two parties saying what he said as applicable only to the deity that he worshipped. Yaakov certainly did not accord the gods of Nachor legitimacy by considering them as fit to judge anything. Each of the parties mentioned the deity worshipped by their respective grandfathers, something Yaakov also did when he swore in the name of Avraham, who was his grandfather. This was a courtesy, Yaakov actually only swearing by the G’d of his father, i.e. בפחד אביו יצחק. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וינשק לבניו, ”he kissed his grandchildren.” His daughters children.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויפגעו בו מלכי אלוקים, ”angels of G’d met him.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that these were the angels assigned to protect him while he was in the land of Israel. These angels now came to welcome Yaakov, whereas the ones who had accompanied him thus far still had not taken their leave.
  
     מחנים, “i.e. two camps.” Nachmanides is astounded at this interpretation by <i>Rashi</i> of these two verses, in view of the fact that Yaakov had not yet crossed into the territory of ארץ ישראל, and in fact was a long way distant from the border even when he sent messengers to Esau in verse 4. We were told shortly before that he had crossed the fording of the river Yabbok, a river which flows from East to West and ends up as a tributary to the river Jordan, the dividing line between the land of Canaan and the territories of Ammon and Moav. Even the land of Edom still lay between him and the Holy Land. Yaakov’s entry into the Holy Land occurred only when he arrived at Shechem physically and spiritually whole, as the Torah testifies in verse 18. We must therefore view what the Torah described here as a vision granted to Yaakov, a vision which was to reassure him that he had more friendly forces on his side than had Esau, his brother, whom he still had to confront. He called the location מחניים, to symbolize the occasion. There is nothing unusual in that. 
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   וישלח יעקב מלאכים לפניו, “Yaakov sent messengers ahead of him.” Their assignment was to walk in front of him.
      Alternatively, their assignment was to investigate the “face” of Esau, i.e. his attitude toward Yaakov at this time. Although G’d had given Yaakov all kinds of assurances, (some time earlier) he did not rely on his righteousness alone to save him from Esau, but took every prudent precaution to minimize the risk to his family and to himself. Yaakov’s conduct is to serve as a model for his children and future descendants to teach them how to deal with the descendants of Esau. Just as he prayed, offered bribes, and was prepared for battle, so his descendants should employ these three means of insuring their survival also.
  
     ארצה שעיר, שדה אדום, “the land Seir, the field of Edom.” Anyone traveling from Charan to the land of Israel travels through the land of Seir. Even though Esau spent most of his time in the land of Canaan, as is clear from Genesis 36,6: “Esau took his wives and went to “a (another) land,” on account of his brother Yaakov,” Yaakov had reason to believe that he would encounter him near his wives, who had come from the land of Seir. Our sages have criticized Yaakov, comparing his conduct to the proverbial “he who grabs the ears of a dog must not be surprised if he gets bitten.” Yaakov’s sending gifts ahead to Esau alerted him to the fact that he was about to approach him. Yaakov’s mistake was repeated during the latter days of the second Jewish commonwealth, when the Romans were invited by a Jewish king Aristobul, descendant of the Maccabees, to conclude an alliance with him. This was the beginning of the collapse of the Jewish commonwealth and of the second Temple, followed by total loss of Jewish independence, such as it had been.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   כה תאמרו לאדוני לעשו, “thus you shall say to my lord, to Esau.” This does not mean that Yaakov called his brother: “my lord,” as this would not make sense unless you are in the presence of the person so described. It means that he commanded his servants to address Esau with the title “my lord, thus has said your servant Yaakov.” when they would meet him.
      It is also possible that that Yaakov did refer to Esau as “my lord” even when he was not in his presence in order to warn his messengers to address him with the proper degree of deference even when they were not in his presence. They would do so once they noticed that even their own master did so even in his absence.
      All of this was not an unusually obsequious behaviour by Yaakov, but it was customary for the younger brother to refer to his older brother in such terms, as a sign of respect. The reason the Torah reports all this, is to tell us that although Yaakov had purchased the birthright from his brother, he still considered him the senior brother, biologically speaking. He hoped to persuade Esau by this stratagem that the “birthright” in terms of personal honour, was of no concern to him whatsoever.
  
     עם לבן גרתי, ”I have sojourned with Lavan, etc.” I have stayed all this time even though he kept treating me like a stranger (and not like a son-in-law).
  
     ואחר עד עתה, “I delayed my return until now.” I was not forced by external pressures to delay my return, but I did so of my own free will.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויהי לי שור וחמור, “I acquired herds and flocks, etc.” Even though I have always been considered a יושב אהלים, a “<i>yeshivah bachur</i>, a “highbrow,” a misfit in the world of “men of the world,” I am not as naïve as you think, as thanks to G’d’s help I have become wealthy. This was not a boast, but Yaakov wanted to make Esau think twice before he would launch a military attack on him.
  
     ואשלחה להגיד לאדוני, “I have sent messengers to inform my lord of my impending arrival.” According to <i>Rashi</i> these words were meant to show Esau that Yaakov came with friendly intentions, bent on healing any breach that had existed between them. According to this explanation, the words are not a repetition of something implied previously.
      Nachmanides does understand the last few words as referring to what had been said before, i.e. Yaakov’s announcing that he had become wealthy since he had last seen Esau. Seeing that he had attained such wealth, he was able to treat Esau with the honour due to an older brother. i.e. this was the reason for the tokens of his esteem he had sent ahead of himself. If Esau, preferred, he could make a selection of the gifts Yaakov had sent for his approval.
      Some commentators see in Yaakov’s conduct confirmation of what Solomon said in Proverbs 19,7 כל אחי-רש שנאהו, “all the brothers of a poor man hate him.” Yaakov wanted Esau to know that he did not have to hate him, as he had not come as a potential burden, i.e. a poor relation who is in need of a handout. On the contrary, he was bent on finding favour in his eyes.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   וגם הולך לקראתך, “he is also on his way to meet you.” Just as you are walking towards him, so he is coming towards you, and you will soon meet up with one another. The reason the messengers phrased Esau’s approach not as בא לקראתך, the usual syntax, but said הולך לקראתך , was to alert Yaakov that while on the way, Esau was mobilizing his soldiers, before meeting up with his brother.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויירא יעקב, “Yaakov was afraid (when he heard this). He worried that the merit of Esau having practiced the commandment of honouring father and mother during the 35 years when Yaakov had not been able to do this, would give him an edge in any hostile confrontation.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   והיה המחנה הנשאר לפליטה, “so that the remaining camp may escape.” Some believe that the plain meaning of the verse is that Yaakov hoped that if the first camp that would be attacked by Esau would be defeated, then the people in the second camp might be able to save themselves through fleeing in time, or Esau’s anger might have spent itself so that he would not give pursuit, or that help might materialize through Divine intervention.
      <i>Rashi</i> explains that the words mean that the second camp would definitely survive as Yaakov himself would engage Esau in battle.
      Personally, I think that Yaakov’s certainty was based on the fact that he knew that not all his offspring would fall victim into Esau’s hands at anyone time. This was also to be a sign for his sons to remember that the descendants of Esau will never be able to obliterate all the Jewish people. Whenever, during the long years of our exile, one king or government would issue harsh decrees against us, another king somewhere would be prepared to offer refuge and shelter.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   קטונתי מכל החסדים, “I am unworthy of all the acts of love and kindness, etc.” According to <i>Rashi,</i> Yaakov means that each act of kindness performed on his behalf by G’d diminished the sum total of his remaining merit balance.
      Nachmanides does not accept this interpretation as linguistically correct, seeing that the words “small” and “big” are appropriate for bodies but not for concepts such as merits. These concepts are measured according to quality not according to quantity. The correct interpretation therefore is that Yaakov did not consider himself worthy of the kind deeds G’d had seen fit to perform in his interest.
      The difference between the חסדים and the אמת lies in deeds performed for his sake even without the benefit of his having vowed to give tithes and to build a Temple, They refer to the promises G’d had made him prior to his having made any vow whatsoever. The word אמת is a reference to assurances given to Yaakov by G’d, and these having been fulfilled (in his lifetime). They are named thus as man is entitled to expect G’d to make good on His promises. (unless he had done something to forfeit the claim these assurances were based on)
  
     כי במקלי עברתי את הירדן הזה, “for when I previously crossed this river Jordan, all I possessed was my walking staff.” I used to have a problem with the expression “this river Jordan,” seeing that Yaakov’s route was far distant from the river Jordan. The Jordan constitutes the eastern boundary of the land of Israel! My brother Rabbi Yehudah answered my question by pointing out that actually it was not Yaakov who crossed the Jordan but his staff, which by splitting the Jordan (as per tradition of our sages) enabled Yaakov to cross the river. [the meaning of the prefix ב in the word במקלי is not “with” but “by means of.”] The use of the word זה, “this,” for something not at hand, is not unique. We encounter it, for instance in the line כי זה משה האיש, “for this man Moses,” (Exodus 32,1) as a reference to Moses who, at that time, was on Mount Sinai, far from the camp of the Israelites.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   והכני אם על בנים, “and he will smite me, mother and children.” He means “mothers and their children.”
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ואתה אמרת היטיב איטיב עמך, ”and You have said: “I will keep on doing good with you.” Nachmanides explains that although Yaakov was afraid that sins he might have committed would prevent G’d from making good on His promises to him, he refers to very generous kind deeds G’d had already performed, implying that he had not been worthy of these favours. He argues that if G’d had seen fit to perform favours for him which He had not promised, He will most certainly perform those which he had promised him, regardless of any sins he might have become guilty of inadvertently in the meantime.
      Some commentators claim that Yaakov was concerned as a loving father that Esau should not be allowed to harm members of his family, as it was possible that he would stage a hit and run raid, and only he, Yaakov, would escape due to G’d’s protection of him as promised. In such an event, G’d could still fulfill His promise by enabling Yaakov to start a new family and to raise children. This scenario, as something which Yaakov had in mind with his words here, is not plausible, as if this was what Yaakov had in mind he could not have formulated his prayer with the words “and You yourself have said, etc.,” a reference to people whose very life he attributed to G’d having already fulfilled part of His promise. Furthermore, part of G’d’s promise during the dream of the ladder had been that He would protect Yaakov on all his journeys etc. If his family would become victims of Esau’s vengeful attack, how could this promise still come true? We must attribute Yaakov’s fear as worry only about any sins committed since the promise of G’d had been received as a cause of invalidating such a promise.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   מן הבא בידו, “from something he had acquired.” The gift he prepared was not something he had to buy, but it came out of his own possessions, Seeing that he was not near any town, he did not have time to look for something especially suited as a gift. He took from the items which represented his wealth.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   גמלים מיניקות, “camels with their young.” The males of the species were not mentioned here. Some people claim that the word גמל, camel, is the description for both the male and the female of the species. We would then assume that there were 10 adult males, 10 adult females, and their 10 female young. The male/female ratio of the camels would then correspond to the male/female ratio of the donkeys.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ורווח תשימו בין עדר לעדר, “and place some distance between one herd of animals and the next.” This measure was also to serve as a model for the behaviour of Jews in the future; Yaakov was asking G’d that if the need would arise to chastise the Jewish people, the decrees should not all be carried out at the same time, but that G’d should allow the people to recover from one disaster before having to contend with the next one.
      Some commentators understand the words ורווח תשימו as ensuring that different species of animals were not to mix with one another. 
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   כי יפגשך עשו אחי, “when Esau my brother will encounter you,“ My father of sainted memory, the ר'אש, commented on this that Yaakov instructed his messengers not to open a conversation with Esau, but only to reply to him if he engaged them in conversation first. If Esau did not begin a conversation they should simply proceed on their way to Esau’s home.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   כי אמר: אכפרה פניו, “for he had said: ”I want to gain his goodwill.” <i>Rashi</i> understands this as an attempt to mollify Esau’s anger. Whenever the word כפרה occurs in connection with sin, either intentional or inadvertent, this is its primary meaning.
      Nachmanides comments that if we accept <i>Rashi’s</i> explanation the words are not words spoken by Yaakov at all, but are the Torah’s report of what motivated Yaakov’s entire conduct in offering a gift to his brother. Why would the Torah spell out Yaakov’s thoughts, when we had already read in verse 15 what was the reason for his preparing this gift. Not only that; most people who send gifts ahead of themselves do so for precisely the same reason, namely to put the recipient in a good mood so that they can be certain of a friendly reception. 
      Another difficulty with <i>Rashi’s</i> comment raised by Nachmanides is that this consideration by Yaakov should have appeared at the beginning of this paragraph. Moreover, what possible reason is there for the Torah to quote the messengers as saying והנה גם הוא אחרינו, ”and lo he is also behind us?” Surely, this is not part of Yaakov’s thoughts at that time!
      For these various reasons Nachmanides explains that Yaakov now added as an afterthought that the messengers should add the words: “here he is also behind us,” as a polite way of explaining that the gift was indeed something preparatory to Yaakov’s personal arrival, designed to ensure that Esau would grant him an audience. Yaakov’s entire behaviour reflects Proverbs 16,14: ואיש חכם יכפרנה, “a wise man can appease it.” (the king’s anger) 
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  והוא לן בלילה ההוא במחנה, “whereas he himself spent that night in the camp.” He did not enter his tent but spent the night in the company of the shepherds, in order not to become the victim of a surprise attack by his brother.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויקח את שתי נשיו ואת שתי שפחותיו, “he took his two wives and his two maid servants, etc.” Nachmanides comments that we must remember that the Torah is not obliged to report events in chronological order, and that therefore the order in which the people in this verse are mentioned is not indicative of any order of priorities. The Torah simply mentions the steps taken to save the lives of these people by transporting them across the river. He himself remained on what was considered the exposed bank of that river. Yaakov’s crossing the fording of the river was designed to establish whether the water level was low enough to cross that fording safely without danger of drowning. After having satisfied himself on that score, he made all his people and livestock cross the river.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויותר יעקב לבדו. “Yaakov remained alone.” According to <i>Rashi,</i> Yaakov had gone back in order to retrieve small and inexpensive utensils.
      Nachmanides explains the plain meaning of the statement to be that Yaakov had accompanied his family and folk and livestock across the river. After having done so, he commanded his servants to ferry the chattels across, while he supervised the work personally.
  
     ויאבק איש עמו, “a man wrestled with him, etc..” The word ויאבק descries an activity similar to ויחבק, “he embraced him,” presumably in a kind of bear hug. The letter א frequently substitutes for the letter ח.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   וירא כי לא יכול לו, “when the man realized that he could not overpower him, etc.,” actually, he could have overpowered Yaakov, seeing that he was an angel disguised as a human being, איש; however he had not received permission to do this. All he had been allowed to do was to dislocate Yaakov’s hip joint. This injury too was intended to serve as a warning to the Jewish people in the future that there would arise a descendant of Esau, the Roman Empire, who would threaten to totally annihilate the people.
  
     ויגע בכף ירכו, “he ‘touched’ his thigh-joint.” He intended thereby to cause Yaakov to fall to the ground, in the manner of two people wrestling, when each one attempts to first force his opponent to the ground.
      Some commentators claim that the angel tried to inflict a disabling blow on Yaakov, one that would disqualify him from performing service on the altar, as a penalty for his having taken the birth right from Esau, i.e. Esau’s privilege to perform such service for G’d. on the altar. Prior to the building of the Tabernacle all such service was performed by the firstborn of each Jewish household.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  כי אם ברכתני, “unless you have first blessed me.” In accordance with the accepted principle that the person who inflicts injury is in a better position to heal same than anyone else by pronouncing a formula wishing his victim a speedy recovery. The angel wanted to know Yaakov’s name, as it is mandatory for the healer to know the victim’s name if his efforts are to be crowned with success.
      Another explanation of the meaning of כי אם ברכתני, has Yaakov asking for a blessing from the angel, as an acknowledgment that he had prevailed in the struggle. with celestial forces. This was the reason why Yaakov asked the angel for his name. He wanted to be able in the future to be able to tell whomever it concerned that he had battled an angel to a standstill. The angel protested that it would be embarrassing for him that Yaakov should boast to have overcome him. In lieu of revealing his name, he bestowed a blessing on Yaakov that incorporated an allusion to this nocturnal encounter every time he would be addressed by this name.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  למה זה תשאל לשמי?, “why do you have to know my name?” The angel implies that knowing his “name” will be of no use to Yaakov at all. The reason is that he does not possess any powers of his own, he is only a tool in the hands of G’d, so much so that if Yaakov were ever to call upon him he would not even respond. What he was able to do however, was to give Yaakov a blessing. The reason he could do so was because G’d had commanded him to do so. The Torah did not spell out the text of the blessing. Our sages add that Yaakov thanked the angel for his blessing.
  
     ויברך אותו שם, “he blessed him there.” In that same location Yaakov was not willing to wait until he would get to Beyt El to receive this blessing; therefore the angel spelled it out already now.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ויזרח לו השמש כאשר עבר את פנואל, “the sun shone for him as son as he had passed Penuel.” The Torah means that the sun had risen already long before Yaakov reached Penuel. The reason why it took him so long to get there was that he now had a limp to contend with.
      Another interpretation of the words והוא צולע על ירכו, “he was limping on his thigh-joint,” is that he walked deliberately so slowly that onlookers did not even notice that he was limping. During the extra time it took Yaakov to reach Penuel the sun had already long risen and begun to shine. Only now did his limp become recognizable, due to the bright light of the sun.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה, “this is why in the future the Jewish people would not eat the disjointed sinew.” The Jews not eating this sinew are comparable to sons who make a point of fasting on the anniversary of their father’s death. Another way of looking at this law: In the future, the Jewish people would be commanded not to eat this sinew in order that they should remain aware of the miracle which had occurred when a mortal man, their ancestor Yaakov, had been able to prevail against a celestial force trying to wrestle him to the ground.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   מי אלה לך?, “what relations are these of yours? His question concerned all the women and children.
  
     הילדים אשר חנן אלוקים את עבדך, “the children whom G’d has granted your servant.” Yaakov was conveying a lesson in good manners, not referring to his wives directly, letting Esau surmise that the women concerned were the mothers of these children.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ותגשן השפחות הנה וילדיהן ותשתחוין, “the maid-servants with their children approached and prostrated themselves.” In this instance no mention is made of the children prostrating themselves, as opposed to the verse describing both Rachel and Joseph as prostrating themselves.
      Other commentators say that originally, the sons of the maidservants did not prostrate themselves, saying that their mothers whose social status was inferior, prostrated themselves caused them to prostrate themselves, whereas they, being sons of Yaakov, would not do so. When they observed that the sons of both Leah and Rachel did prostrate themselves, the sons of the maid-servants felt that they could do no less.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   מי לך כל המחנה הזה אשר פגשתי, “to whom belongs all this camp which I have encountered? Esau referred to the servants of Yaakov who had preceded him with the herds which have been described in detail as gifts which Esau had been reluctant to accept. Due to his arrogance, he had not deigned to speak to them, and therefore he had not known who they were. Now that he met Yaakov personally, he assumed that these herds had been sent by him, in view of his having previously met the angels that Yaakov had sent out. The thrust of his question was: “who is related to you who is so important that you have bothered to welcome him with such pomp and ceremony?” Yaakov replied simply that this was all in honour of his brother Esau.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   כראות פני אלוקים ותרצני, “having seen you is like seeing an angel of G’d, and for becoming reconciled with me.” According to <i>Rashi,</i> Yaakov acknowledged Esau’s generosity in voluntarily reconciling himself with him.
      According to Nachmanides this was not the occasion when Yaakov mentioned any guilt at all. He simply told Esau that he would consider his accepting his gift as a source of great satisfaction, something comparable to being granted the vision of an angel. Looking at his brother’s face when it was well disposed towards him, was worth a great deal to him.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   קח נא את ברכתי, “please accept my gift.” When man sends a totally free-willed gift, מנחה, such a gift is described as a ברכה, a blessing. The reason is that he voluntarily gives away something which G’d had blessed him with. A gift which one tenders to a king, on the other hand, is called מס, “tax.”
  
     ויפצר בו ויקח, “insisted, and Esau accepted.” There is a <i>Midrash</i> which explains why Yaakov made a point of having Esau accept his gift. Formerly, Esau and Yaakov had sort of divided the world into two domains, the here and now, and the hereafter. Yaakov had chosen for himself the hereafter, whereas Esau had chosen the here and now. When Esau now found out that Yaakov had acquired a substantial amount of wealth in the here and now, he was liable to demand in exchange part of the hereafter for himself. Yaakov now offered him everything in order to forestall any such claim by Esau. Esau agreed in principle, but stipulated that in the event that any of his people would want to convert to Judaism that Yaakov would accept such converts. This is the meaning of Esau’s proposal in verse 13 and 15.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ומתו כל הצאן, “and all the flocks would die.” Yaakov did not say “and they will all die,” seeing the word “flocks” is the obvious subject, as he did not want to mention the word death in a way that could be understood as applying to the children.
      Alternately, he mentioned the צאן once more, seeing that they are the smaller animals, the goats and sheep, whereas he refrained from including the cattle in any such context. Esau knew that cattle are more hardy and that Yaakov’s excuse not to keep company with him could not be based on such a phony consideration.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   למה זה, אמצא חן בעיניך, “why do that? Let me find favour in the eyes of my lord.” Yaakov absolutely did not want the company of Esau. This too, is an aspect of מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, that the patriarchs’ mode of conduct should serve as a model for their descendants when they find themselves in similar circumstances. We are to refrain from becoming chummy with the secular authorities of the country which hosts us when we are in exile, seeing that friendliness by such rulers reflects only what they can get out of us and not what we can get out of them.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויבן לו בית, “he built himself a house.” It is possible that this was not an urban area and he had to build himself a house; alternately, the Torah reports that Yaakov built himself a very strong and solid house, one that could serve as a fortification against an attack by Esau.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויבא יעקב שלם, “Yaakov arrived completely intact, etc.;” according to some commentators the word “Shalem” is the name of a place from which Yaakov proceeded to the city of Shechem, as we are told later that the men there were שלמים אתנו, the reference being to Yaakov and his sons as residing in “Shalem which is near us.”
      Ibn Ezra writes that the word שלם is an adjective, and describes Yaakov arriving there without mishap. The Torah mentions this as a prelude to the first major upset since he left Lavan, the rape of Dinah.
      Nachmanides writes that it would be too uncharacteristic for the Torah to report that Yaakov arrived somewhere without mishap, and that Shalem is another name for the city of Shechem. As long as he had remained in Sukkot, he was constantly afraid of Esau and his heart was not at peace. Once he had arrived in the land of Canaan he knew that he would shortly be reunited with his father and that he could enlist the help of his father or that the local people would help him out of respect for his father, and that the very merit of being back in the land of Israel, the Holy Land, would work in his favour. The G’d Who had protected him against all the dangers he had faced during his long journey home, would certainly continue to help while he was on the soil of Eretz Yisrael.
  
     ויחן את פני העיר. “He encamped facing the city.” He had stayed there a while and acquired property, fields, vineyards, etc. He did not want to remain a guest anywhere again. His actions served to remind his descendants in the future that they should first conquer this city before moving on to dispossess the Canaanites of their land.
      Ibn Ezra explains that the whole verse was written to compliment the land of Israel, and to tell us that anyone owning property in the Land of Israel is as if he had already acquired a share in the world to come.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ותצא דינה בת לאה, “Dinah, daughter of Leah went out, etc.” The Torah first mentioned that Dinah was a daughter of Leah, seeing that this made her a full sister to Shimon and Levi, who avenged her disgrace. The Torah continues writing that she had been born for Yaakov, in order to tell us that her other brothers and half-brothers were also jealous on her behalf.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   וישכב אותה ויענה, “he slept with her and subsequently abused her.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the word וישכב describes normal intercourse, whereas the word ויענהdescribes a more perverted method of sexual intercourse.
      Ibn Ezra understands the word ויענה as describing the pain involved in her having intercourse as she had been a virgin.
      Nachmanides writes that there is no need for all these explanations, seeing that any intercourse in which the woman is being raped is described in the Bible as עינוי, i.e. that is the meaning of the word ויעניה. In this instance, intercourse by mutual consent appears to have preceded the rape. The opposite was the case in the rape of Tamar by her half-brother Amnon. (Samuel II 13). There the rape is mentioned before the sexual intercourse. Some commentators suggest that Dinah had first been seduced, whereas Amnon never bothered to seduce Tamar.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   וכן לא יעשה, “such a thing must not be allowed to happen.” <i>Rashi</i> writes that even the gentile nations had agreed to outlaw rape. Nachmanides takes issue with <i>Rashi,</i> saying that the Canaanites had certainly practiced rape and worse sexual perversions as testified by the Torah in Leviticus He therefore explains the words וכן לא יעשה, as referring to what was forbidden to Jews, seeing that the Canaanites did not consider it as something immoral.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   הרבו עלי מאד מוהר ומתן, “demand of me much dowry, etc.” All these conciliatory offers were designed to have Yaakov’s family agree to Dinah being married to Shechem of her own free will, seeing she was already captive in the house of Shechem, and Shechem and Chamor had no reason to fear that she would be kidnapped. They only wanted a willing bride instead of an unwilling one. This is also the reason why the Torah reports that Shechem “talked to the heart of the girl.” (verse 3)
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויענו בני יעקב את שכם ואת חמור אביו במרמה, “the sons of Yaakov answered Shechem and his father Chamor speaking with cleverness, etc.” Nachmanides writes that although both Chamor and Shechem had addressed both Yaakov and his sons, only the sons replied, Yaakov remaining totally silent. Seeing that they felt that their father had been greatly insulted by what happened, they did not want him to get involved in the discussion at all. Nachmanides’ explanation presents us with a problem, as it appears from the plain text as if the sons of Yaakov had spoken at the instigation of their father and with his complete approval. In fact, Yaakov appears to have been fully aware of the intent of the brothers for the men of Shechem to become so weakened by their circumcision that they could be killed without putting up a fight. Seeing that the brothers said what they said in Yaakov’s presence, we must assume that their answer was inspired by their father. 
      What is difficult to understand is Yaakov’s anger at Shimon and Levi’s conduct afterwards! Furthermore, it is quite inconceivable that Yaakov would give his consent to Dinah being married to a Canaanite, especially to a Canaanite who had already defiled her before marriage! There can be no question that the entire family was united in their answer and the reason for their answer. If so, why was Yaakov angry only at Shimon and Levi?
      The only thing that was objectionable was that Shimon and Levi, in their desire to avenge their sister’s rape, vented their rage on all the citizens of the town, instead of restricting themselves to punishing only Shechem. We must understand that when the verse tells us “they answered במרמה, “with cleverness,” this did not refer to their intention at that time to kill the whole town but they contemplated one of two scenarios unfolding. 1) If the people of Shechem would agree to circumcise themselves, this would afford the brothers an opportunity to rescue their sister without encountering much opposition due to the weakened state of the males of that city. 2) If the people would refuse to circumcise themselves. Shechem would then be obliged to release Dinah. Failing his doing so, they would kill Shechem only.
      Another difficulty in the whole episode is what made the righteous sons of Yaakov spill innocent blood? Maimonides, addressing this problem, argues that mankind had been obliged to institute a proper judiciary and to try and convict people who had broken their laws by the death penalty. Whenever a person who had committed a violation of the seven Noachide laws went untried and unpunished, every member of society had the right or duty to execute such a person by the sword. Seeing that all the people of Shechem had condoned Dinah’s rape by not trying Shechem, Shimon and Levi did not do anything wrong in killing them..
      Although most of the 7 Noachide commandments are negative commandments, i.e. “don’ts,” the commandment to have a judiciary is a positive commandment, and as such the principle of the existence of the commandment is equivalent to the sinner having been forewarned and exposed himself to execution by violating the commandment does not apply here. Failure to establish courts, while a violation of the commandment, does not result in the violator becoming guilty of the death penalty. After all, the inhabitants of the land of Canaan were guilty of many severe sins such as idolatry, incest etc., but this did not authorize Yaakov’s sons to play G’d’s executioner. On the other hand, raping one of their family members was a crime committed directly against Yaakov’s family, and this is why they were within their rights, basically, to avenge this wrong when there was no court that would do so. The people of Shechem were blindly obedient to their leader, not caring that by doing so they breached the covenant G’d had made with mankind after the deluge, a covenant based on the agreement to observe the 7 Noachide commandments that apply uniformly to all of mankind. Yaakov’s anger was based solely on his sons having exposed him to the danger of being killed by hugely superior forces of the surrounding region. He also was angry at the brothers having violated their own undertaking to live peacefully with these people on condition that they circumcise their males, a condition which they had fulfilled. These people had not harmed them individually or collectively at all, and their dishonouring their promise would ruin Yaakov’s reputation in the entire region.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ולקחנו את בתינו, “we will take our houses, etc.” They did not threaten to liberate their sister by force. The reason they did not was because they were speaking on behalf of their father.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   שלמים הם אתנו, “they are of a peaceful disposition toward us.” Chamor and Shechem made this statement as the people of their town believed that Dinah’s family now hated everyone in their town, having had visual evidence of the faces of Yaakov’s sons after the rape of their sister.
  
     רחבת ידים, “the land is big enough,” according to Ibn Ezra this is a reference to the many areas in the region which offered good pasture.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   מקנהם וקניים וכל בהמתם, “their cattle, their chattels and all their livestock.” According to Nachmanides the word מקנה refers to animals which form part of the herd, and which represented the backbone of the family’s wealth. Animals that were not part of carefully supervised herds, are called בהמות, i.e. stray animals tagging along. It is also possible that the reason why Chamor spoke both about מקנה and about בהמות was to emphasise that the livestock of Yaakov’s family was extremely numerous.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויהי ביום השלישי בהיותם כואבים, “It was on the third day, when they were in a lot of pain, etc.;” according to <i>Rashi</i> every wound or injury is especially painful on the third day after it has been inflicted. His explanation appears to conflict with what the Talmud stated in the chapter dealing with circumcision, where the washing of the wound on the third day if it occurs on the Sabbath is permitted, adding that it is clear from this that it may certainly be washed on the first day after the circumcision. (<i>Shabbat</i>, 134)
      Some commentators hold that the Torah described the last day when the brothers could kill with impunity, as they had failed to do so on the first or second day when no resistance at all would have been forthcoming.
      Some commentators say that the inhabitants of the town were numerous, and not all of them had gone along with the request of their king and prince until the third day of their deliberations. This was the day when all the male inhabitants of the town were in great pain and could not defend themselves. There is yet another opinion according to which the brothers actually killed the men of Shechem on the first day after their circumcision, the day which was the third day after Dinah’s rape.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ושב שם ועשה שם מזבח, “and settle there, and erect an altar there.” Nachmanides writes that he does not understand the meaning of the words ושב שם, but he considers it possible that the meaning was that Yaakov should establish a temporary residence at Beyt El before proceeding to erect the altar mentioned in the second half of the verse. The purpose of the altar would be to cleanse themselves of all the ritual impurities connected with various types of idolatry, or the state of defilement incurred through contact with the slain people of Shechem. This is based on the verse (Numbers 31,19) “and you encamp outside the encampment for seven days.” This was necessary as the legislation for such defiled persons to sprinkle water laced with the ashes of the red heifer on themselves, to purify themselves before they could re-enter the camp. had not yet been given. Perhaps G’d commanded Yaakov to shift his focus to matters of a religious nature before building the altar at Beyt El.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ויטמן אותם, “he buried them there.” The reason that he did not burn these idols [which would have eradicated them, Ed.] was to demonstrate to the Canaanite population that they had violated the covenant G’d made with Noach after the deluge not to practice idolatry.
      Nachmanides writes that the entourage of Yaakov had not taken as loot or for any other reason, any idolatrous images, nor any chattels that had been used in idolatry so that these would have had to be destroyed utterly. They had not taken anything from Shechem until these items had first completely lost their erstwhile function as objects prohibited because of their having been used in the context of idolatry. When an idolater destroys his deities even under the influence of superior force, i.e. unwillingly, the fact that he destroyed it is sufficient to deprive them of any <i>halachic</i> restriction on account of their former use. What Yaakov did was to enable these chattels that had once served idols to qualify for sacred use on the altar. In order to achieve such status they first had to be interred. Only after these preparations had been made, could he and his family proceed to Beyt El.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ותמת דבורה, “Deborah died, etc.” Nachmanides writes that he does not know why this piece of information was included by the Torah at this point between Yaakov naming the site of the altar Beyt El, and the blessing G’d gave Yaakov when he added the name Yisrael to his previous name. Possibly, the reason was, as our sages suggest, that the news of Deborah’s death was meant to tell Yaakov that his mother Rivkah had died, and that this explains why Yaakov called the site of Deborah’s interment אלון בכות,”the oak of mourning.” Yaakov wept tears for his mother’s death when burying Deborah. He was especially saddened by the fact that he had not been granted a reunion with her after all these years. As soon as he had stopped mourning for his mother, G’d appeared to him and complimented him. (verse 9)
      <i>Rashi</i> claims that the reason why the precise date of Rivkah’s death has not been revealed was to prevent people to use that date to curse the womb that had produced a person as depraved as Esau, although the date when Leah died has also not been revealed by the Torah. The reason why the sages did not attribute any special reason to the omission by the Torah of the date on which Leah died, was that only the fact that the Torah made a point of mentioning when a servant of Rivkah died, without also at least telling us when her mistress died, calls for further investigation.
      Nonetheless this is not a good enough reason. The Torah did not omit reporting the death of Yitzchok who had sired Esau, but even reports that Esau partook in his father’s funeral. (Genesis 35,29) It is possible that the Torah omitted a direct report of Rivkah’s death and burial as it was not surrounded by honour, seeing that her son Yaakov did not attend the funeral and her son Esau hated her, and her husband Yitzchok who was practically blind, could not perform the rites, probably was even unable to leave his house. The Torah did not want to report that the Hittite neighbours of Rivkah had to bury her. This would have drawn attention to the lack of honour bestowed on her during her funeral.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   שמך יעקב, “your name is Yaakov.” Your name is still Yaakov even though the celestial representative of Esau had changed it to “Yisrael,” it had not been that angel’s mission to change your name. However, from now on your name will be Yisrael. The meaning of the apparent repetition ויקרא שמו ישראל, “He called his name “Yisrael,” is hat this was an additional name and it was not forbidden to call him Yaakov.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ואת הארץ אשר נתתי לאברהם וליצחק לך אתננה, “and the land which I have given to Avraham and Yitzchok I will give it to you.” Although the land had already been given to him, it had not been given to him in the form of an oath, i. e. as an irrevocable gift.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויעל מעליו האלוקים, “G’d rose from above him.” This verse teaches that this encounter with G’d did not take place at night, in a dream, but that the Divine Presence had manifested itself to Yisrael in a location where he was standing on his feet.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ויצב יעקב מצבה, “Yaakov erected a monument.” According to the plain meaning, Yaakov did this now, after the latest manifestation of G’d to him.
      Ibn Ezra explains that Yaakov had already erected this monument previously, after he had dreamt the dream of the ladder. At that time he did not have oil and wine with him to anoint it as a sacred altar, something that he made up for now. It is not clear whether the word ויסך refers to a libation of wine or of water. He poured the libation over the altar in order to physically cleanse it, followed by anointing it with oil to sanctify it.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויקרא יעקב את שם המקום....בית א-ל, “Yaakov named the site where G’d had spoken to him Beyt El.” Although he had called this place Beyt E-l already 20 years ago when he had had the first revelation, he repeated the naming of it as up until now he had not been certain that what he had dreamt at that time had indeed been a vision and not a dream representing wishful thinking on his part.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויהי בצאת נפשה כי מתה, ותקרא שמו בן אוני, “it was at the moment when her soul was departing, seeing she was dying, she called him Ben Oni.” Some commentators claim that Ben Oni was named by Rachel after she had “died.” This corresponds to the plain text which first reported Rachel’s death followed by the naming of the baby. It is not unusual for a terminally sick person to pass out and create the impression that she had died, only to briefly regain consciousness before dying completely. This would explain why the Torah seems to speak of two “deaths” which Rachel experienced, i.e. “her soul departed,” and “for she had died.”
  
     בן אוני. “son of my pain.” 
  
     בנימין, “son of my right.”
      <i>Rashi</i> explains the name in terms of Binyamin being the only one of Yaakov’s sons who had been born on the soil of the Holy Land. This land is to the south when one comes from Aram Naharayim, i.e. it is on the right hand side of the traveler. Nachmanides objects by proving that the Land of Israel is not situated to the south of Aram Naharayim. He claims that the reason that Yaakov called this son Binyamin was because his mother had called him Ben Oni, a word having a negative connotation, so that his father gave this word a positive connotation, i.e. he did not change the name but the meaning of the name, giving it the same meaning as in Genesis 49,3 where he described Reuven as כוחי וראשית אוני, “my strength and the first of my vigor.” The word בנימין referring to the strength of one’s right hand, is therefore very appropriate [all Biblical atlases have Aram Naharayim north-east of the land of Israel, so that <i>Rashi</i> appears correct, from the point of view of Geography, though Nachmanides’ approach that Yaakov did not actually change the name Rachel gave is more appealing. Ed.] Basically, all the sons remained known by the names given them by their mothers. Yaakov simply gave the name Ben Oni a positive connotation.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   וישמע ישראל, “Israel heard about this.” According to Nachmanides, the phrasing of Yaakov’s reaction to the manner in which he reacted to his first born son’s defiling his bedroom is an example of Yaakov’s extreme humility. He could easily have banned Reuven from his house for having been guilty of such a misdemeanour, as well as having disinherited him. Instead, the Torah reports that Reuven continued to be a full member of the 12 sons, as we have been told in verse 23. In fact, the Torah goes further by writing immediately that Reuven ranked first among all his sons. (verse 24) The Torah draws our attention to this by making a single paragraph out of what normally should have been two separate paragraphs.
      Looking at the plain meaning of the text, it is possible that Reuven’s intention in invading his father’s private bedroom which he shared with Bilhah, was to prevent Yaakov siring more children with Bilhah, seeing that as the firstborn, he would receive 2 shares of the eventual inheritance, any additional children Yaakov would sire would result in his share of the inheritance becoming diminished. At the same time, he did not have similar worries about his own mother giving birth to more children, as she was beyond child-bearing age, and Zilpah might have died already. It is also possible that he was simply concerned about the insult endured by his mother who had to now take a back seat not only to her deceased sister Rachel, but even to her maidservant, when he observed that his father made Bilhah’s tent his principal bedroom. It is possible that the verse “Yaakov’s sons were 12,” was meant to alert us to the fact that he sired no more children after this episode.
      Some commentators interpret the line “Reuven went and slept with Bilhah,” to mean that now that Yaakov had lost both Rachel and Bilhah, there was no cause to worry since the twelve sons who were to make up the Jewish people had been born already. 
      Yet another explanation is that the line “Yaakov’s sons numbered 12, etc.,” means that originally there had been 13, seeing that Reuven being the firstborn had been considered equivalent to two sons. Now, in view of his indiscretion, he had lost his superiority <i>vis</i>-à-<i>vis</i> the other brothers.
      Rabbi Yehudah the pious, explains the episode as follows: at the time when Yaakov had settled in that region, Reuven left that region and set up house by himself, the reason being that he had been guilty of the above-mentioned indiscretion in Bilhah’s tent, where he had been presumed to have had relations with Yaakov’s concubine. He had done so, in order to forestall his father from doing so, now that Rachel had died. When Yaakov heard about the reason why Reuven had fled the scene, he moved his tent to Leah. As soon as Reuven heard this, he returned to the fold, i.e. “the sons of Yaakov were12.”
      Some commentators point to the wording of וישכב את בלהה instead of וישכב עם בלהה, as meaning that all Reuven had done was to put his bed next to that of Bilhah. [the expression את always denotes a lesser degree of intimacy than the expression עם. (compare Genesis 30,16,Samuel II 11,4; ) Ed.] Further proof that Reuven did not actually sleep with Bilhah, is provided by Yaakov himself in Genesis 49,4 when he describes Reuven’s indiscretion with the words: כי עלית משכבי אביך, אז חללת יצועי עלה, “for when you entered your father’s bedroom you desecrated him who ascended the bed that had been made for me.” All Reuven had been guilty of was to disarray the bedclothes, not to lie in them. He spoke about the person lying in the bed in the third person, instead of saying: “you lay in my bed.”
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   אשר ילד לו בפדן ארם, “who were born to him at Padan Aram.” What is meant is that the majority were born there, seeing we have read just recently that Binyamin was born on Holy Soil in the Land of Israel 
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   ויהיו ימי יצחק, וגו', “Yitzchok lived to a total of 180 years.” <i>Rashi</i> reminds us that the Torah is not obligated to narrate in chronological order, seeing that the sale of Joseph had preceded the death of Yitzchok.
      Nachmanides explains that it was an accepted custom when relating someone’s biography, to complete that person’s biography, and only then to begin to describe details of the next generation and the characters that are important during that generation. Actually, the death of Yitzchok should have been reported still earlier, just as the Torah reported the death of Avraham or other generations before proceeding to inform us about the activities of Yitzchok. The reason why the Torah had delayed reporting Yitzchok’s death until now needs explanation. We have to justify the delay displayed by the Torah in reporting Yitzchok‘s death only now as reflecting the Torah’s intent to show us that he lived to a ripe old age, long enough for his son Esau to return to the parental home and take part in the funeral of his father. There was no need to tell us that Yitzchok was buried in the cave of Machpelah, seeing that he lived in Kiryat Arba, right next door to that cave.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   את עדה בת אילון החתי, “Ada, daughter of the Hittite Eylon;” <i>Rashi</i> claims that Ada was identical with Bosmas, seeing the latter had acquired that nickname as she was in the habit of burning up a lot of fragrant incense to please the idol she worshipped.
      Nachmanides notes that <i>Rashi</i> failed to explain why Be-eri, the father of Oholiav who is called here Anah, is called Be-eri elsewhere. Furthermore, seeing that Bosmas was a daughter of Ishmael, this clearly was a proper name and not a nickname as we know from verse 3. On the other hand, the Bosmas who is described as the daughter of Eylon was nicknamed because of her burning incense frequently.
      Ibn Ezra claims that she simply was known by two names, as was her father. It is possible that the two first named women died without having had children, perhaps because they were reported of being so disrespectful to Yitzchok and Rivkah, as reported in Genesis Esau subsequently married a sister of his deceased wife whose name was Oholivamah, daughter of Anah. But the daughter of Ishmael, a sister of Nevayot, was renamed Bosmas the name of her predecessor, as her original name has a negative connotation in Hebrew [מחלת= the sickly one, or ‘the sickness.” Ed.] Esau was very fond of her as she stemmed from his own family, (1st cousin) and was not displeasing in the eyes of his father Yitzchok.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויקח עשו את נשיו ואת בניו, “Esau took his wives and his children, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> alerts us to the fact that Esau’s wives took precedence over his children as opposed to his brother Yaakov, even though the Torah also mentions his wives first when his family was introduced to Esau as we know from The only reason Yaakov presented his wives before presenting his children, was on account of his fear at that time, also because they were of tender age and unable to be without their mothers. Such considerations did not apply in our context here.
      Nachmanides writes that Esau’s migration took place after Yaakov had returned from Charan, and after their father Yitzchok had died. While it is true that Esau had been in Seir also during the period that Yaakov was at Lavan, as has been explained previously, (32,4), the correct sequence of events is as follows: Esau had first gone to Seir during the days of the Alufey Chori who had then resided and ruled in that region. At that time Esau, accompanied by 400 men, had invaded that region leaving his wives and family behind in the land of Canaan. It is quite likely that he conquered part of the low lying areas in that region already at that time, and that this accounts for the reference to the “land of Seir”, as opposed to the “mountain of Seir,” which also appears as שדה אדום, ”the field of Edom.” (32,4) After Yaakov had returned to the land of Canaan, Esau decided to vacate that land which his father had allocated to Yaakov as his inheritance. At that time he conducted a war against the inhabitants of the mountain of Seir Hachori, the predomi- nating tribe of the region.
  
     וילך אל ארץ, “he went to ארץ.” According to Onkelos, the word ארץ is short for ארץ אחרת, “another country.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that Esau simply went in search of any country other than the land of Canaan, finally settling on the land of Seir as his new residence.
      Nachmanides writes that the Torah simply abbreviated, instead of writing וילך עשו אל ארץ שעיר, the Torah omitting details that it considered as obvious to the reader. This is especially so, since Esau’s having gone to Seir had already been mentioned in chapter 32. There are numerous such abbreviations to be found in the Torah.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ולא יכלה ארץ מגוריהם לשאת אותם, “and the land of their sojourning could not support them (their combined wealth of livestock).” The word ארץ, “land,” is used here very loosely, the reference being to the city of Chevron and its immediate surroundings. The Torah most certainly does not wish to imply that the whole land of Canaan was inadequate for these two families and their livestock. The point was that when Esau saw that he could not remain in his home town as it did not offer a good enough economic base for him, he decided to migrate.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ואלה תולדות עשו, and the following are Esau’s developments.” The Torah proceeds to list biological descendants of Esau born after his migration to Seir, for he himself is not reported to have sired any more children at that time. Still, the Torah relates the descendants by starting with Esau having sired Eliphaz, etc. The children of Oholivamah who had been born in the land of Canaan are also mentioned here once more. By doing so, the Torah made sure they were included in the count with their brothers.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ותמנע היתה פילגש לאליפז בן עשו. “Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz, son of Esau.” Seeing that the Torah did not mention by name any of the mothers of Esau’s children except this one, <i>Rashi</i> was prompted to explain that Timna was outstanding, as expressed by her urge to marry into Avraham’s family, even to be married to Esau’s son as a concubine, if that was the best she could do.
      Nachmanides writes that it is possible that the sons of Eliphaz were already well known to him [i.e. he knew who their mothers were. Ed.] seeing their mothers were his real wives. On the other hand, Amalek, the son of a concubine, had to be identified clearly, else we could not have been certain who the father was. Amalek therefore was not included in Esau’s sons (grandsons) as he also did not dwell with his brothers. The Torah has commanded us not to detest the sons of Esau, and not to grab any part of their ancestral lands. This law refers to the known ancestral lands of Esau, the region of Mount Seir. The inhabitants of that region were known as Edomites. The son of the concubine did not reside in that land and was not called Edomite, and this is why there is no contradiction in the Torah having commanded us to wipe out the memory and name of Amalek.
      <i>
      Rashi</i> explains that in Chronicles I 1,39 Timna is included without hesitation as one of Eliphaz’s children, something which reveals to us that Eliphaz must have committed incest (adulterous) with the wife of Seir. When she grew up she became the concubine of Eliphaz, and that is the meaning of the words אחות לוטן תמנע, that from the father’s side she was a sister of Lotan. She is not enumerated with the descendants of Seir, as she was only a sister through the mother.
      Nachmanides does not agree that we can accept an explanation which would result in our accepting that Ezra in Chronicles counted Timna with the male offspring of Eliphaz when she clearly was a daughter and not a son. She should have been identified as Eliphaz’ daughter in Chronicles if <i>Rashi</i> is correct.
      Perhaps the Bible is not so explicit when the subject is something so well known, [that Timna was a woman. Ed.] We also find Miriam paired with Aaron and Moses in the same line in Chronicles I, 5,29 which would give the impression to the uninitiated that all three were males. The three personages are so familiar to the readers of Chronicles, that Ezra did not see the need to add that Miriam was a woman. At any rate, it is quite unlikely that Timna, not a world famous lady, would be enumerated together with the males. Perhaps we should say, in agreement with our sages, that the Timna mentioned in Chronicles was identical with the <i>Aluf</i> Timna who appears in verse 40 of our chapter, and is enumerated there as one of the sons of Eliphaz, just as the name Korach is also enumerated with the sons of Eliphaz This Korach who was the son of Oholivamah, wife of Esau, was also a <i>mamzer</i>, bastard, born from a forbidden incestuous relationship. He too was not listed with the category he belonged to.
      According to the plain meaning of the text we would have to say that Timna who was the wife of Eliphaz and bore him Amalek, became pregnant again and experienced a difficult birth as a result of which she died. The Torah did not mention the name of the baby whose birth caused her death. His father may have called that son Korach, a detail that the Torah omitted in order not to make the narrative unduly long. The major purpose of the Torah when narrating all these details was to isolate Amalek in such a way that the subsequent commandment that we are to wipe out the memory of Amalek should not be perceived as contradictory to the Torah’s injunction not to discriminate politically against the family of Esau. The Torah was not concerned with telling us who Amalek’s mother was. While it is true that when the <i>Alufim</i> are enumerated later on, the name Korach appears prior to the name Amalek although he was senior, these <i>Alufim</i> were mentioned in the order of their relative importance. This is also why Kenaz, though younger, was listed ahead of both Korach and Gaaton.
      I have to add that the verse needs to be understood as follows: “the sons of Eliphaz are Teiman, Omer, Tzfo, Gaaton, Knaz and Timna; i.e. Timna was also one of the sons of Eliphaz.” At that point, the Torah backtracks by saying that Eliphaz, the son of Esau, also had a concubine who bore Amalek for him. The name of the concubine is not mentioned. Actually, this concubine called Timna was a sister of Lotan. The reason why her name was not mentioned where you would have expected it, was that the Torah did not want to confuse the reader by listing two “Timnas” consecutively, one being male the other female. The seven sons of Eliphaz who were named here, appear later under the heading of “Alufey Esau,” ‘the “headmen” of Esau. As to the fact that this name of Timna has been exchanged when the Torah enumerates the “alufim,” this is precisely because his name was the same as that of Eliphaz’ concubine who was not considered a son of his in the regular manner. Hence he was renamed “Korach,” who had been elevated to the status of “Aluf.”
      Our sages believe that Eliphaz had slept with Oholivamah, the wife of his father, and that the result of this union was Korach.
      Ibn Ezra considers that Korach was the son of Oholivamah, wife of Esau, and that he is listed as one of her sons.
  
     אלה בני עדה, “These are the sons of Adah.” .The meaning is that the majority of these listed were her sons, barring Amalek who was not hers.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   אלה בני שעיר החרי, “These are the sons of Seir, the Chori.” <i>Rashi</i> writes that the genealogy of all the people following was recorded here only in order to demonstrate the outstanding reputation of Avraham, which had caused Timna to make every conceivable effort to become related to him by marriage to him or one of his family members.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the reason for this chapter having been written is to separate the genealogy of Esau from that of the local inhabitants, the Chori. The Israelites received instructions from G’d concerning the descendants of Esau, but these were not applicable to the descendants of the Chori.
      Nachmanides explains that the Chori was the name of a founder of a nation which had been named after their founder-father. The nation was also called Seir, on account of the region inhabited by that nation. This latter name became associated with Esau and his descendants. The land of the Chori, which had first been inhabited by members of that tribe, was taken over by Esau and his sons. Our verse shows that the name Seir for the region concerned predated the arrival of Esau in that region. It is related to the arrival there for the first time by Esau, whom we have known from birth as איש שעיר, “a hairy man.” The name “Edom” also is traced back to Esau. The Torah makes a distinction between the inhabitants of the land Seir traced to Chori, and those traced to Esau. The difficulty with Nachmanides’ explanation is that we do find already in Genesis 14,6 a reference to “Chori in their mountains of Seir.” The chapter in question describes a situation prevailing at least 100 years before Esau was born.
      Ibn Ezra understands the word חרי as in חרי יהודה, “outstanding men of Yehudah.” (compare Jeremiah 27,20; Nechemyah 6,17)
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ואחות לוטן תמנע. “Lotan’s sister was Timna.” It is customary for the Bible to trace the ancestry of the daughters by mentioning their brothers. Examples are: “the sister of Tuval Kayin was Naamah,” (Genesis 4,22) Actually, she should have been listed already together with the sons of Seir and Dishan, etc. (36,30). It is possible, however, that she was a full sister to Lotan, both having the same father and mother, whereas she was not a sister to the sons of Seir mentioned in verses 26-30, as she was not a daughter of the tribe of Seir.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ואלה בני צבעון ואיה וענה, “and these are the sons of Tzivon, Veayah and Veanah, The prefixes ו in the names “Ayah,” and “Anah,” are nothing unusual. Tzivon was the third son of Seir the Chori, and he sired numerous children. The Torah narrates that Anah had discovered the mules while pasturing his father’s flocks in the desert, because it wanted to distinguish between him and another Anah, his uncle, the brother of his father Tzivon. This Anah was the father-in- law of Esau.
  
     אשר מצא את הימים, “who had discovered the mules.” These animals are what we know as mules. Anah discovered this by using his intelligence, succeeding in producing offspring through pairing two different species, i.e. the horse and the donkey. This is the only known example of mating two different species resulting in offspring. His achievement was considered a feat of wisdom, as he matched two species which appeared to him to have much in common genetically, and the product was supposed to combine the advantages of a horse and a donkey.
      Onkelos translates our verse as Anah “finding courage.” He surmises that a nation known as “yemim” attacked him, wanting to steal his donkeys, while he was alone in the desert. He succeeded in saving the donkeys from the attack of these people. The word מצא would have to be understood as in תמצא ידך לכל אויביך, (Psalms 21,9) “your hand is equal to all your enemies.” Alternately, what happened was that he found, i.e. encountered these “Yemim,” and was saved (miraculously) from their attack. His fame as a warrior was established henceforth.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ואלה בני ענה, דישון ואהלבימה בת ענה, “this is the offspring of Anah; Dishon and Oholivamah daughter of Anah.” This is the way the Bible lists names of girls, as for instance in Genesis 46,15 ואת דינה בתו, “and his daughter Dinah.” This Anah was the fourth son of Seir, being a brother of Tzivon; he is listed after Tzivon, as they are listed in order of their prominence, not their ages. He had another son, named Dishon, the same name as that of his uncle, and this son had a daughter whose name was Oholivamah, the same name as her relative the Oholivamah who was a daughter of Anah, son of Tzivon. In order to avoid confusion, the Torah writes in connection with Oholivamah the wife of Esau, that she was the daughter of Anah who was the son of Tzivon, seeing that she had been the daughter of the Anah who had discovered the mules. In other words, she was a granddaughter of Tzivon. She was not the Oholivamah who was the daughter of Anah, who was the son of Seir the Chivi, a brother of Tzivon.
      Ibn Ezra writes that “Oholivamah the daughter of Anah,” does not refer to the Anah mentioned at the end of the verse (24 as the father of Oholivamah), for if it had been, there would have been no reason to mention him once more. He must therefore be the one mentioned at the end of the first verse, and there was only one Oholivamah.
      Our sages explain that there was only one man called Anah, the result of his father Tzivon having slept with his mother. This Anah was raised in the house of Seir the Chori together with his other sons. This is why he is enumerated together with the sons of Tzivon, seeing he was his son.
      Rabbeinu Tam believes that Anah was a woman and proves it from the line “Oholivamah, daughter of Anah” (verse 13). Anah herself was a daughter of Tzivon. As to the apparent contradiction, seeing the Torah writes: "הוא ענה" which means “he is the Anah, etc.;” this means that she inherited part of Seir’s estate together with Tzivon, her uncle’s other sons. (compare Talmud <i>Baba Batra</i> 116)
      <i>Rashi</i> claims that the reason why Oholivamah is described as the daughter of Anah was because Anah slept with his mother the wife of Tzivon and that he sired Oholivamah from that union. This is why she was referred to as “the daughter of Anah.and the daughter of Tzivon.”
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ואלה בני דישון, חמדן וגו', “and these are the sons of Dishon, Chemdon, etc.” This refers to Dishon the fifth son of Seir, and it does not matter that once he is referred to as דישון and another time as דישן. These two spellings would refer to different people only if they would appear in the same verse. In that instance, the difference in the spelling would alert us to the fact that the Torah refers to two different people whose names sound alike. We encounter a similar situation in Kings I 7,40 ויעש חירום, “Chirom constructed etc,” and ויכל חירם, “Chiram completed.” In this verse the Torah had to refer to Dishon once with a letter ו and once without it, in order to make sure that we understand that these are two different people and not the Dishon son of Anah who had been mentioned before, unless, of course, he had changed his name.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   ואלה המלכים, “and these were the kings, etc.” The Torah narrates all this in order to show that Yitzchok’s blessing to Esau that he would survive by his sword was fulfilled, seeing that his descendants had overpowered the tribe of the Chori and they ruled over them and their lands for hundreds of years, as the cities mentioned are all part of the land of Edom. The Torah also informs us that the Kings of Edom were not automatically the sons of the former kings so that no dynasties had been founded.
  
     לפני מלוך מלך בישראל, “before a king ruled over Israel.” This does not mean that the kings mentioned here ruled during the entire period until King Sha-ul became king (some 800 years later than the time frame during which Yaakov and Esau lived). What the Torah did mean to show was that once the Israelites had a king, the Edomites did not, so that Yitzchok’s blessing to Yaakov (when he thought that Esau stood before him) “your mother’s sons will prostrate themselves before you,” (27,29) was fulfilled. It is quite possible that the last of the kings mentioned in this chapter already died during the days of Moses, a view held by Ibn Ezra. Ibn Ezra feels that if we did not understand the history in that way, whence did Moses know the names of Edomite kings who lived long after he himself had died. 
      Some commentators hold that Moses’ prophetic insights enabled him to record the names of as yet unborn Edomite Kings. Nachmanides disagrees with such an interpretation, saying that there would be no point in Moses’ prophetic insight including such matters, moreover, if so, how many years of history beyond his death was Moses able to foresee in such detail, and when did such prophetic insight stop?
      The proper explanation is that all these Edomite kings lived before the Torah was given to the Jewish people. Many ruled simultaneously over different parts of that kingdom. [The Midianites also had 5 kings, (Numbers 31) and the Canaanites in the time of Joshua had 31 kings simultaneously. Ed.] It is also possible that each of these kings ruled only for a short period. 
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
   בעל חנן בן עכבור He was from the place in which Sha-ul had ruled before him. This is why no other city is mentioned in connection with him. It is also possible that the name of his city was Chanan, and that the word בעל חנן simply means that he was in authority over the city known as Chanan.
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
   ואלה שמות אלופי עשב, “and these are the names of he headmen of Esau.” First the <i>alufim</i> among the sons of Esau who were such in that generation are mentioned. From positions as headmen, the success of these people in war led to them or their sons becoming Kings, and in due course their pre-eminence ebbed again so that they were simply ראשים. Compare Chronicles I 1,43 -54)     36,43 בארץ אחוזתם, “in the land of their ancestral inheritance.”
  The heads mentioned earlier were all brothers, the <i>alufim</i> all residing in the same town, and ruling over a single nation, or they were heads of a tribe each. The ones mentioned here were heads of the combined families of Esau, their authority extending over all the towns inhabited by Esau’s offspring. They were comparable to kings in their authority. 
     אלוף תמנע. Ibn Ezra believes that the “Timna” mentioned here was a man. It is not unusual to find men or women having the same names. Oholivamah was one such example. It is also possible that seeing the word <i>aluf</i> at this point is superfluous, we must understand the verse as follows: the headman of the family of Timna who had been a concubine of Eliphaz produced several <i>alufim,</i> their names being Alvah, and Yetet. Similarly, the family of Oholivama, wife of Esau, produced <i>alufim</i> known as Eylah, and Pinon.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וישב יעקב, “Yaakov settled, etc.” [the author addresses the strange line “in a land in which his father had been a stranger, the land of Canaan.” Ed.]
      Seeing that the Torah previously had reported that Esau had settled in the mountains of Seir, whereas Yaakov and family had dwelled like strangers in a land in which their fathers had dwelled only as strangers, in a land which was not theirs, and the prediction to Avraham their founder that his descendants would remain strangers for 400 years in a land not theirs had been in effect for a long time already, the Torah reminds us that this prediction had been meant for Yaakov’s descendants specifically, seeing that Yaakov’s father Yitzchok had never left the Holy Land since birth. The Torah had to remind us that the land of Canaan was not yet considered a “homeland” for Yitzchok’s or Yaakov’s descendants.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   אלה תולדות יעקב, “These are the developments of Yaakov;” <i>Rashi</i> interprets these words as introducing the background to the many places Yaakov’s descendants lived and emigrated to, before they finally settled in the Land of Israel, previously the land of Canaan. The first cause for these wanderings is to be found in the story of Joseph and his brothers.
      Ibn Ezra’s commentary follows the same general approach as that of <i>Rashi.</i>
      Nachmanides claims that the expression תולדות cannot be applied to successive residences of a person or a people, but only to days, years, etc., i.e. generations, births, etc. A well known example is Proverbs 27,1 מה ילד יום, “what the day will bring” (give birth to). I believe that the correct interpretation of our verse is: “these are developments of Yaakov, Joseph and his brothers and what has been happening to them.” Possibly, just as the Torah listed the developments of Esau down to the giving of the Torah to the Jewish people, it lists what had happened to the descendants of Yaakov and all his descendants until they moved to Egypt, 70 in number.
  
     והוא נער את בני בלהה. “and he was a lad keeping company with the sons of Bilhah.” <i>Rashi</i> interprets this as Joseph’s immaturity, acting childishly.
      Onkelos interprets this to mean that already from his earliest youth, Joseph preferred the company of the sons of Bilhah who looked up to him and flattered him.
      Nachmanides writes that the words והוא נער, refer to what has been written previously, so that we have to understand the sequence of the verse as follows: “these are the developments in the house of Yaakov; Joseph, who was a lad of 17 years used to tend the sheep together with his brothers.”
      Ibn Ezra interprets the verse to mean that because Joseph was still immature at 17, the sons of Bilhah made him their personal valet. The Torah suggests that if Joseph had acted as valet to the sons of Yaakov’s real wives no problems would have arisen at all. This is the meaning of the דבתם רע, the evil reports Joseph brought to his father concerning the conduct of the sons of Leah. Joseph resented being assigned to being a valet to the sons of the handmaids.
      It is also possible that due to his youth, the Torah refers to him as נער, even though physically speaking he was fully grown. We encounter something similar with Avshalom, son of David, who was also referred to as נער, not because he was so young in years at that time, but because he was younger than his brothers. (Samuel II 19,33)
  
     את בני בלהה, “the sons of Bilhah, etc.” According to <i>Rashi</i> Joseph befriended them because the sons of Leah shunned them.
  
     נשי אביו, “his father’s wives.” The Torah emphasizes that these ladies were Yaakov’s legal wives in the fullest meaning of the term. They were described as maidservants only in their status compared to Rachel and Leah, seeing that the latter were their seniors. This is why when Yaakov presented his wives to his brother Esau, and he first presented Zilpah and Bilhah, these are described as שפחות, maidservants, (33,6) seeing that in the event Esau would molest them, this would be a warning for Leah and Rachel to hide, or something. After all, Zilpah and Bilhah continued as maidservants in the employ of Leah and Rahel also after Yaakov married them. When Reuven was described as “sleeping” with Bilhah, she is also described as פלגש, a concubine, but this is only <i>vis-à-vis</i> her deceased mistress Rachel. It is quite possible that while Rachel and Leah were alive, Yaakov referred to them both as שפחות and as פילגשים, “maidservants and concubines.” 
  
     את דבתם רעה, ”evil reports about them.” Anything wrong that the sons of Leah did, Joseph reported to his father.
      Nachmanides queries that if that were indeed so, the sons of the maidservants should have loved him, and if so, why did they not save him at the time when the sons of Leah were about to kill him and eventually sold him? After all, there were four of them, and if you add Reuven who, as we know, tried to save Joseph, they would have been equal in number to the other five sons of Leah? Furthermore, from the text it appears as if all the brothers, including the sons of the maidservants agreed to sell him!
      According to our sages in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i>, Joseph reported evil deeds both of the sons of Leah and the sons of the maidservants. Accordingly, the meaning of the words את בני בלהה ואת את בני זלפה, is simply that Joseph spent most of his time in the company of these sons of the maidservants as they were so much closer to him in age. In fact, their father had commanded these sons of the maidservants to keep a constant eye on Joseph, to insure that no mishap would befall hum. They were to attend to his needs. He did not instruct the sons of Leah to tend to Joseph’s needs. Joseph brought tales of misconduct of the sons of the maidservants to his father, seeing that he had so much opportunity to observe their conduct. This is why they learned to hate him.. We hear only later, that as a result of his dreams and his telling the sons of Leah about them, the sons of Leah grew to be jealous of him and to hate him, especially when they could not help noticing how his father preferred him over them. Everyone of the brothers had his own reason for hating Joseph.
  
     דבתם רעה, “reports of their wrong doing.” According to Nachmanides the word דבה always implies something exaggerated. It is therefore evil by definition.
      <i>Rashi</i> explains that Joseph told his father that the sons of Leah were belittling the sons of the maidservants, that they were suspect of eating flesh from animals not yet slaughtered or dead, and that they indulged in incestuous sexual relationships. It is difficult to understand that if Joseph’s accusations were true, why he himself in the course of his life, was exposed to precisely these three potential sins. On the other hand, if Joseph’s accusations were unjustified, how could a person who is regarded throughout our history as an outstandingly righteous individual, a model of uprightness, have been guilty of defaming his brothers in such a manner?
      The answer usually given to this question is that even if his accusations had been true, he was wrong to act as a sole witness whose evidence was not supported by a second disinterested witness. The whole matter is reminiscent of a story in the Talmud <i>Makkot</i> 11A, where someone called Tuviah, had become guilty of a sin, and a single witness named Zigud testified against him and was punished for slandering him by unsupported testimony, whereas the alleged sinner went free.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   כי בן זקונים הוא לו, “for he was born to him when he was advanced in years;” according to <i>Rashi.</i>     Nachmanides questions <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation of the term בן זקונים, reminding us that all of Yaakov’s children were born to him when he was advanced in years, seeing that he only married when he was already 84 years old. Issachar and Zevulun were no more than a year or two older than Joseph. Moreover, Binyamin was much younger (seven years), than Joseph, and the term בן זקונים should have been applied to him, instead. Nachmanides therefore concludes that the Torah refers to an ancient custom of fathers who were already aged selecting one of their sons to attend to their needs on a regular basis. That son then becomes known as בן זקונים. Seeing that Joseph had been selected to perform these filial duties, he no longer went with his brothers to tend the flocks when they went far away from Chevron. We may also understand Onkelos in this sense, when he translates בן זקונים as ארי בר חכים, as extraordinarily intelligent. It is interesting that the Torah applies the term בן זקונים for Joseph only in his relationship to his father, i.e. בן זקונים הוא לו, for him,” not when compared to the world around him. 
    ועשה לו כתונת פסים, “and he made for him a striped coat of many colours.” This verse teaches us how important it is for a parent not to have favourites among his children, [not to display such favoritism. Ed.] The extra cost of Joseph’s tunic, a measly 2 shekel, triggered a history of tragic jealousy, strife, near fratricide, etc. It even ultimately was directly responsible for Jews going to Egypt for a second time in history to seek relief from a famine in the land of Canaan. 
  
  Verse 4
  
   ולא יכלו דברו לשלום, “and they were unable to converse with him or about him, peacefully.” You will note that the Torah did not write that the brothers did not speak to him, but whenever they spoke, even to strangers, and Joseph became part of their conversation, they referred to him negatively.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  מלוך תמלוך?, “are you planning to rule over us?” According to Ibn Ezra the expression מלוך refers to rule by a king with the consent of his subjects, so that the brothers asked: “do you expect us to crown you as king over us?” The expression משול refers to imposition of authority without or against the wish of those that are subject to such authority. The brothers wanted to know if Joseph perhaps thought that he could impose his will upon them.  It is somewhat difficult to understand why the brothers accused Joseph of such plans, based simply on the fact that he had had a dream or two. Are then dreams something over which the dreamer has control? What proof did the brothers have that Joseph’s dreams reflected his innermost hopes? Some commentators attribute Joseph’s aspirations to the fact that it had become plain that their father had preferred him to all of them, something that had gone to his head and given him ideas of grandeur. The proof that Joseph indeed harboured such thoughts, lay in the fact that even his dreams reflected what he had been thinking about by day.
  
   ועל דבריו, “and on account of his talk.” Joseph’s real error lay in his telling his brothers of his dreams, as if boasting of the grand future that he considered in store for himself. Had he not been telling his brothers the details of his dreams, i.e. שמעו נא החלום הזה אשר חלמתי, “listen please to this dream that I dreamt, etc.,” the entire tragic sequence of events that follow might have been avoided. He had only dreamt one dream, and already he uses it as something inflammatory, something that is bound to arouse further jealousy among his brothers. Why does the Torah refer to חלומותיו, “his dreams,” (pl;) when only the content of a single dream has been reported? (verse 8) Some commentators believe that he had had a previous dream, a dream which the brothers did not pay much attention to, seeing it was an isolated event. Once he told them the content of his second dream they became alerted to the trend displayed in this dream and revised their opinion about the first dream he had  told them about, also.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ותשתחוין לאלומתי, “they prostrated themselves before my sheaf.” Joseph did not say that these other sheaves prostrated themselves before him, but before his sheaf. (as opposed to his second dream). In that dream he could not have phrased it differently, saying that sun and moon bowed to “my” star, as how would he know that a particular star was his. The interpretation of this first dream is that seeing Joseph provided the grain to the brothers and all other travelers to Egypt during those years, it was as if they prostrated themselves before him. The fact that in his dream the sheaves arranged themselves around his sheaf, conveyed to the brothers that Joseph saw himself as the central figure in all this.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויחלום עוד חלום אחר, “He dreamt yet another dream.” The reason why G’d did not fulfill the events foreshadowed in the dream promptly, as He did with the events foreshadowed in Pharaoh’s dream in chapter 41, may have been that Pharaoh had dreamt both dreams in a single night, whereas Joseph had his dreams on different nights.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויספר אל אביו, “he told his father, etc.” He had not told his father about his first dream, seeing that he was certain that he understood the meaning of his dream. Seeing that the subject of his second dream concerned his father, he told him about it.
  
     ואל אחיו, “and to his brothers.” After he had told this dream to his father, he told it to his brothers in the presence of his father. His father rebuked him [not because of its content, Ed.] but in order to deflect his brothers’ fury from him.
      Some commentators ask that seeing all dreams supposedly are influenced by the interpretation given to them, (<i>Berachot</i> 58) why was this dream fulfilled altogether, seeing that Yaakov had rejected the original interpretation as soon as he heard the dream in front of the brothers? They give a very forced answer, saying that seeing Joseph had already told the dream to his father previously, and at that time his father had not disagreed with the apparent interpretation, it was now too late to do anything about it.
      Personally, I do not think that the question has any merit at all. Rather, on the contrary, the reason that fulfillment was so long delayed was because Yaakov had protested the obvious interpretation. This is further proof that the sages were correct in saying that the results of the dreams are greatly influenced by who interprets them and how. [The Talmud, on the folio quoted, illustrates the point with numerous examples. Ed.] His father’s objection to the obvious interpretation of his dream resulted in it coming true so many years later.
  
     הבא נבא אני ואמך, “are indeed I, your mother etc., going to come and bow down, etc.?” How could this be seeing that your mother has died already? Yaakov was not aware that the moon in Joseph’s dream portrayed Bilhah who had raised Joseph as his foster mother. This is <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation of our verse.
      Nachmanides writes that in his opinion Bilhah had died before Yaakov moved to Egypt so that she had no opportunity to prostrate herself before her stepson. The Torah, when listing the names of who went down to Egypt, speaks of 70 souls, not including the wives of Yaakov’s sons. We are therefore forced to conclude that had Zilpah and Bilhah been alive still at that time, they would have been mentioned by name. If the Torah at that juncture (46,26) did not want to refer to them as “the wives of Yaakov,” seeing they were his concubines, this is no argument at all, seeing that we read the words נשי אביו, (37,2) and those words clearly refer to Bilhah and Zilpah. We must assume that the sun in the dream refers indeed to Yaakov, and the moon to the members of his household, including all his wives and their children, a total of 70. The eleven stars refer to Joseph’s eleven brothers bowing down to Joseph on their second trip to Egypt, before they had decided to immigrate to Egypt.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   וישלחהו מעמק חברון, “he sent him on his way after having accompanied him to the valley of Chevron.” Although, according to all our records, Chevron is situated on a mountain, as we know also from the route taken by the spies (Deuteronomy 1,24), his father accompanied him all the way down to the valley. Only after reaching the lowlands did Yaakov send Joseph alone on his fateful journey. The Torah makes a point of letting us know from where Joseph was sent on this mission (presumably on foot), so that we realize how far he had to travel, i.e. how much distance the brothers had put between themselves and their father. They had done so precisely to discourage their father from sending Joseph, assuming also that if their father would want to send him, he might demur, citing both the distance and the fact that the brothers hated him.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   והנה תועה בשדה, ”and here he was lost in the field.” He had departed from the road and entered a field, knowing that his brothers would choose the best looking pasture available.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   נסעו מזה, “they have moved away from here quite some time ago.” <i>Rashi</i> interprets the expression as not referring to physical distance, but as referring to the bonds of brotherliness. The man (angel Gavriel) did not tell him this in so many words, for had he done so Joseph certainly would not have continued on his way. The angel used a double entendre, which could be interpreted in one of two ways. Both interpretations would correspond to the truth. The principal reason our sages interpret this is that all the angel had to say was: ”they went to Dotan.” The introductory words: “they have moved away from here,” were quite irrelevant, and therefore must be intended to teach us something additional.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ובטרם יקרב אליהם ויתנכלו אותו להרגו, “and before he could come close to them, they made plans how to kill him.” The meaning of this phrase is that the plans they made were how to kill him before he could come close to them so that they would not have to lay a hand on him. In <i>Bereshit Rabbah 84,14</i> on that verse, we are told that they released ferocious dogs in his direction. When they realized that the dogs had not attacked him, they said: “let us kill him (with our own hands).”
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   השליחו אותו אל הבור הזה, “throw him into this pit, etc.” He said: “into this pit,” because he had ascertained that that pit did not contain any harmful substances. The brothers did not heed him and threw him into a pit containing harmful substances such as snakes and scorpions, according to our sages. This is the meaning of verse 29 that when Reuven returned to the pit there was no Joseph in it.
      Nachmanides writes that according the <i>Midrash</i> that there were snakes and scorpions in the pit, we must assume that the brothers had not seen those. They must have been hiding in nooks and cracks within the pit. The fact that they did not ham Joseph before he was lifted out and sold was due to a miracle. This proves that Joseph was quite innocent, else why would G’d have extended this kind of help to him?
      I do not understand why anyone needs to resort to an explanation of this kind, for even if we do not consider Joseph as a totally innocent victim but as at least partially guilty, he was certainly not an evil person and did not deserve to die. In spite of his not being guilty of death the brothers set about killing him. The reason was that hatred distorts one’s ability to judge fairly and to apply one’s reason objectively. According to the plain meaning of the text, the words “the pit was empty,” mean that there was no accumulation of water inside the pit, for if there had been water in it, it could not be described as “empty.” 
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויפשיטו את יוסף את כותנתו, “They stripped Joseph of his tunic.” <i>Rashi</i> explains the word כתונת as “shirt,” an undergarment. This is a difficult explanation, as the question is how they could remove an undergarment before removing his outer garment first, the famous striped coat. The answer usually given to this question is that it is normal for someone robbing someone else of his clothing to pull all his garments off him in one motion, and to then turn these garments inside out, beginning to separate them, so that the undergarment is separated first. Alternately, travelers have a habit of covering their outer garments with their undergarments as a form of protection for them while they are on the journey encountering obstacles that might damage the costly outer garments.
      Personally, I believe that the Torah speaks of only one garment, describing his fancy outer garment as also his undergarment, and the fact that he wore it visibly when planning to visit his brothers inflamed their hatred even more. 
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   והנה אורחת ישמעאלים, ”and here there was a caravan of Ishmaelites, etc.” Nachmanides explains that when the brothers looked around they saw a group of people and camels in the distance whom they immediately identified as Ishmaelites, though they were still quite distant. They knew that these Ishmaelites were headed for Egypt as it was their custom to bring these various spices named in our verse to Egypt. This is why Yehudah said that seeing these people come from a distant land and are headed for a distant land, they could sell Joseph to them and this matter would never become known. When these people drew near, they realized that they were not the people whom they had thought them to be, but that they were merchants who traveled these regions all the time. These merchants had bought the spices from the Ishmaelites and had rented camels from them. They sold Joseph to these merchants, who bought him to trade him off, just as they traded their other merchandise. The caravan of Ishmaelites they had espied earlier were in the business of renting out camels, never buying merchandise for their own consumption. This is the meaning of the words: מיד הישמעאלים אשר הורידוהו שמה, “from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down to Egypt.” (39,1) Joseph was under the control of the Ishmaelites, although he was owned by the Midianites, prior to his sale to Potiphar. 
      The style of the whole paragraph i.e. the repetition of the events related therein, must be understood as once described from the Ishmaelties’ perspective, and once from the Midianites’ perspective. We encounter something of a similar nature at the very end of the Torah (Deuteronomy 34,12) ולכל היד החזקה וכל המורא הגדול אשר עשה משה לעיני כל ישראל, where all the miracles performed by Moses are attributed to him, whereas previously in Deuteronomy 11,3 all of these miracles are attributed to G’d Himself.”
      Ibn Ezra (on verse 28) says that the Midianites are called here Ishmaelites, as they are in Judges 8,24, [although Gideon had been fighting the 5 Kings of the Midianites. Ed] seeing that their founding mother was Hagar. [if she was identical with Keturah. Ed.] 
      <i>Rash’bam</i> writes that the brothers did not sell Joseph at all, but they sat down to eat, and while they were eating they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites in the distance. They then decided that after they would have completed their meal they would sell Joseph to these Ishmaelites. Before being able to do so, the Midianites arrived on the scene (the brothers not being within earshot of Joseph’s cries for mercy) and pulled Joseph out of the pit. They proceeded to sell him to the Ishmaelites. As to Joseph saying to his brothers in Genesis 45,4: “I am your brother whom you have sold to Egypt,” Joseph simply blamed what the brothers had done to him for his having been sold to Egypt. 
      Some commentators interpret the word ומדנים as not referring to Midianites, but as being a derivative of the word מדון, strife as in ריב ומדון, Chabakuk, 1,3 where it describes strife and contention. The Torah meant that the strife and contention between the brothers ultimately resulted in Joseph being sold to Egypt.
   Yet another view expressed by some commentators is that the brothers sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, but they were afraid of raising him from the pit as they themselves might be bitten by the snakes; they therefore waited until the Midianites had raised him from the pit, as the Midianites were snake charmers and could safely venture into the pit. We know about all this from the Midianites who brought their charms with them when they visited Bileam as part of the delegation from Balak. (Numbers chapter 22) Joseph wound up being owned jointly by the Midianites and the Ishmaelites
      Some commentators say that the Ishmaelites sold Joseph to Potiphar who had accused them of having kidnapped him. The Midianites guaranteed to Potiphar that Joseph was theirs to sell, and had not been kidnapped. This is why the Torah attributes the actual sale to the Midianites who acted as guarantors for the validity of the sale. The Ishmaelites are also described as selling him, as 1) they had physical possession of him, and 2) they had paid 20 silver pieces for him to the brothers. The reason why so little money changed hands was that Joseph, because of his traumatic experience in the pit, no longer looked nearly as handsome as he had before his trauma.
  
     מה בצע, “what financial advantage?” There is a view expressed in the <i>Midrash (Pessikta Rabbati Parshat Ki Tissa</i>) according to which the brothers asked Yehudah to break the bread and to pronounce the blessing to G’d, לבצוע, at the meal, and he replied to them that it was most inappropriate to do so while they planned to commit murder.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   וכסינו את דמו, ”and we will conceal his blood.” According to <i>Rashi</i> these words are a euphemism for “let’s conceal his death.”
      According to Nachmanides the words may be taken at face value, as it was the custom of murderers ever since the first one, Kayin, to bury the victim under a heap of earth and thus to conceal his blood.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   וישב ראובן, “Reuven returned;” According to <i>Rashi,</i> Reuven reverted to wearing sackcloth and observing fasts as penitence over his indiscretion with Bilhah, even though he had not made a public confession until after he had heard his brother Yehudah publicly confess his sin against Tamar. (Genesis 38,26)
  
     ויקרע את בגדיו, “he rent his outer garments.” When his father heard about Joseph’s apparent death, the Torah describes the rending of his garments with the words ויקרע שמלותיו, “he rent his (under)garments.” When mourning parents or children, one rends all of one’s clothing, whereas when mourning siblings one only rends outer garments. The word שמלה appears as covering for one’s skin” (Exodus 22,26)
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   וישלחו את כתונת הפסים ויביאו אל אביהם, “they sent the striped coat and brought it to their father.” Either they instructed the bearer to bring it to their father, or the bearers brought it to their father without having had specific instructions.
      It is also possible that they sent the coat home, and when they came home the next time [after all, Dotan is over 70 km from Chevron. Ed.] they themselves brought it to their father. The Torah emphasizes the striped coat, as the stripes would help to identify who had worn it.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   חיה רעה אכלתהו, “a wild beast has devoured him.” He did not say that robbers had slain him, for if so they would have robbed him of his precious tunic.
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   וכל בנותיו, “and all his daughters.” His daughter and his granddaughter. Some commentators say that his daughters–in-law are included in the term “his daughters.”
  
     וימאן להתנחם, “he refused to be comforted.” According to the plain meaning, Yaakov could not accept words of comfort as he considered himself partially responsible for what happened, seeing that he had sent Joseph alone on a dangerous mission.
  
  
  Verse 36
  
   שר הטבחים, “the minister in charge of the butchers.” <i>Rashi</i> claims that Potiphar was in charge of all the King’s livestock.
      According to Onkelos, Potiphar was the King’s chief executioner. We do indeed find the expression טביחה used in the Bible in connection with the slaughter of human beings, for instance in Lamentations 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהי בעת ההיא,,”It was at that time,” according to <i>Rashi</i> the reason why the Torah introduces this paragraph with these words is to tell us that Yehudah’s demotion from his position of leadership of the brothers and his moving away from them was because he had proposed the sale of Joseph to Egypt.
      Many commentators challenge <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary saying that 22 years elapsed from the sale of Joseph to Egypt to the eventual reunion of the family, seeing that Joseph was 17 when he was sold and 39 when the brothers and his father moved to Egypt. Seeing that only so few years had elapsed, how could Yehudah have married, sired 3 sons, married off two of them, and have married Tamar and become the father of Zerach and Peretz, and Peretz siring Chetzron and Chamul, all within such a short space of time? [seeing the last two grandsons of Yehudah are numbered among the seventy members of Yaakov’s familty who left Canaan for Egypt (46,12)? Ed]
      Ibn Ezra writes that what is related here occurred before the sale of Joseph, and that the story was interrupted in order to contrast the story of Yehudah and Tamar with that of Joseph and the wife of Potiphar. [how Joseph could control his libido, whereas Yehudah could not.] 
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   בת איש כנען, “daughter of a Canaanite named Shu’a.” Onkelos translates the word איש כנעני not as an ethnic description, but as the description given to “traders.” He wants to be sure that we know that none of the brothers married a Canaanite woman. This is the reason why the Torah singled out “Sha-ul, son of the Canaanite,” in 46,10 among the sons of Shimon as an exception. This subject has already been the subject of disagreement of <i>Tannaim</i> in the <i>Mishnah</i>, Rabbi Yehudah claiming that twin sisters had been born with all of the twelve brothers, enabling them to marry half sisters, whereas Rabbi Nechemyah holds that the brothers other than Joseph, married Canaanite women. Rabbi Yehudah is forced to have the brothers marry half sisters, something permitted to Israelites before the Torah was given, whereas according to Rabbi Nechemyah we would have to presume that all these twin sisters died before their husbands moved to Egypt, as otherwise, how come they are not included in the list of descendants of Yaakov who moved to Egypt?
      If we approach the subject logically, it is hard to understand how sons of Yaakov could marry women of a cursed nation such as the Canaanites. It is therefore most likely that Onkelos was correct in translating the word איש כנעני as “a prominent trader.” This would also account for the Torah writing ‘Yehudah saw there, etc.” Had this girl been an ethnic Canaanite, what was so special in Yehudah “seeing” her? They were a dime a dozen! She struck him as not belonging to the true inhabitants of that region.
      It is possible to understand Rabbi Nechemyah as not meaning that the brothers actually married ethnic Canaanites. He may only have wanted to dispute the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah that the brothers committed what was incest in terms of Torah legislation. Not only this, but half sisters from the same mother were also forbidden even before the Torah was given. There is little doubt that among the inhabitants of the land of Canaan there were also a minority of Moabites and Ammonites who did not belong to descendants of Canaan who had been cursed.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the reason Yehudah had sons who were not loyal to their father and grandfather’s tradition was that he had married a Canaanite, and that this was the reason they died so young. This was also the reason the Torah criticized Shimon for having sired Sha-ul from a Canaanite mother [not necessarily his wife, Ed.]. If not for this reason, why would the Torah have singled out the maternity of Sha-ul as the only one of Yaakov’s grandchildren? According to the approach of Ibn Ezra, we would have to understand the line: “Yehudah saw there the daughter of a prominent Canaanite, etc.,” as Yehudah taking an instant liking to that woman, much as Shimshon took an instant liking to the Philistine woman in Judges 14,1 something described by the prophet Samuel as “Shimshon descended to Timnatah, where he saw a woman of the daughters of the Philistines, etc.”
      According to <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary on Genesis 50,13 וישאו אותו בניו , that “Yaakov’s sons carried his bier,” the absence of mention of Yaakov’s grandsons as pall bearers is due to Yaakov having forbidden Egyptians to be pall bearers as well as his grandsons, seeing they had been born of Canaanite mothers. He had referred at least to Shelah son of Yehudah and a Canaanite, and Shau-l son of Shimon and a Canaanite. In order not to slight these grandsons, he precluded all of them from being his pall bearers. [Tanchumah on Numbers12 explains why also Joseph and Levi were excluded from that task. Ed.]
  
     ער ואונן, some commentators trace the origin of these names to ערירי and אנינות, “childlessness, and pre burial state of mourning.” They had been named so, out of deference to Yaakov’s painful memories of the son he presumed lost.
      Nachmanides explains that Yehudah called his son ער, as a symbol of awakening, עוררה, whereas his wife called the second son אונן, and the Torah did not bother to inform us why either son was named as he was. It is possible that the wife of Yehudah had a difficult birth with her second son, just as Rachel called her second son by a name that reflected the pains she experienced in order to give birth to him. The word is closely related to the word מתאוננים in Numbers 11,1, where it describes deep frustration of the people and deep dissatisfaction. Yehudah, unlike his father Yaakov, did not bother to change the name his wife had given to their son.
      According to <i>Bereshit</i> Rabbah 85,4 the name ער foreshadows that the boy would be “poured out from the world,” הוער, whereas the name אונן foreshadows that this child would bring sorrow and mourning upon himself, i.e. אנינה.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ותוסף עוד ותלד בן ותקרא שמו שלה, “She continued to give birth to another child whom she named Shelah.” I find it peculiar that on this occasion the Torah does not mention Bat Shua’s pregnancy before mentioning that she gave birth. Perhaps we may explain this as her having become pregnant with two children at the time she conceived Onan, and that there was an interval between Onan’s birth and Shelah’s birth. This could be borne out by the wording of the verse that refers to the birth of Shelah as an “additional” birth. This would also explain the Torah speaking about Yehudah being in כזיב, The word is understood as describing “interval, interruption,” as in Isaiah 58,11 אשר לא יכזבו מימיו ‘whose waters will flow without interruption.” [how does the author explain Yehudah asking Tamar to wait until Shelah grows up before giving her to him as a wife? Ed.] In other words, Yehudah separated from Bat Shua for some time after the birth of Onan. The Torah would then be telling us that in spite of Yehudah having separated from Bat Shua after the birth of Onan, she bore him another son, something that he had not expected. According to the author, Yehudah’s stalling Tamar was only that, an excuse not to have a third son marry the same woman whose two husbands had already died.
  
     והיה בכגזיב בלדתה אותו, “while he was in Keziv when she gave birth to him.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the location was called Keziv because this was where Bat Shua stopped bearing children.
      Nachmanides queries this, wanting to know why a place would be named to mark such a non-event. Furthermore, who knew at the time when Onan was born that his mother would not have any more children? No one knew this until after Bat Shua died. Some commentators say that seeing Yehudah had named his first son, his wife had named his second son. This was an accepted custom in those days. It would have been Yehudah’s turn to name the third child. The Torah explains the fact that he did not do so, by mentioning that he was in a different place at the time Bat Shua gave birth
      Nachmanides writes also that the meaning of the word כזיב indicates some disruption. The translation of לא תשלה by the Targum is also לא תכזב, “do not err in your prediction, i.e. do not deceive by being wrong.” (compare Kings II 4,28) Bat Shua giving birth in the absence of her husband was a mistake on Yehudah’s part, he should have been at her side. 
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויהי ער רע בעיני ה' וימתיהו ה', “Er was wicked in the eyes of the Lord and He killed him.” Some scholars ask how it is possible that someone as young in years as Er could be held responsible for his deeds by the Heavenly tribunal, which supposedly does not judge anyone under 20 years of age. The forced answer given to this question is that if a youngster is intellectually developed to the level of a 20 year old, he is held responsible in spite of his being a minor in terms of years. According to what I have written earlier, about Yehudah having separated from his brothers and married prior to the sale of Joseph, it is quite possible that Er was 20 years old at the time of his death.
      Nachmanides draws attention to the fact that the Torah did not spell out Er’s sin, even though we have been told about Onan’s sin. Presumably, the words: “he was wicked in the eyes of the Lord and He killed him,” mean that he died on account of his own personal sin, and not as a punishment for Yehudah for his having sold Joseph. Yehudah was saved from his penalty for having saved Joseph’s life by the very act of selling him. Among all the families of the patriarchs the only one who had to bury his children was Yehudah.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויבם אותה, “and perform a levirate marriage with her.” According to Nachmanides this was an accepted custom in earlier times, long before the Torah had been given when it was legislated to perform such levirate marriages and the scope of who was qualified to enter into such levirate marriages was greatly reduced at that time. The Torah made an exception in the laws of incest, permitting a brother to marry the widow of another brother who had died without offspring, although there was an overriding law not to marry the one time wife of a brother under all other circumstances.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   שבי אלמנה בית אביך, “dwell as a widow in your father’s home, etc.” This was a rejection of Tamar as Shelah’s future wife; Yehudah had no intention of ever letting Shelah marry Tamar. 
      Nachmanides writes that he does not understand why Yehudah had to reject her in such a round about fashion; he could have simply told her to go home and feel free to marry anyone else. Furthermore, seeing that Yehudah was so concerned about Tamar having had sexual relations with someone that he was prepared to convict her of death by burning, clearly he did expect her to marry Shelah, why else maintain the fiction that she was a levirate wife in limbo, and as such forbidden to be intimate with any other man? Moreover, it is most unlikely that Yehudah had not heard that the cause of his sons dying was not Tamar but their own sins.
      I believe therefore, that Shelah was perfectly suitable to be the husband of Tamar in a levirate marriage, but his father did not want him to marry Tamar while he was still young, (immature) so that he would not commit a sin similar to those committed by his brothers. They died in their youth precisely because they were too immature, neither of them being even 12 years of age. When Shelah would reach maturity and therefore be obedient to his father’s moral and ethical instructions, he would be quite prepared to have him marry Tamar. At the time of Onan’s death, he was not even 10 years old. Tamar, who was older and had an active libido, deserved to be remarried sooner, and when Yehudah did not give him to her she interpreted this as an outright refusal, not a temporary one.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויעל על גוזזי צאנו, “he went up to supervise the shearing of his flocks.” The Torah describes a normal occupation of Yehudah, who frequently supervised his shearers. On one of these occasions, which Tamar was quite familiar with, she waylaid him. Alternately, the Torah describes a feast on the occasion of the completion of the shearing, and Tamar knew that Yehudah would participate. Therefore she positioned herself where he would have to pass her.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ותתעלף, “she covered her face.” Ibn Ezra says that the meaning is that she covered her face. The expression is used in this sense in Jonah,
  
     בפתח עינים, according to Ibn Ezra this was the name of a place.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויחשבה לו לזונה, “he considered her as being a whore.” This was because she had chosen to sit at a crossroads 
  
     כי כסתה פניה, “for she had covered her face.” Our sages say that this described her state while married, and while she was in her father-in-law’s house, so that he did not recognize her facial features.
      Nachmanides writes that the proper explanation, based on the unadorned text, is that Yehudah considered the fact that she concealed her face as proof that she was a whore, as this is what all the whores did in those days They all used to sit at road junctions where there was a lot of traffic. Their shawl would cover part of their hair and leave only a mall part of their faces exposed, revealing their throats and part of their necks. Their lips and eyes were made up. They needed to accost prospective customers, speak to them, even kiss them, so that their faces could not be fully covered by their shawls. Seeing that they did not mind engaging in relations with their relatives, they had to worry about keeping their identities secret.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  ופתילך, “and your garment.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the word is equivalent to שמלתך, your “decorative garment.” [normally, as opposed to בגד, an outer garment, שמלה is understood to refer to undergarments. Ed.]
      Nachmanides disputes <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation, as, if Yehudah handed over such a garment (normal usage of שמלה), he would have had to walk away naked. Furthermore, how could the Torah refer to a שמלה by the description פתיל? Besides, since when does the word פתיל occur in the plural? If you were to counter that we find this plural in connection with the commandment of ציצית, it is inconceivable that Yehudah would use a garment with sacred fringes and demean it in such a fashion. [the vowel <i>segol</i> in the word פתילך is taken by Nachmanides to indicate a plural form. Ed.]
      Perhaps he had a small cloth in his hand, something short like a פתיל, a cloth used to wind around one’s head, turban fashion, which Tamar referred to as פתיל because it was short. It is also possible that Yehudah’s signet ring had the shape of a lion, and he had pieces of short cloth that had been embossed with that ring. The staff מטה, he held in his hand in the fashion of rulers who carry a mace.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   הוציאוה ותשרף, “take her outside to be burned.” <i>Rashi</i> explains this unusual type of the death penalty as due to the fact that Tamar was the daughter of Shem whom we know as the priest of the Supreme G’d from when he blessed Avraham, as well as the fact that he was King of Jerusalem, (Genesis 14) she was subject to this more severe death penalty for adulterous conduct, as per Leviticus
      Nachmanides questions this, saying that the legislation referred to in Leviticus is reserved for the daughter of a priest who is betrothed but not yet married properly. A widow waiting to be married to her brother-in-law, and therefore forbidden to any other male, is subject to the penalty imposed on violators of a normal negative commandment, not the death penalty. Besides, every capital crime committed by non-Jews is subject to death by the sword, never by burning.
      Furthermore, Yehudah’s statement צדקה ממני, after becoming aware of his almost fatal error, appears to reinforce Tamar’s guilt even more, a) because he, as the local leader of the region, should have lived a life completely beyond reproach, and certainly should not have slept with a whore; b) she, by engaging in extramarital relations had expressed disdain for the local authority. Keeping these two points in mind, he condemned her to death by burning. [some of these aspects are based on the opinion that Yehudah had realised that the woman he had presumed to have been a whore, was actually a virgin, something that in retrospect made him aware that his sons Er and Onan had never consummated their marriage to Tamar. The people who had brought Tamar before the tribunal had only known that she had become pregnant from someone not her husband and that she had not claimed to have been the victim of rape. Ed.]
      Looking at the plain unadorned text, we must remember that the law concerning women who had had illicit sexual relations while married, would have been handed over to her husband for him to do with her as he saw fit. Seeing that legally, Tamar was destined to be married to Shelah as soon as Shelah was old enough, she was in the category of a married woman according to local custom.
      Rabbi Yehudah the pious, explains that Yehudah did not actually condemn Tamar to be burned at the stake, but that she should be branded with a branding iron which would leave an indelible mark on her face so that she would be disgraced for all to see for the rest of her life. As soon as Yehudah found out that he was the father of the child Tamar was carrying, and that therefore she had not been a whore at all, he did not do anything to her.
      Many raise the question how Yehudah could pronounce judgment, saying: “take her outside and burn her,” seeing that according to Jewish law, a King is not subject to being judged by a court of his subjects, nor is he himself allowed to sit in judgment of anyone. In addition to this legal point, according to Jewish law, whenever a capital crime is dealt with in the court, and a vote is taken as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, the first person polled is the youngest and not the most senior, so as not to sway the judgment of the junior judges. Here we were told only about the presiding judge’s Yehudah’s vote on the subject. A third difficulty is how could Yehudah, a relative, and therefore a biased participant, be allowed to be present at these proceedings at all? [all of the preceding is of course, based on the assumption that just as the brothers observed Torah law although it was not yet revealed to them as legislation, they complied also with the wider ramifications of Torah laws as found in the written text. Ed.]
      The answers suggested to these various reservations of our sages about Yehudah’s conduct, is that the trial of Tamar was conducted by Yitzchok, Yaakov and Yehudah being the tribunal. Seeing that Yehudah was the junior member of this tribunal, we are told about his vote first, something completely in accordance with Jewish law.. 
      Another view voiced by a <i>Midrash,</i> claims that Tamar’s father, Shem, personally sat in judgment of her. With all due respect, this is chronologically impossible. A review of the relevant historical data will reveal that Shem had long been dead at that time. 
      [According to Genesis 11,11 Shem died 501 years after the deluge, i.e. in the year 2157 after the creation of Adam. The Exodus occurred in the year 2448, after the Israelites had been in Egypt for 210 years. In other words, when Yedudah came to Egypt in the year 2238 he was about 3 years older than Joseph, who we know was 39-40 years at the time as testified by the Torah. This means that Yehudah was born in or around the year 2195, 27 years after the death of Shem. Ed.] 
      As to the statement in A<i>vodah Zarah</i> 36 that the tribunal of Shem decreed that an unmarried male who has sexual relations with an unmarried female is subject to the death penalty, [seeing that for gentiles there is no other penalty, Ed.] and the origin of that law is attributed to the incident between Yehudah and Tamar, this does not mean that Shem, the founder of that tribunal was still alive, but that the academy and tribunal which he founded continued to bear the name of its founder, Shem.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   צדקה ממני, “she is correct; it stems from me.” <i>Rashi</i> interprets this statement as referring to Tamar’s statement, (words) that she was pregnant by Yehudah, (Though the words were never articulated by her)
      Nachmanides understands Yehudah as referring to Tamar’s deeds rather than to her words. She was right, whereas he was wrong in not giving her as a wife to Shelah, seeing that she had a claim on him. Shelah’s father would rank second behind his son only if his son had refused to carry out his obligation to marry Tamar.
      Some commentators feel that the words צדקה ממני, were spoken by Yehudah when he became aware that it had been he who had impregnated Tamar, and had found out in the process that she had been a virgin, and that the unnatural deaths of his two older sons had been the punishment for their failing to fulfill their duties as husbands of Tamar, and their wasting their semen. In the event that someone would claim that according to accepted norms a virgin never conceives from her first sexual experience, so how could Yehudah have impregnated her as virgin, this principle is valid only if the hymen had not previously been weakened, such as by an almost but not quite penetration, as is described as having been performed by Onan. (Genesis 38,9)
  
     ולא יסף עוד לדעתה, “he had no further marital relations wit her.” There is an opinion (<i>Sotah</i> 10) according to which the meaning of the above words is that Yehudah did not stop having marital relations with Tamar. According to the opinion that the meaning of ולא יסף is “he did not continue, etc.” we must view Yehudah’s conduct <i>vis a</i> vis Tamar as reflecting the concept of קדש עצמך במותר לך, “sanctify yourself by eschewing even what is permitted to you.” Yehudah did not mean to imply that Tamar was legally out of bounds to him as a wife. Seeing he had fulfilled the commandment to be fruitful with her, he saw no point in continuing a relationship that could be misinterpreted by people who had known Tamar as the wife of one of his sons.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ויהי כמשיב ידו, “it happened as he retracted his hand, etc.” This refers to the distance a person can withdraw his hand. If the subject of this phrase would be the infant to whom this hand belonged, the Torah should have written: ויהי כאשר השיב ידו.
  
     מה פרצת עליך פרץ? “how did you burst your way out?” <i>Rashi</i> understands the expression פרץ as denoting doing something violently. Alternately, it may mean that “you have broken out of the boundary that was meant to contain you.”
      Nachmanides writes that anyone who crosses a boundary is described by Biblical Hebrew as being פורץ as G’d promised Yaakov in Genesis 28,14 ופרצת ימה וקדמה וגו', “and you will burst forth to the West, to the East, etc.” concerning his descendants. This is why the midwife, when seeing the firstborn extending his hand beyond the birth canal, exclaimed that by coming forth hand first, that “he had burst forth.” The meaning of the word עליך in our context refers to the natural boundaries that had been set for each of these infants and the order in which they were meant to be born. Some commentators explain the words: מה פרצת as similar to פרצה גדולה עשית, “you have made a great break-through,” i.e. “may it be G’d’s will that this breakthrough you have made into the world will be a good omen for your continuous further development. According to this inter-pretation, the word פרצת here is not similar in meaning to the word in Genesis
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   כי ה' אתו, “for the Lord was with him.” One reason was that Joseph invoked the name of the Lord in his daily conversation. According to the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, his master observed how unusually successful everything Joseph undertook turned out to be.
      Our sages interpret the word וירא, “he saw,” to mean that Potiphar observed that prior to carrying out a task Joseph invariably whispered something. He concluded that Joseph was employing witchcraft, challenging him that he had brought witchcraft with him to Egypt, something which had been banned in Egypt for a long time already. He then noticed that the Divine presence rested above Joseph, having had a dream that featured the Divine Presence as reposing above the head of an individual. This Presence appeared in the shape of a pillar of cloud, honouring the presence of a righteous individual.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   כי אם הלחם אשר הוא אוכל, “except for the food which he was in the habit of eating.” According to the plain meaning, Potiphar did not issue any instructions to Joseph concerning his duties, but he left it all to his good sense and sense of duty. He did, however, tell Joseph the kind of menu he wished to enjoy every day.
      Ibn Ezra explains why Potiphar did not charge Joseph with preparing food; the Egyptians had a different eating culture from that of the Hebrews, and they detested the manner in which Hebrews prepared their food. He did not even let Joseph touch the bread. [This editor has never understood this explanation as something pertaining to the family of Yaakov, who numbered very few, and whose cultural impact on Egypt was nil. It is more likely that all the people from beyond the Tigris and Euphrates, the Sumerians, had different food habits from those of the Egyptians, the competing major culture, and that Joseph as was obvious by his skin colour, (The Eyptians being black) was viewed as culturally basically different. The derogatory manner in which the wife of Potiphar refers to Joseph as a “Hebrew” slave, is further evidence that it was not his “Jewishness” but his being associated with the Sumerians, Accadians, Babylonians, etc., which evoked her disdain once she had been rejected as a lover. (39,14) Ed.]
      Nachmanides writes that the meaning of the words ולא ידע אתו מאומה כי אם הלחם, mean that Joseph was free to take whatever was in the household and use it on behalf of his master except the bread which his master ate. This was something reserved for the master of the house. All other items in the house that were designed to enhance the residents’ quality of life were Joseph’s to enjoy. 
  
     ויהי יוסף יפה תואר, “Joseph became exceedingly handsome.” According to<i> Rashi</i> the fact that Joseph enjoyed so much authority caused him to attend to his personal appearance in an exaggerated manner.
      Nachmanides writes that the Torah had to provide us with a rationale why the wife of Potiphar would want to have an affair with a slave, one from Mesopotamia, of all places. The Torah therefore explains that Joseph’s physique proved of an overpowering attraction to her
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויאמר אל אשת אדוניוו וימאן “He refused, and said to the wife of his master, etc.” Although we are well aware that Potiphar was Joseph’s master, the Torah reports his position, in order to explain that Joseph’s refusal to respond to the advances of his mistress was based on her husband being his master, also. It was not based on Joseph finding her unattractive. He had reason to also fear the anger of his mistress, but he made plain that his fear of G’d was stronger than his fear of the results of her displeasure with him.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   וחטאתי לאלוקים, “I would commit a sin against G’d.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that basic legislation about incestuous relations including adultery applied universally, not only to Jews.
      Nachmanides writes that he finds it difficult that Joseph mentioned the sin of adultery against his own master Potiphar, which is secondary, before mentioning the sin against G’d which is primary. He answers this problem by saying that women do not perceive matters in that order. They relate first and foremost to their visible masters, their husbands, and are only marginally concerned with their sins against the Creator, who remains invisible both to them and to their husbands.
      There is also another way of answering the manner in which Joseph described the sin of giving in to the allure of Mrs. Potiphar. He did not refer to the aspect of illicit sex at all directly, other than saying that he would be committing a great wrong against G’d’s law, without implying that she would be a party to that sin. According to that approach, the words הרעה הגדולה, “the great evil,” would modify the words וחטאתי לאלוקים.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   לשכב אצלה, “to lie down beside her;” Ibn Ezra understands this as sitting beside one another on the same settee, fully clothed, engaging in idle chatter. The reason for Ibn Ezra’s explanation is that the term לשכב אצלה, is most inappropriate for intimacy involving sex, as the Torah would have used the word עמה, if it wanted to describe such an intimate physical relationship.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ויהי כהיום, “A certain day arrived, etc.” It was as clear as day(light) that Joseph had only arrived to perform his regular work.
  
     ואין איש מאנשי הבית בבית, ”and no one of the normally present people in the house was in the house on that occasion.” The unusual phrasing מאנשי הבית, meaning “of the men normally assigned to the house,” prompted the sages to say that another person was present, referring to the image of Yaakov, Joseph’s father, whose image reminded him not to fall victim to the lure of this woman.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויעזב בגדו בידה, “he left his outer garment in her hand.” Out of deference for her position as his mistress, he did not wrest the garment from her hands, although he was physically powerful enough to have done this.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ראו הביא לנו איש עברי, “see here! He brought us a Hebrew man.” Mrs. Potiphar referred to the “Hebrew” as universally known antagonists of the Egyptians, a reason why the Egyptians would not acquire “Hebrews” as slaves, except to work in the vineyards and other menial occupations in the fields. They were never allowed into the homes of upper class Egyptians. Mrs Potiphar voiced her disgust with her husband who not only had taken a slave of such parentage into their house, but had even elevated him to be the most powerful person in the whole household. It was not surprising therefore that an עברי slave who had been promoted to such a position would begin to take advantage of it and treat all of us as his inferiors, abusing us, as he has just tried to do with me. She deliberately left out a direct reference to her husband, as she wanted to insure that the members of the household would support her.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   כדברים האלה, “words similar to these.” According to <i>Rashi</i>, a reference to “pillow” talk between Mrs Potiphar and her husband. She considered the timing appropriate to relate to her husband matters pertaining to what she described as Joseph’s sexual advances to her.
      Nachmanides queries this in light of the <i>Midrashim</i> that teach us that Potiphar had become impotent as a punishment for trying to indulge his homosexual fantasies by using Joseph as his partner. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Mrs Potiphar would reveal intimate details about Joseph to her husband, details the knowledge of which would incriminate her. If she had accused Joseph of raping her, he would be guilty of execution, so why did Potiphar not have him executed? Moreover, why had she not cried out before Joseph could perpetrate his evil intention? She only raised a fuss after the event! This would give her husband the right to execute her! She only had to tell her husband that Joseph was getting ready to rape her! Perhaps both the <i>Midrash</i> upon which <i>Rashi</i> based himself, and his own understanding of the words עניני תשמיש, is not to be understood literally, but refers to Mrs Potiphar describing fondling of her by Joseph, not his sleeping with her.
      It is possible that Potiphar, in order to suppress the scandal, did not execute Joseph, as his reputation as a husband cuckolded by a Hebrew slave would have resulted in his becoming a laughing stock among his peers. It is also possible that Potiphar’s fondness of Joseph was such that he could not bear to kill him.
      Looking at the plain meaning of the text, we do not need all of these convoluted explanations (based on the extraneous letter כ in front of the word דברים), and the meaning is the same as if the Torah had written הדברים האלה, “these matters.” Alternately, the Torah hints, that as soon as Potiphar heard the story of his wife about what Joseph was supposed to have done to her, i.e. her words, not necessarily the true events, he did not believe her, having faith in Joseph’s uprightness, and, seeing that he had to save face, he incarcerated Joseph instead of executing him, thus saving face for his wife also.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויתנהו אל בית הסוהר מקום אשר אסירי המלך, “he placed him in the jail in which the King’s prisoners were kept.” 
      According to Ibn Ezra the term בית הסוהר is a specifically Egyptian term. This is the reason why the Torah found it necessary to explain the meaning of the term by writing that it was the place in which the King’s prisoners were kept.
      Nachmanides writes concerning Ibn Ezra’s observation that Ibn Ezra made no contribution at all with his excuse for the apparent repetition, but that the letter ה at the beginning of the word סוהר indicates that this was a very well known jail, the one specially reserved for the king’s prisoners This explains why the King’s baker and the King’s cupbearer were placed in that jail where they met Joseph. It is also possible that the wording in chapter 40,3 indicates that prisoners kept in that jail were dealt with by the King personally, and not by regular judges and courts. The Torah’s reporting that this was the jail Potiphar placed Joseph in, is an indication that Joseph was considered as a V.I.P. by his former master.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   על שני סריסיו. “at his two ministers.” The expression סריס implies: “holder of distinguished office.” This is why Onkelos translates it in this fashion. [the term is not used in that manner in modern Hebrew. Ed.]
      Some commentators understand the word here literally, i.e. “eunuchs.” The reason why these officials had to be castrated was that they performed their duties also in the palaces set aside for Pharaoh’s women.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   איש כפתרון חלומו, “each man according to its interpretation.” According to <i>Rashi</i> each man dreamt a dream that was roughly in accordance with the eventual interpretation offered for it as forecasting his fate. In other words, the cupbearer dreamt something which was enjoyable for him, i.e. he saw grapes which he could convert into wine, whereas the chief baker dreamt something that was disturbing, i.e. the bird consumed what he had meant to serve the King. Joseph interpreted the dreams to correspond to the mood that these dreams evoked in their principals. [the author’s version of <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary must have differed from that found in most of our <i>Chumashim</i> nowadays. Ed.]
      Nachmanides writes that such a commentary does not reflect what the chief of the cupbearers said to Pharaoh in 41,11; “we had dreamt a dream that corresponded to Joseph’s interpretation of it.” If <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation were correct, it would have diminished Joseph’s reputation as an interpreter of dream rather than have enhanced it. What the chief of the cupbearers meant to imply was that Joseph knew how to interpret the dream although on the face of it, it did not resemble the eventual interpretation at all.
      Ibn Ezra writes that each of the two ministers dreamt his own dream plus the interpretation that applied to the dream of his colleague. [there is also confusion between what Nachmanides quotes Ibn Ezra as saying, and the version found in recent, amended versions of Ibn Ezra’s commentary by Asher Weiser. Ed.] Ibn Ezra’s major point [according to Nachmanides as per version in Rabbi Chavell’s edition] is that as opposed to Solomon’s statement in Kohelet 5,2 each party dreamt a precise forecast of his fate, there was no extraneous matter in the dream that would have confused the potential interpreter. [Rabbi Chavell quotes our author‘s interpretation of Ibn Ezra. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   וישאל את סריסי פרעה אשר אתו במשמר, “he enquired from Pharaoh’s ministers, the ones in the same jail as he, etc.” We would have expected the Torah to write: “וישאל אותם,” he asked them.” The only reason why the Torah chose more cumbersome wording is to tell us of the praiseworthy conduct of Joseph who, although he found himself in the presence of two prisoners vastly superior to him in personal power even while in jail, and moreover, in the jail of his former master Potiphar, who by now hated him, i.e. people who could have ordered his execution without worrying about their being held accountable, nonetheless had the courage to interpret their dreams, although at least one of them would be frustrated with his interpretation. He had confidence in his wisdom, for if the chief of the bakers had been pardoned, he would surely have hung Joseph for having made him deathly afraid for a number of days. 
  
  Verse 8
  
   פותר אין אותו, “there was no one who would interpret it.” There was no one in the whole world that knew how to interpret it.
      Alternately, these ministers had sent messengers to a number of well known dream experts, both within the jail and beyond, and none of those had any explanation to offer.
  
     הלא לאלוקים פתרונים, “is not the subject of interpreting dreams something reserved for G’d? Ibn Ezra says that Joseph meant that G’d exclusively, knows of the interpretation that will come true in the future. Only He knows the future and sees fit to reveal some of it to whosoever needs to know it. Joseph continued: “if I explain the dream to you in a manner that will please you, or even in a manner which will not reflect its true meaning, this will not affect your future fate at all.” He may have said this to them in order to encourage them to tell him their dreams, or as reinsurance so that they would have no reason to punish him if it was found that he erred in his interpretations.
      Nachmanides writes that the correct interpretation of our verse in his opinion, is that Joseph explained to them that for all the dreams which defy our ability to interpret correctly there is an explanation which G’d knows of, and this is a knowledge that He has granted to some people to share with Him. If he were to offer an explanation for their dreams, it would be the result of knowledge granted to him by G’d. If they were to tell him the details of their dreams, perhaps G’d would enlighten him concerning the meaning.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   והיא כפורחת, “and it seemed to be blossoming, etc.” according to <i>Rashi</i> this means that it seemed to the cupbearer in his dreams if the vines were blossoming.
      Nachmanides queries that if we were to base this interpretation on the presence of the כף הדמיון, the prefix letter כ, which is a frequent phenomenon, and it is used here because everything that one sees in a dream is not real but only imaginary, then the proper place for this letter would have been at the beginning of the image, and the Torah, instead of writing והנה גפן, “behold there was a vine,” should have written והנה כגפן “and behold there was something like a vine, etc.” In his opinion, the reason the Torah writes the letter כ only when it does, is to portray the development of this vine into fruit and ultimately wine which is offered by the dreamer to Pharaoh’s lips, as something occurring with unreal speed. It is this element that prompted Joseph to foresee fulfillment of the message contained in the dream not as occurring three months or longer after the vine begins to blossom, but as occurring within three days. 
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   כי אם זכרתני אתך, “if only you will remember me, etc.” according to Nachmanides Joseph asks the cupbearer to remember him after he had been reinstated and then bring him to Pharaoh’s attention as another innocent sitting in jail, something he would consider an act of loving kindness on the part of the cupbearer.
      Another possible explanation of the phrase is that Joseph pleads with the cupbearer to remember him as if he were still in his presence, i.e.אתך. [otherwise the word אתך appears as somewhat redundant. Ed.]
      Yet another possible meaning is that Joseph said: “the favour you can do me after you have been reinstated and you reminded yourself that I had predicted your reinstatement, is to plead my case before Pharaoh, seeing that I, like yourself, am in jail due to trumped up charges against me.”
      Still another possibility is that Joseph did not ask the cupbearer to plead his case before Pharaoh but only to mention his name to Pharaoh, and Pharaoh who knew Joseph from the days when he was prominent in Potiphar’s household, would realize that his sitting in jail proved that he was actually free from sin, as otherwise his master would have executed him.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   כי גנוב גנבתי, “for I have been twice kidnapped, etc.” Not only was I kidnapped from my homeland, but here too I have not committed any wrong that would justify my being in jail. 
  מארץ העברים, “from the land of the Hebrews.” Clearly, Joseph did not speak about a state ruled by Hebrews, but he used this adjective to recall that he was descended from Avraham who had been the first עברי to take up residence in the land of Canaan after leaving Mesopotamia.
  
  Verse 16
  
   כי טוב פתר, “that he had interpreted the dream positively;” the fact that Joseph predicted fulfillment of the dream within three days convinced the baker that he was telling the truth as otherwise he would be proven a liar within such a short span of time.
  
     סלי חורי, “baskets of patisserie.” <i>Rashi</i> explains the word חורי as describing the kinds of baskets, i.e. wicker work.
      Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon explains the word חורי as referring to bread made of white flour, a delicacy reserved for kings. Linguistically, the word would be related to חיור, “ (Arabic word?)
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ישא פרעה את ראשך, “Pharaoh will raise your head.” The meaning of the word ישא when used in conjunction with the cupbearer is not the same as the same word used by the Torah (Joseph) in connection with the chief of the bakers. In the case of the former, it denotes a promotion, as when the Children of Israel were to be numbered in Exodus 30,12 כי תשא את ראש וגו'. Numbering people means each individual has a distinct value on its own, not only as a member of a larger number. In our context, the meaning of the word נשא as “raising” applies equally to “raising” someone’s head by hanging it from a gallows, instead of by promoting the owner of the head.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ולא זכר שר המשקים, “but the chief of the cupbearers did not remember.” The repetition means that he neither remembered Joseph by mentioning him, nor even by recalling him in his heart. Some commentators claim that the word וישכחהו is meant to tell the reader that the cupbearer did not fail to remember Joseph because of hatred, but only because he really forgot him.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ויהי מקץ שנתים ימים, “it was at the end of two years.” Pharaoh’s dream occurred two years after the reinstatement of the chief of the cupbearers. Although the Torah did not specify when the two years which it describes as having ended commenced, it is reasonable to assume that they commenced at the time the cupbearer had been released. The Torah implies that although the time had come then for Joseph to be released also, the fact that he pinned his hopes on the goodwill of the cupbearer whose good fortune he had foretold caused G’d to keep him in jail for another two years. As a result, he spent a total of 12 years in jail. He had served in the house of Potiphar for only one year. We arrive at this conclusion by the verse which says “the blessing of G’d was on the house of the Egyptian both in the field and in the house, the field being a reference to the summer, and “the house” being a reference to winter, the season when most people in temperate climates spend most of their time indoors. He had already been in jail for 9 years before the king’s prisoners joined him there. This is clear from the verse (Genesis 40,4) “they had been in jail for one year.” (a reference to the two ministers.) These ten years were followed by another two years that ended at the beginning of our portion.
      This account is difficult to reconcile with a statement in the <i>Midrash Hagadol</i> on Genesis 40,1 that the cupbearer and the chief baker sinned [in the sense that the Satan encouraged them to sin, Ed.] in order that they should have reason to bemoan their own fates instead of slandering Joseph, etc.” If the <i>Midrash</i> is correct, it is strange that they were not jailed many years previously. Perhaps one could say that though both the cupbearer and the chief baker committed a variety of sins against their king much earlier, the identity of these sinners had not been discovered until much later so that they were not jailed until Joseph had already been in jail for nine years.
  
     מקץ, <i>Rashi</i>, following Onkelos, translates this as “at the end.” The reason he interprets the word as meaning “at the end,” is so we should not misunderstand its meaning to be “at the beginning,” as in Deut. 14,28 מקצה שלש שנים, where it means “the beginning of the third year.”
  
     שנתים ימים, “two years;” seeing that the word שנתים means “two years,” why did the Torah add the superfluous ימים “years?” Some commentators explain this as meaning that here the Torah speaks of solar years instead of lunar years, as in ימים תהיה גאולתו, “it is to be redeemed within a year.” (lunar year of 12 months.) (Leviticus 25,29). This is supported by the words עד מלאת לו שנה תמימה, “until he has completed a full year” (Leviticus 25,30) Other commentators understand the phrase as referring to two of three ימים that Joseph spoke of in interpreting the dreams of the cupbearer and chief baker.
  
     ופרעה חלם, “and Pharaoh had a dream.” The prefix letter ו at the beginning of the word ופרעה, is an oblique confirmation of the statement by our sages that G’d does not set in motion an important sequence of events without first consulting with the Heavenly Tribunal and revealing it to His prophets. Joseph, supposedly, also dreamt Pharaoh’s dream. We are therefore encouraged to treat this paragraph as a continuation of the preceding one by means of this letter ו, although on the face of it, it would appear to introduce something not connected to what immediately preceded it. [the Talmud does not include Joseph in its list of 48 prophets and 7 prophetesses. Ed.]
  
     והנה עומד על היאור, “and here he was standing over the river (Nile)” According to <i>Rashi</i> no other river has ever been referred to as יאור.
      Nachmanides disagrees, saying that the river Tigris has also been described as יאור as we know from Daniel 12,6 where the word יאור cannot refer to the Nile but must refer to the Tigris. We also find that Onkelos translates the word יאור simply as נהרא, “river.” If it were a designation that applies exclusively to the river Nile, Onkelos could not have chosen the word נהרא to describe it. The word יאור is a derivative of the word אור, light, and we also find the word אור describing גשם, rain. (Job, 37,11 יפיץ ענן אורו, “the cloud spreads its rain). <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i>, 26,7 (quoting Rabbi Yochanan) states that wherever in the Book of Job, Elihu speaks of אור, he refers to rainfall. Perhaps this is all connected to the vapours rising from the streams and rivers, eventually producing rain. [the author must consider the “atmosphere” as another term describing light in the sense of daylight (seeing that we have daylight even when the sun does not shine, and as proof he considers the rainbow as part of this “atmosphere.” [Seeing that the author engages in speculation, I have added my own so as to make his speculation more plausible sounding, even if not scientifically correct. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   הנה מן היאור עולות שבע פרות, “and here seven cows were rising from the river.” Seeing that the Egyptians drink the waters of the Nile, and that river is the key to their enjoying a bountiful harvest or famine, the cows in Pharaoh’s dream are portrayed as “rising from out of the river.” The cows themselves symbolize beasts working the land, whereas the kernels in the second part of the dream portray the eventual harvest. Had Pharaoh only been shown cows in his dream, one might have been tempted to understand them as symbols of nations which Egypt would subjugate. This is why also the kernels were included in his dream. On the other hand, if Pharaoh had been shown only the kernels this would not have sufficed as the repetition of the dream was vital for its proper interpretation.
      Nachmanides writes that the phenomenon of extra-ordinarily bountiful harvests for seven consecutive years which Joseph predicted was experienced only in Egypt and not in the surrounding countries. This is why the Torah emphasizes (verse 29) שבע גדול בכל ארץ מצרים, great abundance of food in the whole land of Egypt.” The famine predicted by Joseph, however, included all the surrounding countries, all the trading partners of Egypt. Seeing that the seven good years occurred only in Egypt accounted for the fact that the surrounding countries had not laid in any supplies of non perishable food in anticipation of the famine to come.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ותעמודנה אצל הפרות, “they were standing next to, etc.” They stood right next to one another, as a sign that there would be not much interval between the seven good years and the famine following. Although Pharaoh had not even bothered to tell Joseph this detail (compare verses 18-20) There were sufficient hints in the story (his dream) as Pharaoh related it to Joseph to convince Joseph that the years of plenty would be immediately followed by the years of famine. The way the starved looking cows swallowed the fat cows leaving no trace of even having ingested them, alerted Joseph to the detail hinted at by the Torah’s report of the dream.
  
     ותאכלנה הפרות, “the cows devoured, etc.;” this was an indication that the years of famine would completely neutralize the blessing of the seven good years; it alerted Joseph to the need to forestall this disaster by collecting non perishable food and storing it so it could be easily accessed when the time came. He impressed upon Pharaoh the need for draconian measures in order to ensure that the years of drought would not destabilize the country and his rule on the throne. Joseph’s advice to Pharaoh does not commence until when he suggests collecting and storing the surplus food of the seven good years. <i>Rashi</i> (verse 30) is not correct when he explains the manner in which the good years will be forgotten as part of Joseph’s advice. Joseph, concluding from the unchanged appearance of the starved looking cows that the impact of the seven good years would be forgotten, makes this part of this explanation to Pharaoh.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  צומחות אחריהן, “were growing forth after them.” Pharaoh did not actually see these kernels growing in his dream. They were already fully grown when they appeared in his dream. The language used was only meant to show the fact that the good kernels were followed immediately by the windblown ones. The windblown kernels are not described as having all grown on a single stalk, suggesting that each successive one was forecasting that the famine would get worse from year to year
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ותבלענה, “they devoured, etc.;” use of the word ותאכלנה has been avoided by the Torah here. The reason is that this word is inappropriate for kernels which were the subject in our verse, as opposed to verse 4 where the consuming of cows is described as their being “eaten,” ותאכלנה. The word ותבלענה is parallel to כבלע את הקודש in Numbers In practice, the windblown kernels grew and enclosed the good ones until the latter were as if they had never existed.
      Some commentators understand the word ותבלענה as literally meaning that the windblown kernels devoured their healthy counterparts. If so, the expression בליעה instead of אכילה, needs further elaboration.
      On the words וייקץ פרעה והנה חלום at the end of our verse, <i>Rashi</i> comments that the Torah merely indicates that this was the end of the dream
      Nachmanides writes that the Torah informs us that Pharaoh was preoccupied with his dream even after having awakened, i.e. realizing that what he had seen was not reality. He was wondering whether he would have a third dream that might enable him to make sense of the first two images. When he finally arose in the morning without having had an additional dream, he became very agitated. This is why the Torah continues with: “it was in the morning, and he proceeded to call in the necromancers of Egypt and all its wise men.” This is quite different from what we are told in Daniel 2,1 about Nevuchdnezzar’s dream. That King’s anxiety is described as ותתפעם רוחו, a more intense kind of agitation and trepidation than that which bothered Pharaoh. Nevuchadnezzar called in the potential interpreters still in the middle of the night, not waiting until a normal hour in the morning.
  
     והנה חלום, “and, behold, it had only been a dream.” From the use of the singular “a dream,” although Pharaoh had seen two distinctly separate visions in his dream, the Torah hints that he himself realized that it had all been part of a single dream, as Joseph was to confirm to him later. The words ואין פותר אותם לפרעה, mean that not even a single one of the necromancers and the wise men had suggested interpretation that appealed to Pharaoh.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ותפעם רוחו, “his mind was agitated.” He had not forgotten what he had dreamt, as had Nevuchadnezzar. There had been no need for Nevuchadnezzar at the time to recall what he had dreamt as it foreshadowed events long in the future, and no one would have believed Daniel’s interpretation; he was not promoted to a position of prominence on account of his coming up with the interpretation but because he had been able to tell the king what he had dreamt, something the king had been unable to recall until reminded by Daniel. (Daniel chapter 2) In our situation here, it was enough for Joseph to offer the dream’s meaning, as he placed its realization as beginning almost immediately.
      Some commentators claim that the reason Joseph was believed was precisely because the dream had not been forgotten. Had it been forgotten, any reconstruction of the dream by an interpreter would have to rely on the words of the interpreter, as no one could know if he spoke the truth. 
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   את חטאי, “my sins, etc.” he used the plural form in describing his sin, as he had also been guilty of forgetting the promise he had made to Joseph, something he should have kept at once. 
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   פרעה קצף, “Pharaoh had been angry, etc.” It is bad form to call the king by his name, hence one refers to him in the third person even while in his presence. The word “Pharaoh” is not a proper name but a title accorded to the ruler of Egypt.
  
     אותי ואת שר האופים, “me and the chief of the bakers.” Although the cupbearer had already said ויתן אותי, “he placed me, etc.”, he repeated the words אותי ואת שר האופים, omitting the reference to the jail being under the control of the chief executioner, so that it meant that he and the chief of the bakers were in the same part of the jail together. Had they not been treated alike in the jail, Joseph’s prediction of freedom for one and death for the other would not have been remarkable. The fact that these two ministers were assigned the same part of the jail made Joseph’s prediction doubly remarkable. Joseph realized that one of the two had not committed a crime that would qualify for the death penalty.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   אותי השיב על כני, “me he restored to my position,” according to the plain meaning the word השיב refers to Pharaoh as being the one who restored the cupbearer to his former position. Other commentators consider Joseph as the subject of the word השיב, seeing that we have a tradition that the words of the interpreter determine the meaning of the dream, (<i>Berachot 55)</i> i.e. that Joseph’s interpretation set in motion the release of the cupbearer. Accordingly, Joseph had held the fate of both the chief of the bakers and the cupbearer in his hands when he offered his interpretation.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ויריצוהו מן הבור, “they rushed him from the pit.” In view of the earlier statement that Joseph had the run of the whole jail, and that the warden did not interfere with anything he did, (39,21-23) it sounds strange that Joseph had to be rushed from “the pit.” We may assume that when the warden heard that Pharaoh had sent for Joseph, he did not know if this portended something positive or negative. In the event that it spelled doom for Joseph, the warden did not want to appear as if he had favoured a prisoner slated for execution. Therefore, upon receiving the king’s summons, the warden first placed Joseph into the pit appropriate for all the other prisoners. In retrospect this was most appropriate, as it means that Joseph who had been incarcerated in a pit before the warden decided to make use of his intelligence, would now rise overnight from the lowest of the low to the second highest office in the world, i.e. viceroy to Pharaoh the world’s most powerful ruler. The fact that Pharaoh had exhausted all other means of having his dream interpreted satisfactorily, also contributed to the almost unbelievable reversal of his fortune. 
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   בלעדי, אלוקי יענה את שלום פרעה, “this is not up to me; may G’d provide a reply which will put Pharaoh’s mind at rest.” Ibn Ezra says that seeing Pharaoh had asked Joseph to interpret the dream, Joseph told him that the interpretation was not up to him, but that it was up to G’d. He was confident that G’d would put Pharaoh’s mind at rest when he would hear the interpretation.
      One could also understand Joseph’s words to simply mean that there is a greater interpreter of dreams than he, namely G’d, with whom the dream originated. He wished and prayed that G’d would put Pharaoh’s mind at rest. Seeing that Joseph had given G’d credit by prefacing his interpretation with the word בלעדי, “it is not up to me,” this word is repeated when Pharaoh appoints him to high office and adds that without Joseph’s approval, בלעדיך, “without your (approval) no one will lift a foot in this country. (verse 44).”
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   צנומות, according to <i>Rashi</i> the word means, “stone-hard,” meaning that it is completely dried out from seed as translated by Onkelos. נצן לקין.
      Nachmanides questions how one can speak of נץ when the subject is kernels, a stage when נצים, blossoms, have long disappeared. Pharaoh had not seen any of these growing stalks of grain in a stage of budding, blossoming. He had only seen them after their growing process had been completed and the kernels were either full and healthy looking, or dried out, windblown, proof of harvest failure. Therefore, he explains the word צנומות to mean “split open into many small sections”. A similar word is commonly used to describe bread which has shrunk due to being dried out, פת צנומה. Such bread remains are sometimes placed in a bowl, so that when mixed with milk or some other liquid it can be made edible again. The word נצן is also understood as meaning something hollow, empty, lacking earth, i.e. the word is the opposite of מלאה, full. The husks were not full of wheat kernels as they should have been.
      When the Torah reports the dream objectively, [not as remembered by Pharaoh, Ed.] it said of Pharaoh והנה עומד על היאור, “and here he was standing above the river.” When Pharaoh relates the dream to Joseph, he does not describe himself as having stood above the river, but as having stood on the banks of the river, על שפת היאור. This was Pharaoh’s way of paying tribute to the river which was the mainstay of Egypt’s economy, so much so that Pharaoh worshipped the river as a deity. Describing himself as “standing above the river,” would have been an insult to the river in Pharaoh’s eyes. This consideration also explains why in the Torah’s report, both the good cows and the starved-looking cows are described as “rising from the river,” whereas in Pharaoh’s report the good cows are described as “rising from the river,” whereas the poorly looking cows are simply described as “following behind them,” and no mention is made of the word “the river.” The river must not be perceived as the origin of anything negative. It is always a source of blessing in the eyes of those who worship it as a deity. Pharaoh also described the appearance of the good cows as “of healthy flesh and of well formed shape,” whereas the Torah’s report describes them as “of beautiful appearance and healthy flesh,” in that order. We find similar minor variations in the description by Pharaoh of the poorly looking animals, and the objective description by the Torah of the same phenomenon. Joseph points out to Pharaoh that he had not told him precisely what he had seen, but had given him an edited version. Nonetheless, he says,” it is all one dream,” [even if you have tried to confuse me by not relating it accurately, Ed.] The interpretation of the dream, i.e. what it portends, is not affected by the changes you have made in how you related it. When Pharaoh heard that Joseph had first hand knowledge of his dream not from his mouth but from a higher source, he was dumbfounded and convinced that he had truly received a message from G’d, one that had required a man of Joseph’s caliber to reveal its meaning to him.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   יהיו שבע שני רעב, “will be seven years of famine.” Joseph commenced his interpretation by mentioning the famine which it predicted, although in the dream the seven good years appeared first. He did so, seeing that Egypt was a land blessed with an abundant food supply, one which was taken for granted by its citizenry, and therefore mentioning it first would not have served as a warning signal. After all, G’d would not have sent Pharaoh a message advising him that seven good years were in store for his country. The principal message of the dream was to beware of the forthcoming famine and not to be lulled into a false sense of security by the seven good years. Another reason why Joseph zeroed in on the seven years of famine was that the accuracy of his interpretation could not be ascertained until then. Nobody would have cheered Joseph for predicting seven years of plenty.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ועל השנות החלום אל פרעה פעמים, “and concerning the basically same dream having been sent to Pharaoh twice, etc.” Actually, the dream had been repeated in a different variation only once, so why did Joseph speak of it having been repeated twice?
      Nachmanides explains that Joseph referred to it having been repeated a second time during the same night, not on successive nights, as is the custom with dreams that are intended to impress the dreamer with their message. G’d could have let Pharaoh have the dream with the cows on one night, and repeated it with the dream about the kernels on the following night, making two dreams of it. The fact that G’d did not wait, and let Pharaoh receive both parts of the message in the same night, was a sign that whatever the dream portended would occur in the immediate future. 
      An alternate meaning could be that Joseph meant the changes Pharaoh had made in his dream when telling him, i.e. השנות from שנוי, change, and Joseph’s ability to detect that Pharaoh had made such changes, was proof that Joseph had interpreted the dream correctly. 
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   ירא פרעה איש נבון, “let Pharaoh see (find) a man of insight and understanding, etc.” a leader who is able to run the state in a manner which will assure adequate bread for each of its citizens in accordance with the size of their respective families, dependents. He should also possess חכמה, the wisdom to store and preserve the surplus of the good years so that they would not rot before the seven years of famine commenced. Clearly, this would not be a task for a single individual but would require a number of officials, פקידים, for each region of Egypt. Joseph intended that he should be the man Pharaoh would appoint, that is why he defined the job in a manner that fitted his proven qualifications.
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   וחמש את ארץ מצרים, “and divide Egypt into 5 regions;” some claim that the meaning is that Pharaoh should impose a 20% tax, payable in produce,” this tax to be used as food storage in anticipation of the years of famine. Pharaoh would use the accumulated quantity to distribute seed to the farmers for planting. In return, Pharaoh would own one firth of the soil of Egypt in perpetuity.
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   אוכל בערים, “food in the cities, etc.,” so that it need not be brought from a distant central depot. This would also have the psychological advantage of putting local residents’ mind at rest if they knew there was a local food storage depot nearby.
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
   הנמצא כזה?, “can someone like this one be found elsewhere?” The reason why Pharaoh felt he needed the consent of his ministers before appointing Joseph to such a position was the well-known animosity harboured by Egyptians generally against any Hebrew (Mesopotamians). The appointment to a position with such wide-ranging powers was something extraordinary even if Joseph had not been a slave and a Hebrew to boot.
  
  
  Verse 39
  
   אחרי הודיע אלוקים אותך כל זאת, “seeing that G’d has informed you of all these details, etc.” Pharaoh refers to the fact that Joseph’s interpretation of his dream seemed so amazingly logical and believable, so much so that it appeared to the listener as if it had already come true; It is also possible that Pharaoh referred also to the previous interpretation Joseph had given to the cupbearer, so that the words כל זאת seem amply justified. 
  
     אין נבון וחכם כמוך, “there is no one as wise and understanding as you.” In this instance the attribute נבון is mentioned before the attribute חכם, whereas in Deuteronomy 4,6 the nations of the world as described as describing the Jewish people as חכם ונבון, i.e. in the reverse order of these attributes. In this instance, insight was the first attribute required in order to understand the dream, whereas wisdom was required in order to deal with the challenge presented by fulfillment of the dream. When it comes to understanding words of Torah, the first requirement is חכמה, a certain amount of common sense, before one penetrates below the surface of what the text conveys to us.
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  על פיך ישק כל עמי , “and by your word will all my people be fed.” Some commentators understand this to mean that no one will be allowed to bear arms, נשק, without Joseph’s approval. Others understand the verse literally, in the sense of נשק meaning “to kiss.” It would then mean that the whole population would pay homage to Joseph by kissing his hand.
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
   ויסר פרעה את טבעתו, “Pharaoh removed his (signet) ring;” having this ring in one’s possession was proof of one’s high office, a position which enabled the holder to neutralize any decree or legislation by withholding his stamp.
  
  
  Verse 43
  
   במרכבת המשנה, according to <i>Rashi</i> this is a reference to the carriage traveling immediately behind that of Pharaoh himself, the second most important one in the kingdom. משנה therefore refers to someone known.
      Nachmanides writes that the word משנה is an adjective, defining the rank of the carriage, as in the expression כהני המשנה, or משנה התורה הזאת, or משנה למלך, “second in rank after the king.” Here it would describe the carriage reserved for the king’s deputy. Another carriage was known as the first alternative, and yet another as the third alternative.
  
     ויקראו לפניו 'אברך!', ”they would call out on his approach “bend your knees!” Everyone within range would have to bend down at the approach of Joseph’s carriage. Alternatively, the word is not derived from ברך, knee, but from ברכה blessing, and would mean that the people within sight of Joseph’s carriage passing were required to bless him.
  
  
  Verse 44
  
   אני פרעה, “I am the nominal ruler, Pharaoh;” Pharaoh meant that seeing every ruler of Egypt was named Pharaoh to indicate his rank, henceforth the only reminder of his rank would be his name. He would be king in name only.
  
  
  Verse 45
  
   ויקרא פרעה שם יוסף צפנת פענח, “Pharaoh named Joseph Tzofnat paneach, “the one who reveals what was hidden.” It was customary to give special names to the king’s ministers, names that related to their office, their accomplishments, etc. We find that Daniel was renamed Belteshezzar when appointed to office (Daniel 1,6).
  
     ויתן לו את אסנת בת פוטיפרע...לאשה, “He gave him Ossnat, daughter of Potiphera as a wife.” He did not give him as a wife the daughter of a member of the Egyptian political hierarchy, but the daughter of Potiphar, Joseph’s former master. This was a politically inspired move, designed to stifle any protest movement that might be sparked by Potiphar resenting that his former slave had now become the economic czar of the empire, with power over life and death. Seeing that he made Joseph Potiphar’s son-in-law by this astute maneuver, he was certain that the former master would now boast about being Joseph’s father-in-law.
      <i>
      Rashi</i> also agrees that the man called here Potiphera, was the one that used to be Joseph’s master and is known to us as Potiphar. The name change reflects that he had become castrated. The description by the Torah of the position of this man as “the priest of On,” prompted <i>Rashi</i> to give this commentary, as the word און is an expression of “greatness, strength,” as we know from Yaakov describing his first born son Reuven as ראשית אוני, “the first product of my virility” (Genesis 49,3). In his capacity as the chief executioner, Potiphar occupied a position of power.
      Nachmanides writes that the attribute כהן און, indicates that as a result of his castration Potiphar felt very embarrassed and decided to devote the rest of his life to a monk-like existence in a Temple, far from the eyes of the world. It is quite possible that the word “On” is the designation given to the specific deity whom Potiphar worshipped as a priest. The description of Yitro as כהן מדין, similarly describes the deity that Yitro used to serve in his position of priest. Our sages illustrate this when they said that he would offer fatted calves to this deity. (compare <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> Judges 1) Some commentators claim that Potiphar took refuge in a monastery out of fear that Joseph would revenge himself on him for having thrown him into jail.
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  ויצא יוסף , “Joseph went forth.” This refers to Joseph’s reputation which spread all over the land. The word ויצא is used in a similar context in Ezekiel 16,14 ויצא לך שם בגוים, “your fame went forth among the nations.” Alternately, Joseph went on a whirlwind tour of Egypt, a country that he had been totally unfamiliar with up until then. 
  
  
  Verse 47
  
   לקמצים, “by the handful.” <i>Rashi</i> translates it as “handful over handful.” Other commentators understand this as what the farmers did with the crop, i.e. they hoarded and stashed it away in anticipation of the eventual famine.
      Onkelos understands the expression as meaning “to store underground,” in line with excavations in the earth which are performed in order to store and preserve valuables, which are referred to as קומצין in Yonathan ben Uziel on our verse. [the Hebrew קומץ, i.e. the hollow of the hand enclosed by the middle three fingers, is also used in Aramaic as describing hollow areas, such as holes in excavated earth. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 48
  
   ויקבוץ את כל אכל, “he collected all the (surplus) food, etc.” Ibn Ezra is quick to point out that Joseph, of course, did not collect all the food, for had he done so the people would have died. The word כל is not always to be understood literally, as for instance in Genesis 41,56 וכל הארץ באו מצרימה, where it does not mean that the population of entire surrounding countries all came to Egypt. 
      Nachmanides writes that Joseph first collected all the harvest, and released it in the form of rations per family. This is the meaning of the verse 41,35 “let them gather all the produce of the good years that are now coming and stockpile grain under Pharaoh’s authority, etc.” According to this verse, when the time came, Joseph collected every kind of crop including dried fruit, in order to have a stockpile and to prevent waste, [and eventual profiteering. Ed.] It is quite possible that Joseph paid cash to the farmers who handed in their crops in order to encourage them not to hold out on him. By doing this, the entire crop became legally Pharaoh’s, and was not only on loan to him. When the time came, Pharaoh could charge a higher price when the Egyptians bought it back, as no doubt prices had risen considerably by then, driven by international demand.
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
   וליוסף יולד שני בנים בטרם תבא שנת הרעב, “And two children had been born for Joseph before the years of famine commenced.” From this verse our sages learned that it is forbidden for a person to indulge in marital relations during a famine. This raises the question how Levi could have ignored this ban [in effect already during the deluge in the ark, Ed.] since we have a tradition that Yocheved was not born until the family of Yaakov had reached the boundary of Egypt. Whence would Levi have known when the famine would end, and when the family would be moving to Egypt where the family would be amply provided for? We must assume that Joseph knew that his father’s family was not personally affected by the famine; besides Jews do not need to refrain from practicing reproduction only because the gentiles are short of food. If Joseph did refrain from indulging in marital relations it was because as a member of the Egyptian nation he had to share their hardship and be seen to do so. Moreover, at the beginning of the famine Joseph had no idea if his father was personally affected by the famine, so that he was duty bound to share the hardships endured by other members of his own family.
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
   ויהי רעב בכל הארצות, “The famine was in all the countries, etc.” The Torah refers to all the countries bordering on Egypt. The famine most certainly did not spread world wide, for if it had been that widely spread, most human beings would have perished by it.
  
  
  Verse 55
  
  
  
  Verse 56
  
   וישבר למצרים, “he sold to the Egyptians.” This means that he first sold to the Egyptians before selling to foreigners.
  
  
  Verse 57
  
   כי חזק הרעב, “for the famine had become very severe.” Joseph did not start selling until the famine had really become severe, He did not sell because the people had come to Pharaoh to complain, but because he convinced himself that the shortages had become real, and they did not hoard their private stocks. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וירא יעקב, “Yaakov saw, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that seeing that the origin of the 5 senses, hearing, seeing, smelling, etc., are all located next to one another, as we know from when Yitzchok spoke about ראה ריח בני, “Look, the smell of my son, etc.” (Genesis 27,27) [He referred to the pleasant sensation of light, a sensation as pleasant as a pleasant fragrance. Ed] seeing he himself was already blind at the time. The names of the senses themselves may on occasion be used interchangeably, so that in our verse the true meaning of the word וירא is: “he heard,” as we know from Yaakov’s own lips in the very next verseהנה שמעתי כי יש שבר במצרים, “here I have heard that there is food for sale in Egypt.” If he had already “seen” it in the literal sense of the word, why would he have to repeat: “I have heard,” a far less reliable source of information?
  
     למה תתראו?, “Why are you looking so irresolute?” According to <i>Rashi,</i> Yaakov rebuked his sons for giving the impression to the surrounding people that they had so much food stored up that they could afford to sit still without traveling to Egypt to try and supplement their supplies.
      Nachmanides writes that the words quoted here by the Torah as Yaakov having addressed to the brothers, were said to them in the presence of Ishmaelites and Edomites, make little sense, as why would Ishmaelites and Edomites be in the land of Canaan in the first place? Furthermore, if <i>Rashi</i> means that Yaakov admonished his sons in public (for show) why did <i>Rashi</i> not mention that he did so in front of the local inhabitants? He would certainly have had reason to do so in order not to arouse the jealousy of his neighbours! Had that impression been allowed to spread, all his neighbours would have invited themselves to eat at Yaakov’s table! He therefore instructed them to go down to Egypt in order to preserve the food supply they still had. Then he told them to buy additional supplies in order to forestall death through hunger after their supplies ran out.
      Alternately, the word תתראו, is short for למה תתראו במקום זה “why do you display such indecision by remaining here, instead of getting going to buy supplies?” “You should have started to move as soon as you heard that grain was for sale in Egypt.” Yaakov and family already found themselves in imminent danger of starvation.
      Some commentators understand the rebuke as “why do you quarrel as to who is to go to Egypt to buy food, I want all of you to go.” Yet another interpretation of the question למה תתראו, views it as a rebuke of their acting as if it were below their dignity to personally go to Egypt like the common people and to beg to be allowed to buy grain there. After all, they were the elite of “Canaanite” Society, akin to aristocracy! Their indecision was reinforced by their reluctance to send others on their behalf and to subject these others to the potential dangers of the journey.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   הוא המשביר לכל עם הארץ. “He was the seller of grain to the entire population of Egypt.” It sounds extremely strange that the viceroy, and de facto ruler of such an empire, should personally engage in grain sales, and in retail quantities at that! This is why some commentators understand the expression as that Joseph gave the order to open his silos for public sales of grain.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, Joseph personally, checked out all the travelers from foreign countries who had come to the border in order to buy grain in the land of Egypt. He instructed his officials how much to sell to any city, etc. When the sons of Yaakov arrived at the boundary of Egypt, they represented a delegation empowered to buy on behalf of their whole region.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויתנכר להם, “he misrepresented himself to them.” According to<i> Rashi,</i> the word is derived from נכרי, “stranger, alien.”     Nachmanides explains that as soon as Joseph spotted his brothers and recognized them, he was afraid that they in turn might recognize him; this is why he disguised himself with a different type of turban, one which covered most of his forehead; or, he disguised his manner of speech including his stern demeanor, so that they would not be alerted to his true identity. This is why he subjected them to the third degree kind of interview, acting as if they had been the first people ever to come from Canaan to buy grain. From their answers he became progressively more certain that they were indeed, his brothers. This is the reason why the Torah repeats: ”he recognized them.” According to Ibn Ezra, the first statement “he recognized his brothers”, refers to them collectively, whereas after questioning them he recognized each one individually.
  
  Verse 8
  
     והם לא הכירוהו, “but they did not recognize him.” Joseph had left his father’s house before he had grown a beard, and in the meantime his beard had materially changed his facial features. Although we must assume that Issachar and Zevulun who were hardly older than he had also not had a beard at the time when he left his father’s house, the fact that he had identified eight of the ten brothers who had had beards before he left home, made it easy for him to also recognize the other two. Furthermore, he enjoyed the advantage of having known with certainty that his brothers would come to Egypt to buy grain. He therefore kept a special watch for their arrival. The fact that Pharaoh had changed his name also made it more difficult for his brothers to suspect that someone by that name was their brother. In addition, Joseph now spoke Egyptian whereas they spoke Hebrew. 
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויזכור יוסף החלומות אשר חלם להם, “Joseph remembered the dreams he had dreamt concerning them.” According to <i>Rashi,</i> this means that he considered his dreams a having come true.
      Nachmanides not only does not agree, but, on the contrary, he feels that the Torah reports that Joseph’s dreams now revealed themselves to him as not having come true. When Joseph now saw his brothers he recalled all of his dreams and realized that not a single one had come true as yet. According to his interpretation of his dreams, all the brothers would bow down to him, whereas now only ten brothers had done so, something that had not been part of any of his dreams. In his second dream, not only his brothers were shown as bowing down to him. The main reason Joseph accused the brothers as being spies was because Binyamin had not come with them, and he wanted to devise a stratagem whereby at least the first of his dreams would come true henceforth. This is why he insisted on their bringing Binyamin down with them. If he had revealed himself to them already now, fulfillment of his dreams might 
      never occur in accordance with what he had expected. Once the first dream of his had come true, Joseph manipulated things in such a way that the second dream could come true also, by instructing the brothers to move to Egypt, both they, their families and their aged father. If Joseph had not believed that his dreams were meant to be of a prophetic nature, and would come true, he would have been guilty of a grievous sin for not having revealed his whereabouts to his father who was grieving over him all these years. He had also caused Yaakov distress in not having allowed Shimon to return with the brothers on their first trip. Even allowing for the fact that Joseph thought that his brothers deserved some discomfort and worry in return for what they had subjected him to, how could he not have had pity on his father who had been so depressed for all these years, not knowing what had become of him! We can only justify his conduct throughout as an attempt not to preempt what had been decreed. [כל הדוחק את השעה, השעה דוחקת אותו “anyone who tries to pre-empt pre-ordained events= will experience that he himself will be pre-empted by other events to his detriment.” (<i>Berachot</i> 64.) Ed.] It is also possible that a major consideration in Joseph’s conduct was to examine whether the brothers’ hatred of him was based on his being a son of Rachel, jealousy of the sons of Leah on their mother’s behalf, or, whether it had been directed only at him, and he himself had brought it upon himself. To this end, he had them bring Binyamin to Egypt, planted the goblet in his sack to see if the sons of the other wives of Yaakov would now abandon their half brother, the remaining son of Rachel, or if they would all as one close ranks around the supposed “thief.”
      All of Joseph’s considerations were bound up with his exceptional gift of interpreting dreams. If it were not so, it would be most difficult to understand why, even after having attained high office, he still did not inform his father of his whereabouts, and the fact that he was alive. When he had interpreted the dream of Pharaoh successfully and been rewarded accordingly, why did he not at least send a letter to his father? By that time he had had every reason to believe that also his own dreams would come true, including the one in which his father bowed down to him?
  
     מרגלים אתם!, “you are spies!” This was not a trumped up accusation, taken out of thin air. The arrival of Joseph’s brothers through ten different border checkpoints was certainly something suspicious, although the Torah did not bother to spell out this detail in its narrative. When they told Joseph that they were all the sons of one father but had not traveled together, as Joseph knew, this was an incriminating factor. We can reconstruct part of the dialogue between Joseph and his brothers. First they had been found entering through different gates, and then they suddenly claimed to all belong together. Such conduct begs further examination of their true intent. In addition, their garments revealed them to be people of prominence and wealth. Joseph was entitled to wonder why such people subjected themselves to a lengthy journey just to buy grain, instead of leaving this chore to one or more of their many servants. It is also possible that the brothers were among the first grain shoppers from the land of Canaan, and this prompted Joseph to question them more thoroughly than travelers arriving later.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   כלנו בני איש אחד, “we are all the sons of the same father.” They answered the question why all of them had come, saying that they were brothers, and that their father did not want them to separate from one another. It is also possible that they answered that the reason why they had all come was due to the severity of the famine, and their fear that Joseph would sell only to one family head at a time. Moreover, had they sent their servants, they could not be sure that these servants would not sell of part of the purchase at higher prices to people who had not taken the trouble to journey to Egypt. The brothers may even have assumed a provocative posture, telling Joseph that he could examine them minutely as they were so sure of being upright and that they were well known as such in their hometown, in Chevron.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   כי אם בבוא אחיכם הנה, “unless your other brother comes here.” The reason Joseph was not suspecting them of bringing some other individual, claiming that he was their brother, was that all ten of them had features which showed unmistakably that they were closely related to one another.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויאסוף אותם אל משמר, “he put all of them together in jail.” This was intended to instill fear in them. He also wanted to demonstrate that he was a G’d-fearing individual so that when he eventually released all but one of them it was so that their families should not suffer hunger and deprivation merely because of a suspicion he had that they were spies. He also wanted to see if they would leave one of them as a hostage. Seeing that they would not agree to this voluntarily, he first jailed all of them.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   אשר ראינו צרת נפשו בהתחננו אלינו, “when we saw the anguish of his soul when he pleaded with us, etc.” Although the Torah had not written about this, it is impossible to imagine that Joseph did not plead for mercy with his brothers when they threw him into the pit. The Torah condensed the scene in order not to unnecessarily portray the brothers as heartless monsters.
  
     ולא שמענו, “and we did not listen.” They now realized that their cruelty deserved harsh punishment, much more so than the sale of him to the Ishmaelites. Reuven told them that he had already told them at the time not to become guilty of a sin against the “child.” Reuven had argued that Joseph’s conduct stemmed from youthful immaturity, and not from a thirst for power over his brothers. Now, they are being paid back by G’d not only for their cruelty, but also for his death, i.e. “his blood.” In G’d’s eyes, although they had not killed him with their hands, they had still been the cause of his death. He had probably not been able to perform the duties a slave has to perform just because he had been physically still a child.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויקח מהם את שמעון, “he took Shimon away from them.” Actually, he should have taken Reuven, seeing that he was the oldest. Usually, the oldest is taken as hostage for the younger ones. Seeing that it had been Reuven who had saved him from imminent death at the time, Joseph kept Shimon as hostage.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   ויפתח האחד את שקו, “the one opened his sack;” Noachmanides writes that the emphasis on האחד, “the one,” means that the other brothers did not bother, at that stage, to open their sacks and to examine their contents. They waited till they had arrived back at their father’s house. Perhaps the reason why this one brother opened his sack (the one containing fodder) may have been that his donkey was relatively weak and needed something more than straw to keep up its strength. 
      Onkelos who translated the word אמתחת as טוענא, a carrying bag, wants to tell us that the most commonly used container to carry and transport loads was called שק, sack, whereas containers containing personal effects, such as are carried in briefcases nowadays, were called אמתחת, travel bag. Well to do travelers frequently had several of the latter. Sometimes these travel bags were also used to balance the loads carried in sacks. It was therefore surprising to find one’s money in a sack intended to carry grain, rather than in one of the travel bags. In our example the אמתחת appears to have been carried inside the sack of grain, at the op of it, as a security precaution, maybe. The very term אמתחת may imply that this bag had compartments, and that different objects would be enclosed in different compartments.
      A simpler explanation is that the brother who opened his sack did so in order to give fodder to all their donkeys.
      My father, blessed be his memory, the רא'ש, says that the brother referred to as “the one,” was Levi, who though normally inseparable from Shimon, was now “alone,” seeing Shimon had been detained by Joseph in Egypt. Seeing that Levi was leading two donkeys, his own and that of his brother Shimon, as he already had occasion to dip more deeply into the sack of Shimon, he found the money at the bottom. The other brothers, each of whom had only one donkey to feed, had not yet had to dip so deeply into their sacks. 
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   שנים עשר אנחנו בני אבינו, “we are altogether twelve sons of our father.” When repeating their conversation with Joseph to their father, they were careful to omit the word עבדיך, “your servants,” which they had used then, and which unwittingly included their father in their reference to their being his servants. Had they not omitted mentioning this, their father could have accused them of already having described Binyamin as Joseph’s servant, also, and thereby admitting that he had the right to demand Binyamin’s presence the next time they came to Egypt.
  
     האחד איננו, והקטן את אבינו היום, “the one is no longer, and the youngest is with his father at this time.” When addressing Joseph they had presented the situation in reverse order, i.e. הקטן את אבינו היום והאחד איננו. The reason why they did not repeat the conversation to their father verbatim, each word in its proper sequence, was because the very manner in which they presented the situation made Joseph ask, justifiably, “if the youngest is at home, where is the other brother who is unaccounted for at this time?” By slightly misrepresenting the conversation they had had with Joseph, they managed to portray him as overly inquisitive without their having given him any cause for this.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   ואת הארץ תסחרו, “and then you may freely wheel and deal in the land.” Although we cannot find that Joseph had said these words to them, they may be justifiably inferred from the tenor of their interview with, or interrogation by Joseph. Sometimes the Torah abbreviates its narrative of events.
      Alternately, the brothers may have misquoted Joseph for the sake of family harmony, in order to secure their father’s permission to let Binyamin go to Egypt with them on their next journey, as it was their intention to return to Egypt immediately in order to secure the release of their brother Shimon. At that point they did not spell out that Shimon had not been detained as an honoured guest but as a prisoner, as they were sure this would be an additional reason for Yaakov not to risk Binyamin by allowing them to take him along. [it is interesting to see how the Torah draws attention to the fact that at the beginning the brothers did not even tell their father that Shimon was imprisoned. In verse 29 the Torah had said that the brothers reported to their father all that had happened to them in Egypt. When detailing this, the imprisonment of Shimon is not mentioned, begging the question why the brothers did not include this in their report. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
   ויאמר ראובן אל אביו, “Reuven then said to his father, etc.” The reason why Reuven spoke up first was because he had not had a part in the sale of Joseph. 
  
     את שני בני תמית, “you may kill my two sons, etc.” some commentators who cannot believe that Reuven could make such a statement, [as it is commonly understood, Ed.] prefer to understand the word תמית as a feminine mode of the future tense, meaning “may be killed by a force which is feminine, i.e. מגפה, a plague.” 
      Nachmanides understands what Reuven said as similar to when Yehudah said that if he would fail to bring Binyamin back alive and well that he would consider himself as remaining guilty of a sin against his father for the remainder of his life (both on earth and beyond) (43,9). Reuven chose different words to convey a similar meaning, i.e. “you would be morally entitled to kill two of my sons if I were to fail you so tragically as not to bring him back alive and well.” Even though Reuven had four sons, he meant to tell his father that the loss of one son, Binyamin, would be tantamount to he, Reuven, losing two of his sons. Yaakov did not reject Reuven’s offer because he considered him foolish and rash, but he placed more confidence in Yehudah’s ability and personality. Yehudah had waited with applying pressure to his father until their food supplies had almost run out, and his refusal would put the whole family at risk.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   נרדה ונשברה, “let us go down and buy grain, etc.” The extra letters ה at the end of נרדה and נשברה respectively, are meant to indicate that the brothers were willing to travel to Egypt repeatedly in order to buy supplies, but that they would not even go a single time unless Yaakov now sent Binyamin with them.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   מעט צרי ומעט דבש, “a little balsam and a little honey.” In order that you should not give the impression that you are wealthy.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ושלח לכם את אחיכם אחר, “so that he will release your other brother to you.” According to <i>Bereshit Rabbah, 82</i> the word אחיכם in our verse refers to Joseph, whereas the word אחר refers to Shimon, seeing that while praying, Yaakov had avoided concentrating on a specific one of the brothers, thus leaving open the possibility that Joseph might still be alive. 
      Nachmanides, approaching the verse by concentrating on the plain text, פשט, writes that the words are all meant to apply to Shimon. The reason that Yaakov did not refer to him by name was that he was out of favour on account of his having initiated the killing of the male population of the city of Shechem and the plundering of it. It seems clear that if Shimon’s family had not needed bread desperately, Yaakov would not have allowed Binyamin to travel to Egypt and he would have made no attempt to obtain his release at this time.
      <i>Bereshit Rabbah 82</i> also sees allusions to the eventual exile in this verse, and when Yaakov speaks about the “G’d Shaddai invoking the attribute of mercy when the brothers would face the האיש,” this is a veiled reference to the Almighty. After all, one of the attributes of G’d is that He is איש מלחמה, “a Man of war.” The words ושלח לכם את אחיכם would refer to the return from exile of the lost Ten Tribes, whereas the words אחר ואת בנימיןrefer to the tribes of Binyamin and Yehudah. The words ואני כאשר שכולתי שכלתיrefer to the destruction of the first and the second Temple, respectively. The thrust of the whole episode, according to the <i>Midrash,</i> is that what is being narrated here is a preview of the Jewish historical experience in years to come, i.e. מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, the experiences of our forefathers, the patriarchs and their families, foreshadow the course of Jewish history, and their exile, especially by the descendants of the Edomites.
  
     אני כאשר שכולתי שכלתי, “and as for me, as I have been bereaved, I shall be bereaved.” <i>Rashi</i> comments that what Yaakov meant was that he would feel conditionally bereaved of Binyamin until the brothers’ safe return from Egypt just as he was feeling bereaved concerning Joseph and Shimon.
      Nachmanides writes that Yaakov, resignedly, said that the brothers could not make him feel any more bereaved than the feelings of bereavement he had already experienced and suffered. If fate were to cause him further bereavement, he would not have to come to terms with it as a novel experience.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ולקחת אותנו לעבדים ואת חמורינו, “and you may take us and our donkeys as servants.” They were worried- apparently disproportionately so, about their donkeys, as without their donkeys they had no means of transporting the grain they had bought to the land of Canaan. 
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   בי אדוני, “please Sir;” <i>Rashi</i> understands the word בי as introducing a plea, an entreaty. Nachmanides disagrees, and considers the word as an outcry at being dealt with unjustly. He therefore understands the words as repeating the brother’s viewing the man in charge of Joseph’s residence as his master both in his personal estimation as well as in the estimation of that official himself <i>vis</i>-à-<i>vis</i> others. He describes his own station as well as that of the official; just as the official’s status is after all the king’s servant, so are they..
      Ibn Ezra claims that the Torah chose to record an abbreviated version of the conversation, similar to Samuel ! 25,24 בי אני אדוני העון ותדבר נא, “let the blame be mine, my lord, but let me speak, etc.” Here too, the brothers said: ‘you may do with what you like, etc., but please hear us out.”
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   נתן לכם מטמון, “has given you a treasure;” possibly someone had hidden a treasure in the cushion of his sack, and he kept this in the cellar of his house with other sacks. When he left the house he forgot it so that you have become the beneficiaries.
      Nachmanides writes that Joseph’s official’s words, were intended only to reconcile the brothers to the fact that they had found their original money. Nobody in his right mind could ascribe the fact that all ten brothers had found precisely the same amount of money in each of their sacks to fate. Clearly, someone had deliberately placed those sums of money there. The truth is that anything hidden, concealed, unaccounted for, is called מטמון, the root of the word deriving from טמן, hide, secrete. All the grain buyers kept their money at the bottom of their sacks, and when the seller filled the sacks with grain he would first empty these sacks of the money at the bottom. This was an everyday occurrence at all the markets. Since the grain was sold in units of so many bushels per sack, every sack contained an equal amount of money at the bottom. The seller did not pour the grain into the sacks in the presence of the purchaser, every transaction being based on mutual trust. The queues of purchasers were long, the confusion and pressure considerable, so that the fastest most efficient way had to be devised to serve as many customers per day as was possible. Keeping all this in mind, what the official said to the brothers did not sound quite so implausible. When there were so many people to whom this money could have belonged, and there were no identifying marks on the money, the rule was: “finders keepers.”
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   השלום אביכם?, “is your father well?” Joseph referred to Yaakov.
  
     הזקן, “the old man?” This was a reference to Yitzchok [who had been alive when Joseph had been abducted. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   שלום לעבדך לאבינו, “your servant, our father, is well.” They spoke only about Yaakov seeing that “הזקן” Yitzchok had died during the many years Joseph had been away from home. One does not answer a question dealing with something distressing.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   וירא את בנימין אחיו בן אמו, “when he saw Binyamin, brother by his mother, etc.” Binyamin’s features reminded him of the looks of his mother sufficiently to recognise him by the resemblance. [Binyamin had only been 6-7 years old when Joseph had been sold. Ed.].
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   וישתו וישכרו עמו, “they drank with him and became drunk.” Joseph had planned to make them drunk so that they would not examine their sacks and bags before leaving, as they would be bound to do so as not have anything planted on them as had happened the first time. When they awoke late in the morning, he urged them to make haste and leave.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   כאשר יוכלון שאת, “as much as they could carry.” This means that Joseph gave them more than the rations allowed other purchasers.
  
     וישם כסף איש בפי אמתחתו, “he placed the money of each brother at the top of his travel bag;” in full view of each one of them. He explained to them that his master was aware that they had been dealt with unlawfully and violently, and as compensation, he was returning their purchase money. If he had just put it back as he had done the first time they would have been able to argue when the goblet was found that this was merely a replay of what had happened to them the first time. Now they were aware that the money had been replaced, just as they were aware that their donkeys had been loaded with much more grain each than the first time they had come to Egypt. Their suspicions had therefore been laid to rest completely, and they would be dumbfounded when the goblet would turn up in Binyamin’s travel bag. This could not be explained away as a treasure that was left behind by someone.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   הם יצאו את העיר, לא הרחיקו, “They had left the city, and had not traveled a great distance, etc.” The words את העיר mean the same as מן העיר, from the city. Alternately, the meaning of the phrase is “although they had departed they had not yet traveled far from the city.” The reason was that that the pursuers could not afford to let them get far away before arresting them, as they were known to be brave warriors and once outside the urban area they would simply kill their pursuers in self defense. 
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   הלא זה אשר ישתה אדוני בו?, “is this not the goblet which my master is in the habit of drinking from?” He did not mention the word “goblet” to them, but he described the situation as if they all understood that they collectively had stolen the goblet and it was only a question of who had hidden it amongst his possessions. In their response to the accusation, the brothers said that they had no idea what he was talking about. Why would anyone of them be interested in stealing either silver or gold from the house of the pursuer’s master?
  
     והוא נחש ינחש בו, “and he (Joseph) makes a practice of divining secrets by means of it?” All of Joseph’s diviners and wise men had told him that it was these men who had taken the goblet, and this is the reason why he had pursued them in preference to other possible suspects who had been entertained at his house. Some commentators understand the word בו as referring to this goblet that Joseph himself was in the habit to divine secrets from.
      Ibn Ezra explains that Joseph had used the goblet as a test of the brothers’ honesty, and to this end he had pretended to divine from it and had left it unsupervised to find out who of them would steal it.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   אשר ימצא אתו מעבדיך ומת, “whoever of your servants it will be found with shall die.” They were so certain that none of them had stolen it that they could safely make such a statement as decreeing death on the thief if he were one of them. However, afterwards, when the goblet had been discovered in the travel bag of Binyamin, they no longer mentioned the death penalty but offered themselves collectively as slaves to Joseph. 
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   גם עתה כדבריכם כן הוא, “I also accept your arguments now.” <i>Rashi</i> explains this phrase to mean that although, according to logic, the brothers’ argument makes sense, he, Joseph, would make an additional concession by holding only Binyamin responsible. 
      Nachmanides writes about this that the words:גם עתה, “now also,” are not compatible with <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary. He therefore explains that although, seeing that the brothers had said that they knew nothing about the theft of the goblet, even assuming that Binyamin had stolen it, that he would have accepted their argument and not held them responsible at all. However, seeing they had already tied their fate to that of their younger brother, they had, in effect, punished themselves by volunteering to be slaves to Joseph. If, as they said they knew nothing about all this, they should be free to go, whereas Binyamin is guilty of death. If they did have knowledge of all this, why should only Binyamin be punished by death and not they also? Their suggestion that no one should be punished by death, and they should all become slaves certainly was inappropriate. The words גם עתה refer to the brothers’ original statement that did make sense, namely that the person in whose possession the goblet would be found would deserve to die. The fact that they now changed their opinion about who should be punished and how, only lent support to the suspicion that they had all known about the theft of the goblet. He would therefore do them a favour by reverting to their original suggestion that only the person with whom the goblet had been found would be considered guilty, and would suffer the penalty his own brothers had decreed for him. However, he would not insist on the penalty in full, and be satisfied to keep Binyamin as a slave. Joseph was not interested in the thief dying, but in his making restitution for his thievery, something that would best be achieved through his labour as a slave for Joseph.
      Alternatively, the words כן הוא mean the same as כן יהיה, it shall be thus, i.e. the judgment will not be in accordance with your proposal.
      Some commentators understand the words as a question, expressing surprise. He meant: do you really think that you can get away with a perversion of justice as you now suggest?” “No way, but….” Another approach goes as follows: “I accept your argument that you have proved your honesty by having brought back the money you had found in your sacks. But this argument applies only to nine of you. Binyamin never brought back any money, seeing he had not been here before; neither did Shimon, seeing that he had never left Egypt before. In light of this, I will detain the one with whom the goblet has been found, seeing he had no record of proving his honesty.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויקרעו שמלותם, “they rent their garments, etc.” This was an illustration of the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, that the punishment fits the crime. The brothers having sent the blood-drenched coat of Joseph to their father at the time, had caused their father to rend his garments as a symbol of anguish and mourning. Now these same bothers had occasion to do the same. 
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   האלוקים מצא את עון עבדיך, “the Lord has found out the guilt of your servants.” They did not refer to anything they had been guilty of recently, but to their guilt in having sold their brother 22 years ago. 
  
  Verse 17
  
   הוא יהיה לי עבד, “he shall be my slave.” The word <i>eved</i> should have been vocalized with a <i>segol,</i> both under the letter <i>ayin</i> and under the letter beyt. The reason why the letter <i>ayin</i> is vocalised with the vowel <i>kametz,</i> normally reserved for when the word appears at the end of a phrase or sentence, is that Joseph hinted by means of this that Binyamin’s status as Joseph’s personal slave would be far superior to that of regular slaves. He would be treated as if he were royalty.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויגש אליו יהודה, “Yehudah approached him closely.” Originally, Yehudah had thought that Joseph wanted to condemn Binyamin to death. If that had been the case, he would not have an opening to substitute his life for that of his brother. Now that he had heard from Joseph’s own lips that he intended to keep him as slave, he felt that by offering himself instead, he might persuade Joseph that his offer had merit. 
  
     ידבר נא עבדך דבר, “allow your servant to say something.” He meant that he would offer a short plea, and that Joseph should not consider his plea as something tiresome.
  
     כי כמוך כפרעה, “for you are for all intent and purpose equal to Pharaoh.” He meant that he revered Joseph in a manner similar to the reverence shown Pharaoh himself. Alternately, he implied that Joseph should keep his word just as it was expected from a ruler of Pharaoh’s stature that he keeps his word. Binyamin was supposed to have come to Egypt merely to prove that he was a brother of his and that the brothers had not lied when they mentioned him as having remained behind in the land of Canaan to tend to their aged father’s needs.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   אדוני שאל, ”my lord had inquired, etc.” Nachmanides writes that he does not understand what Yehudah had meant to accomplish by making such a long speech. Even recalling Joseph’s words of why he wanted to see their younger brother, this surely had not implied that if that brother would commit a criminal act he should go unpunished! All the more so will he deserve to be punished if this brother became guilty of stealing the goblet from the ruler of the country! As long as Joseph had not known anything negative about Binyamin he had welcomed him most cordially and even invoked G’d’s blessing on him (43,29). He had recompensed the brothers for having put them to so much trouble by giving them as much grain as their donkeys could carry, had wined and dined them and showered them with gifts. What could Yehudah have hoped to accomplish by arguing? The only thing he could possibly achieve was to appeal to Joseph’s sense of mercy and pity. Yehudah’s premise was that Joseph was a G’d–fearing man, seeing that Joseph had made that point when keeping only Shimon as a hostage instead of keeping them all and sending one brother to get Binyamin from the land of Canaan.
      Yehudah’s major argument was to convince Joseph that they had put their lives on the line in order to get their father’s permission to allow Binyamin to travel with them, and that failure to bring him home healthy and well would be like condemning them collectively to death, as well as to hasten the death of their father, something they could not bear to watch. Had it not been for Joseph’s threat to deny them and their families further food supplies, an indispensable lifeline during such a famine, their father would never have consented to allow this remaining son of his favourite wife to be separated from him. If Joseph’s concern was to secure for himself compensation for the theft by way of personal services to be provided for him, he Yehudah, could provide such services better than his brother Binyamin.
      Alternately, Yehudah may have reminded Joseph simply that it was appropriate for him to stand by his word that he only wanted to set his eyes upon Binyamin. He implied by what he did not spell out, that he considered the matter of the goblet as merely a pretext, a manipulation in order to justify keeping Binyamin with him. He could not risk saying something like this to Joseph’s face openly.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ואחיו מת, “and his full brother is dead.” According to <i>Rashi</i> fear prompted him to lie and to declare his brother Joseph as “dead.” Even so, it is hard to understand how he dared refer to Joseph as dead when previously he had only described him as missing, i.e. האחד איננו, (42,13).
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ואשימה עיני עליו, “so that I may see him with my own eyes.” This expression is usually meant to convey a benevolent interest in the person one wishes to see. A well known example of this meaning is found in Jeremiah 24,6 ושמתי עיני עליהם לטובה, “So that I may look upon them favourably.” A similar verse with the identical expression is found in Amos. Even though in our verse the word “לטובה”, “favourably,” had not been spelled out by Joseph, it was reasonable for the brothers to understand Joseph’s request in that manner. Yehudah made no reference to Joseph having (in retrospect) imprisoned Shimon without cause, as the brothers had proved that they were not spies. He omitted this reference either because of fear, or because of good manners.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ועזב את אביו ומת, “if and when he leaves his father, the father will die.” Some commentators understand Binyamin as being the subject of the word ומת, meaning that Binyamin would die if separated from his father.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   אתם ידעתם כי שנים ילדה לי אשתי, ”you know that my wife bore only two sons for me.” The reason that Yehudah quoted his father as saying: “my wife bore two sons for me,” was to justify his statement that the failure of Binyamin to return home unharmed would cause his premature death. [they had described themselves as 12 brothers, all the sons of the same father. The loss of one, or even two, would not appear to Joseph as such a catastrophe. When he would hear that the dead brother and Binyamin were the only ones from their mother, he would begin to better understand the trauma involved. Ed] The word אשתי was meant to make a clear distinction between פילגשי, “my concubine.” 
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  והורידו עבדיך את שיבת אבינו ביגון שאולה, “and your servants will be guilty of causing our aged father a sorrowful death.” It is possible to explain this whole line as a figure of speech, i.e. a tongue in cheek accusation of Joseph by Yehudah as causing their father’s premature death if Binyamin were not to be allowed to return to Canaan. 
  
  Verse 32
  
   כי עבדך ערב את הנער, “for, I, your servant, have guaranteed the safe return of the lad.” He explained to Joseph that their father, although all of them were in danger of starving, had been holding out, not giving his permission for Binyamin to travel until Yehudah had guaranteed his safe return. This would explain why he, more than the other brothers, had taken it upon himself to now be the spokesman of all of them.
      Alternately, he wanted to explain that there was no element of trickery in his wanting to substitute himself as slave for Binyamin, such as that he thought he would be more capable of escaping from Egypt than his younger brother.
  
     אם לא אביאנו אליך, “if I will not bring him back to you.” He did not now add the words: “and I will place him before you in an upright position,” as he had said to his father at the time. Had he mentioned this aspect of Yehudah’s guarantee, Joseph might have challenged him saying: how did you know that he would be alive at the time of your return? To his father he had said at the time that seeing they were fulfilling the commandment of honouring their father’s wishes, their mission was bound to be crowned with success, as we have a tradition that emissaries engaged in fulfilling a commandment will not be harmed either on their way out or even on their return journey.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ולא יכול יוסף להתאפק לכל הנצבים, “and Joseph could no longer restrain himself in the presence of all the courtiers around him.” According to <i>Rashi</i> what bothered Joseph was that all the Egyptians would become privy to matters which were private between him and his brothers. He did not want to shame his brothers publicly when he would reveal himself to them, and unavoidably their part in his having been brought to Egypt in the first place would come to light.
      Nachmanides makes the point that whenever the expression התאפקות occurs it denotes the strength of character of the person so described. The people surrounding Joseph had been so moved by Yehudah’s words that they appealed to Joseph to respond by releasing him. The pressure became so great that even steadfast Joseph could no longer withstand it. He therefore ordered everybody out of the hall in order to continue the dialogue with the brothers (Yehudah) in private. A soon as the Egyptians who had been present left the hall, Joseph broke out in tears, and weeping, something which the Egyptians now outside could not help overhearing. The meaning of the word ויקרא in our verse is not a simple ”reading” or instruction, without the subject raising his voice especially, but Joseph raised his voice angrily in ordering all the Egyptians surrounding him out into the courtyard.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   העוד אבי חי?, “is my father still alive?” Even though he had asked them the same question already in 44,27 and the brothers had answered in the affirmative, his question now concerned the state of his health, not the mere fact that Yaakov was still alive. The word חי therefore has to be equated with בריא, healthy.     It is also possible that he did not really ask this question in order to receive additional information, but merely to have an opening to speak to the brothers, instead of as until now, about “your father,” but about “my father,” i.e. their common father. This was a ploy to establish close personal contact with his brothers. 
  
  Verse 4
  
   גשו נא אלי, “please come closer to me.” He now changed his demeanour and spoke to them as an equal, in a friendly manner.
      It is also possible that he did not want to remind them aloud of the fact that they had sold him, and therefore he made them approach him closely so that he could whisper to them. He did not want the people in the courtyard to overhear this part of their conversation.
      According to<i> Rashi</i>, the reason he wanted them to approach him closely was to show them that he was circumcised, just like them, to prove that he was who he had just said that he was. I do not think this would have proved anything as all the male descendants of Yishmael were also in the habit of performing circumcision on themselves, albeit at the age of 13. Moreover, according to the <i>Midrash</i>, the Egyptians had adopted the rite of circumcision at the advice of Joseph.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   כי זה שנתים הרעב, “for these two years of famine, etc.” He reminded them of the years of famine that had already passed, and that they had already consumed all their reserves although there were five more years of famine in store for the country. How could they have hoped to survive the next five years if G’d in His providence had not sent Joseph ahead of them to Egypt in order to be able to provide for his family? 
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   וישבת בארץ גושן, “and you can reside on the province of Goshen.” Joseph knew full well that his father would not want to reside in Egypt proper, in the capital; this is why he assigned to province of Goshen to his family.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   פן תורש אתה וביתך, “lest both you and your family will become impoverished.” When he had uttered the same concern to his brothers directly, he had phrased it more crassly, warning them of the imminent danger of dying from the famine. When speaking to his father, he used more diplomatic, inoffensive wording.” (compare verse 7 “in order to keep you alive.”)
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   כי פי המדבר אליכם, “that it is I who am talking to you.” He emphasized that as of now he was addressing them directly, in Hebrew, not through an interpreter, as he had been doing up until he had revealed himself.
      Nachmanides writes that the fact that Joseph suddenly admitted being able to speak Hebrew would not prove that he was their long lost brother. The fact that he mentioned his real name to them, plus the details of how he had been sold were far more potent arguments to establish his true identity in their eyes.
      Personally, (still Nachmanides writing) I believe that the true interpretation of what Joseph is saying in our verse is: “your own eyes as well as the eyes of my brother Binyamin are living testimony to my august position here in Egypt, and in my capacity of your brother and the de facto ruler of Egypt, I command you to move to Egypt and to join me here. The only reason I command you to tell our father of my position here and the esteem in which I am held, is to persuade you to come here so that I can provide for you during the remaining years of the famine. If I did not entertain feelings of love and fondness towards you, there would be absolutely no reason for me to speak to you in this fashion.”
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   באו אחי יוסף, “Joseph’s brothers have arrived;” he had always told Pharaoh that he had a number of brothers who occupied distinguished positions in the land of Canaan, and that he had been kidnapped from there. Now, when the people in Pharaoh’s entourage heard about the arrival of Joseph’s brothers, they rejoiced, as it confirmed Joseph’s status prior to his appointment, something that had been somewhat clouded up until now.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   טענו את בעירכם, “load your beasts.” Rabbi Joseph Kimchi claims that this must not be understood as a command by Pharaoh that the brothers should load their beasts, after all, had he not himself specifically provided the brothers with wheeled transportation, wagons which could transport much more at a time than their beasts? What Pharaoh meant was that the brothers should prod the beasts pulling the wagons to proceed with all possible speed. The expression טענו occurs in connection with people who have their swords girded around their waist in Isaiah
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ואתה צוית, “and you, Joseph, consider yourself commanded, etc.” The reason Pharaoh used such imperial language was that he was aware that Joseph would never take any liberties with property which was not legally his own; he was afraid that Joseph would not want to send anything to his father which belonged to the Egyptian state. By instructing him to take these wagons he would remove any doubt in Joseph’s mind that he was exceeding his authority in allocating these carriages as vehicles to transport his family.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ועיניכם אל תחוס על כליכם, “do not begrudge any chattels you leave behind.” He knew how frugally his father lived, and how he would not let anything go to waste. This is why he instructed his brothers to ignore such considerations when it came to their moving their belongings to Egypt.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   לכלם נתן לאיש חליפות שמלות, “he gave each one of them a change of clothes.” This was in replacement for his having been the cause of their rending their garments.
  
     ולבנימין נתן שלוש מאות כסף, “and to Binyamin he gave 300 pieces of silver;” seeing that the penalty for someone who sells his slave to a gentile outside the land of Israel is subject to a fine of up to 10 times the value of the slave in question, Binyamin was entitled to be 300 pieces of silver better off than his brothers, seeing that an average slave is worth 30 pieces of silver. Although Joseph assessed his brothers a penalty of 300 pieces of silver each, all of which should have gone to Binyamin, he gave Binyamin only 300 pieces of silver. 
  
     וחמש חליפות שמלות, “and five changes of clothes.” (new outfits). One outfit matching what he had given to the other brothers. The other four were gifts (as opposed to compensation), one outfit each from himself, his two sons and his wife.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ולאביו שלח כזאת, “and to his father he sent the following:” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the word כזאת here is short for כחשבון הזאת: “the following amounts.” What did these “amounts consist of?” 10 donkey loads, etc., etc.
      Nachmanides feels that the word כזאת refers to the food for the extended family of Yaakov, which would sustain them on the journey to Egypt. He had, after all, provided his brothers with rations to sustain them on their homeward trip, also. (verse 21). The Torah mentions to Joseph’s credit that he did not only give them the supplies in question but also the means of transporting them, i.e. donkeys and she asses.
      According to Ibn Ezra the word כזאת refers to the quality of the new clothes Joseph handed out, i.e. the best quality available in Egypt.
      Some commentators claim that Joseph did not send Binyamin back with the other brothers, and they prove their point by the fact that he sent only ten donkeys to his father and not eleven. In other words, Joseph gave each of the ten brothers a donkey that would be led by him; if Binyamin had also returned to Canaan he would have had to give them eleven donkeys. Some say that this is no proof as Joseph simply did not want to burden Binyamin with the task of leading a donkey all the way back to Canaan.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   אל תרגזו בדרך, “do not engage in recriminations while on the journey.” He told them not to be concerned over the fact that they, as opposed to everyone else, traveled in style, equipped with luxuries at a time when the rest of the population had to make do with a very austere lifestyle due to the famine. He assured them that potential robbers and men of violence would be in awe of him when they found out that they traveled under Joseph’s special protection.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ויפג לבו, “his heart stopped beating;” according to <i>Rashi</i> this means that his heart refused to accept this as true.
      According to Nachmanides the word is similar to the word ביטול, as in Lamentations 2,18 אל תתני פוגת לך, “give yourself no respite.” The word פוג always means that something active suddenly ceases to be so and becomes inert, like dead. Yaakov’s heart became cold and his blood circulation stopped. This is a well known phenomenon when someone suddenly receives unexpected good news and is overwhelmed by it. Yaakov fainted and lay on the floor as if dead. The Torah reports that it took Yaakov a long time to recover from his shock and to believe what the brothers had told him. The standard remedy used to bring someone who fainted at the receipt of good news to recover from his fainting spell, is to dance around him and make noise and display joy and elation. When the brothers repeated their conversation with Joseph, and when upon opening his eyes he beheld the carriages Joseph had sent, he began to believe them and to react accordingly.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   וירא את העגלות, “he saw the carriages, etc.” then he believed the brothers as he told himself that no one else but a ruler would have been able to send these carriages out of Egypt, and all these precious gifts of food, etc. in the midst of a famine, except if it had been with the full consent of the government. Once he felt joy in his life once more, the holy spirit that had been absent since Joseph’s disappearance overcame him again
      According to the <i>Midrash</i> which understands the gift of carriages as a reminder by Joseph to his father that after all these years he had not forgotten that the last subject in which his father had instructed him had been the subject known as עגלה ערופה, the heifer which is killed by the judges of the Supreme Court in expiation of any indirect guilt in a unresolved murder on holy soil, we must understand our verse in terms of the two principles known as יש אם למקרא, ויש אם למסורה, that (normally) the unusual spelling of a word draws attention to a double meaning intended by the author. No one would argue that the carriages had not been sent for transporting Yaakov and family. But these “carriages” had an additional significance. This is why the Torah, instead of describing them as having been sent by Pharaoh, describes them as having been sent by Joseph, a slight but significant inaccuracy. It was to alert Yaakov that his son had not forgotten, in spite of his position at the Egyptian court, what had been the last lesson his father had taught him before he had sent him on the errand to see how his brothers were doing in Shechem. [in this instance it is not the spelling but the change in the description of the sender of the carriages. Joseph had actually sent heifers, עגלות, also, a double entendre of the word עגלות. Clearly, these had not been intended to pull the carriages. Ed.] Some commentators believe that the brothers did not transport grain in carriages but on their donkeys, [in small quantities. Ed] for if they had transported wagon-loads of grain, it would have looked as if they were depleting Egypt of its reserves of grain. In order to do this, special permission from Pharaoh himself was needed.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   רב, עוד יוסף בני חי, “it is much; my son Joseph is still alive!” Seeing that at first he did not want to believe them, he asked after the original owners of the עגלות, only to be told that just as a ship is steered by a captain, so the owner of these carriages, i.e. Joseph, is still very much alive. [who else but the “captain,” i.e. Joseph, could have sent all this to Yaakov? Ed]
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויזבח זבחים, “meat-offerings of thanksgiving.” For having arrived at Beer Sheva with all his family without mishap.
      Alternately, these offerings were because he set out once more to leave the Holy Land and he was not certain that G’d approved of what he was doing. He used the offerings hoping to receive guidance from the Almighty. As we shall see, he received such approval, plus the assurance that in Egypt his descendants would develop into a numerous nation, but that he himself would be buried in the grave of his father and grandfather in the Holy Land.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויאמר יעקב, “Yaakov said, etc.” even though G’d had told him that in the future he would no longer be called Yaakov but Israel, this change of name was not the same as that of Avram’s name being changed to Avraham. Avraham had undergone a name change in honour of changing his religion, becoming circumcised and simultaneously becoming JEWISH. This was not the case with Yaakov who had been born Jewish. While it would have been inappropriate to continue to refer to Avraham by his former name, in fact it would have been insulting, this consideration did not apply to the name Yaakov.
      Furthermore, if Yisrael had never again been called Yaakov, people would have thought that the stigma attached to the name Yaakov, i.e. the crooked one, had been justified at the time he had been known as such.
      Nachmanides writes that the reason the Torah reverted to calling him Yaakov at this stage, was to hint that once in Egypt, his task would no longer be to contend with the heavenly representatives of the spiritually negative forces, such as the angel representing Esau in heaven. From now on he would be basically in the house of slavery, as effective from now the years of exile G’d had predicted at the covenant of the pieces to Avraham had begun. This condition would continue until G’d would redeem the Jewish people from there and lead them to the Holy Land. If, nonetheless, the Torah in verse 5 begins to list the names of בני ישראל, “the children of Israel,” and not as we might have expected “the children of Yaakov,” even though it was these who traveled to their exile, it was to assure them that paradoxically, the Jewish people’s developing into a numerically strong nation was a process that would take place in the very land where they would be cruelly suppressed and tormented. Verse 5 was a look into the future, whereas our verse deals with the present, i.e. a period when Yaakov, their patriarch, would in a manner of speaking become a symbol and would inspire them by what he had already accomplished on earth, not by what he still had to accomplish. [Here I have sermonized a little, expanding on Nachmanides. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   אנכי אעלך גם עלה, “I will also be the One Who will bring you up.” The verb עלה has been repeated here alluding to the statement of our sages that יעקב לא מת, that “Yaakov never died.”
      Some commentators understand the word אעלך as parallel to אל תעלני בחצי ימי, Psalms 102,25, where it means that David prays that he should not be allowed to die, -i.e. to ascend to the heavenly regions of after life- while he had lived only part of his allotted span on earth. [David wanted to experience the triumph of G’d on earth before leaving the earthly domain. Ed.] G’d told him that he would die while Joseph would survive him, and that is the meaning of “Joseph will place his hand on your eyes,” in our verse.
      Still another interpretation understands the word אעלך as referring to Yaakov’s soul whom G’d, personally, will accompany to the celestial regions, while his son Joseph, would perform the earthly rites connected with the passing of his father from life on earth.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   וישאו בני ישראל את יעקב אביהם, “The children of Israel carried their father.” This was the occasion when they repaid him for the time at the Yabbok when he had carried all of them across the river. (Genesis 32,25) 
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ובנות בניו, “and the daughters of his sons.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the “daughters” mentioned here are Serach, daughter of Asher, and Yocheved, daughter of Levi.
      Nachmanides writes that the expression בנותיו presents a difficulty, seeing that according to Scripture, Yaakov had only one daughter, Dinah. Why then would the Torah speak about בנותיו, “his daughters” (pl.)? We must remember that it is the style of the Torah to treat subjects (such as offspring, children) in the plural mode, as for instance ובני דן חושים, “Dan’s sons were Chushim.” (verse 23) He had only that one son, and no daughters. Or, for instance, ובני פלוא אליאב, “and the sons of Phallu were Eliav.” There is therefore no reason to wonder why the subject of “daughters” should be treated differently. The same applies to the plural mode used for granddaughters, the only one being named in the text being Serach. Yocheved was not mentioned directly, although the Torah speaks about 70 souls of Yaakov’s descendants arriving in Egypt, whereas only 69 (including Joseph and his two sons) have been named.
      Some commentators explain the plural mode as references to daughters-in-law. Many people refer to their daughters-in-law as “daughter.” 
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ושאול בן הכנעני, “as well as Sha-ul, son of the Canaanite.” 
      Ibn Ezra explains this puzzling statement by saying that this grandson of Yaakov was the only one born by a Canaanite mother, as none of his other sons married girls of Canaanite parentage.
      <i>Rashi</i> explains the phenomenon as an allusion to this Sha-ul being a son of Dinah who had been raped by the Canaanite Shechem. If so, we are confronted with another difficulty, i.e. how could Shimon marry a sister by his own mother? According to a <i>Midrash</i> [I have not found such a version. Ed.] the problem is resolved as it is presumed that Dinah’s fetus grew predominantly in Rachel’s womb. [The Torah reports Leah only as having “given birth” to Dinah, not as having been pregnant with her. (Genesis 30,21)]
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   וסרח אחותם, “and their sister Serach.” Some commentators claim that seeing the Torah did not use the customary “and Search, his daughter,” as for instance “and Dinah his daughter,” but defined her as someone’s “sister,” that this is proof that Serach had not been sired by Asher at all, but had been born to his wife. This view is also held by Onkelos in his translation of our verse, where he adds the word: “his wife.”
      I fail to understand the validity of such a commentary as how could she then have been included in what were specifically described in verse 5 of our chapter as “the names of the descendants (biological) who made up the Children of Israel who arrived in Egypt?” The end of the chapter repeats “all the people who were biologically related to Yaakov’s offspring, etc.” We can only explain all this by again referring to the style of the Torah when narrating such details, i.e. that daughters are lumped together with their brothers when the Torah relates family relationships. Another prominent example of the style of the Torah in this regard is the line:ואחות לוטן תמנע, “Lotan had a sister named Timna.” The Torah does not describe Timna’s father as having a daughter by that name.
      <i>Rashi</i> writes that according to the view of the sage that the brothers all married half sisters who were born as twins with their male counterparts, that now, at the time when the family moved to Egypt, they were not enumerated in the list of seventy descendants as they had all died before this point in time.
      Nachmanides writes that we do not need to fall back on such an unlikely scenario as the brothers all having married half sisters by the father who had died before they could have reached the age of 40 or so, but that the meaning of Rabbi Yehudah (<i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 84,21) who claims that Yaakov’s sons married their “sisters” who had been born as twins of their brothers, is that their names had not needed to be listed, except with the words מלבד נשי בני יעקב, “not including the wives of Yaakov’s sons,” adequately covered the subject. If the sons of Yaakov had indeed married Canaanite women, why would the Torah in Genesis 37,33 mention these women as Yaakov’s daughters? Unless they had been biologically related to Yaakov, such as being twin daughters, there would have been no point in referring to them in this entire chapter. Their names were not mentioned in this chapter just as they had not been mentioned at the time they had been born. The main purpose of the Torah listing the incredibly small number of people who came to Egypt with Yaakov, i.e. 70, was to show that these formed the nucleus of a great nation which developed into millions, counting wives and children who were minors, by the time they left Egypt 210 years later. It was in order to alert us to this miraculous population explosion of the Jewish people while they were on Egyptian soil. Man and wife are considered as one unit, as only as a pair can they sire offspring.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   אלה בני זלפה, “These are the sons of Zilpah;” Although it is the Torah’s style to list the names of the children of Yaakov’s principal wives, Leah and Rachel, together, as was done in <i>Parshat Vayishlach</i>, and as occurred when they received their respective blessings in <i>Parshat Vayechi</i>, here when the main consideration is numbers, the Torah listed Zilpah’s offspring before that of Rachel as the latter produced only 14 of the 70, whereas Ziplpah produced 16. Since she had been mentioned as part of the שפחות, handmaids, the Torah adds the title נשי יעקב, “Yaakov’s wives” in order to accord them the honour they deserve.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   כל הנפש לבית יעקב, “all the persons who were part of the house of Yaakov;” when you count them individually you will find that there are only 69 and not 70. Some commentators claim that Dinah had a son by Shechem, and that while he is included in the total 70, he is not included as an individual having a name.
      Other commentators claim that the lineכל נפש בניו ובנותיו עם יעקב 33, indicate that Yaakov himself is included in the count of 70 seeing that it first says ואלה שמות בני ישראל הבאים מצרימה, “these are the Israelites who arrived in Egypt.” When the Torah enumerated the 66 יוצאי ירך יעקב, the persons that emerged from Yaakov’s loins, he himself is obviously not included as he could not have been his own offspring. (verse 26)
      Some commentators are not at all perturbed by the round number 70 being used although there were only 69, seeing that there are numerous examples throughout the Bible in which round numbers are used, although when you examine them in detail you will find that they are just that, “rounded off” numbers.
      Personally, I do not know what all the fuss is about. Why could these commentators not have been satisfied with the solution provided for us by our sages in earlier periods that Yocheved was conceived in the land of Canaan but not born until the family was just at the border of Egypt, בין החומות, between the walled fortifications, as they phrase it. [at this point the author voices sharp rebuke at Ibn Ezra saying that Nachmanides already refuted all that he said on the subject. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ויעל לקראת אביו גושנה, he went up to meet his father, to the province of Goshen. Some commentators say that the Goshen mentioned here is the same as that mentioned in the Book of Joshua 10,41, [that Goshen is described as near Givon], and that seeing that the land of Israel is located at higher altitudes than all other countries according to our sages, the Torah describes Joseph as traveling “up,” i.e. uphill. [why would Yaakov’s journey then have been described as a descent, seeing that one look at the map would convince us that as his last stop was Beer Sheva, he too would have had to continue from there uphill. Ed.]
      We do not consider this explanation of the word ויעל as appropriate at all. The province of Goshen was situated within Egypt proper, though at a higher level than the Nile delta which was practically at sea level for many kilometers starting with the capital. As to the apparently contradictory line in 46,31 where Joseph, leaving his father, speaks about “going up to Pharaoh etc,” has to be understood in terms of his stepping into his chariot, just as getting out of a chariot is described as “descending” from it, so entering it again as described as “ascending” into it.
      It is also possible that the correct interpretation of these terms עליה and ירידה respectively, is that Joseph said: “I will go to Egypt, (capital) and ascend to the palace of Pharaoh, which was built on a hill, overlooking the surrounding area, and inform him, etc.” It is even possible, though unlikely, that the land of Egypt proper was on a higher plateau than the province of Goshen, which was closest to the Mediterranean sea, in which case the word ויעל in our verse would refer to Joseph ascending his chariot before beginning his journey.
  
     וירא אליו, “he appeared to him;” according to <i>Rashi,</i> Joseph appeared to his father and fell around his neck and wept still, are to be contrasted with Yaakov’s reaction; he did not fall around Joseph’s neck and did not kiss his son until he had finished reciting the prayer קריאת שמע. 
      Nachmanides writes that he does not know why the expression וירא “he appeared,” has been chosen by the Torah to describe this meeting, seeing that it is quite obvious that when two people meet so closely that they embrace each other, as here, that they appear to one another. Furthermore, Joseph’s whole behaviour does not seem appropriate. He should have first prostrated himself and have kissed his father’s hands. Furthermore, the word עוד does not mean a surfeit of something, but something in addition to what had already been there before. Seeing that Joseph had not fallen around Yaakov’s neck before, the word עוד in this connection is hard to understand.
      The correct meaning of the phrase is that Yaakov’s eyes were heavy from old age, which made it difficult for him to recognize Joseph, or that seeing that Joseph had been in a rush to welcome his father he had been wearing royal attire and some sort of headgear totally unfamiliar to Yaakov, so that even if he would have recognized him in ordinary garments, he did not associate the figure approaching him in Royal Splendour as being his son. Therefore, when upon Joseph approaching real close and Yaakov finally recognizing him, i.e. “he appeared to him,” he fell around his neck and, in addition to this, wept while doing so. He had been weeping over the loss of Joseph for many years, only this time he wept from joy. Joseph, on the other hand, although he had been told that his father was well, when he saw him, he received a shock so that he began to weep in spite of the reunion. It is a moot point who of the two wept more and longer.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   והאנשים רועי צאן, “and the men are shepherds by vocation.” He did not mean to say that the brothers themselves were shepherds, but that they were experts in sheep and cattle raising as their vast wealth consisted primarily of flocks and herds, while their servants did the actual minding of the beasts.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   כי תועבת מצרים כל רועה צאן, “for every cattle and sheep raiser was pursuing a career despised by the Egyptians.” He would keep them apart from the Egyptians as they were anathema to them.
      Some commentators, on the contrary, consider that the Egyptians especially esteemed cattle men and men raising sheep as it would not make sense that Joseph should present his brothers before Pharaoh in a manner which would make him despise them. The reason that Pharaoh assigned the province of Goshen for them to dwell in was precisely because he considered them a very valuable asset to the Egyptian economy so that they deserved to live in the economically most prosperous part of the country. The word תועבה, abomination, does not refer to the brothers’ vocation, but to the deities whom the Egyptians worshipped.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ומקצה אחיו לקח, “he took from his stronger brothers.” The word קצה is derived from קצין, officer, strong man, as for instance in Isaiah 41,9 ומקצות הארץ קראתיך, “and I called unto you from the corners of the earth.”
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   כי אין מרעה לצאן אשר לעבדיך, “for there is no grazing land for the flocks and herds of your servants.” Nachmanides writes that he is puzzled by this reason given by the brothers for having come to Egypt. After all, there was no grazing land in Egypt either during the famine, and both man and beast survived only from stored surplus of prior years. Possibly, the most intense famine raged in the land of Canaan, and the people there were reduced to eating grass, so that there was really nothing left for the beasts to feed on. Seeing that people received regular food rations in Egypt they had not needed to deny their beasts the grass in the fields. Alternately, there would be some grass around the many ponds in Egypt and in the Nile delta near the banks of the tributaries of the Nile river.
  
  Verse 5
  
   אביך ואחיך באו אליך, “your father and your brothers have come to join you.” This may be an introductory remark by Pharaoh before offering the brothers and their father the hospitality of the land of Egypt. [otherwise it is banal, as the facts were well known. Ed.] Alternately, it is an introductory remark to “your brothers have come to convince themselves with their own eyes of your rise to greatness in this land. They are now planning to look to you for sustenance.” Pharaoh then proceeds to instruct Joseph to indeed treat his brothers with largesse. 
  
  Verse 6
  
   ושמתם שרי מקנה על אשר לי, “appoint them as the ministers in charge of all my livestock.” Ibn Ezra understands the term מקנה here as animals such as horses, the type of animals owned by Royalty. Pharaoh, personally, did not own flocks of sheep, etc.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויאמר פרעה כמה ימי שני חייך?, “Pharaoh said to Yaakov: ‘how old are you?’” It is puzzling why Pharaoh suddenly displays such interest in Yaakov’s age. At the same time, it is puzzling why Yaakov, instead of simply telling Pharaoh his age, prefaces his answer with a description of the quality of his life before revealing the quantitative aspect of it. Yaakov meant to explain to Pharaoh that if, contrary to norm, he appeared far older than his actual years this was due to the many trials and tribulations he had experienced in his years on earth. When Yaakov had arrived in Egypt and his sons had described themselves as coming לגור בארץ, to sojourn for a while, this created the impression that Yaakov expected to be around on this planet for quite some time yet. Pharaoh was therefore almost bound to ask him how old he was already, seeing that he had such plans for the future. Yaakov reassured him, that as of this day he was far younger in terms of years, than had been either his father or his grandfather at the time of their respective deaths. The fact that Yaakov really intended to return to Canaan after the famine would have passed had really thrown Pharaoh for a loop.
      According to the <i>Midrash,</i> G’d reacted angrily when He heard that after having been saved by Him miraculously a number of times during his life, Yaakov had the nerve to complain about the quality of his life on earth up until then in the presence of Pharaoh. As a result, Yaakov’s lifespan was reduced by 33 years when compared to the 180 years his father Yitzchok had lived. The number 33 corresponds to the number of words in our verse.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויברך יעקב את פרעה, ”Yaakov blessed Pharaoh.” <i>Rashi</i> understands this “blessing” as extending greetings. 
      Nachmanides writes that it does not appear reasonable to him that a commoner is in the habit of enquiring after the good health, etc., of a reigning monarch. It is assumed that a king enjoys such, as a matter of course. We are told in <i>Shabbat</i> 89 there are no servants who offer this type of greeting to their masters, their masters being presumed to enjoy amenities denied to people of a lower social stratum. [when Moses arrived at the seat of G’d’s throne, he supposedly found G’d preoccupied with decorating the letters of the Torah with crowns. When he remained silent, dumbfounded, G’d asked him whether in his part of the universe it was not customary to extend greetings? Moses replied with the above quotation. Ed.] Nachmanides therefore concludes that Yaakov extended a real (literal) blessing to Pharaoh. It was customary for aged people to do so, as the very fact that they attained old age was perceived as proof that they themselves were blessed, and that therefore a blessing by them was of special value. Yaakov’s first blessing was in respect of earthly possessions, including good health, whereas his blessing before leaving the presence of Pharaoh was the promise that the waters of the Nile would once again overflow their banks and irrigate the farmland of Egypt.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ויושב יוסף את אביו ואת אחיו ויתן להם אחוזה, “Joseph settled his father and his brothers in the land of Egypt, and he allocated to them freehold property, property that could be transferred to their children upon their death.” He did not want them to have the status of aliens, tourists, transients, etc. He gave them vineyards, houses and fields, all with Pharaoh’s permission, seeing they themselves had only asked permission to be resident aliens for a while. Pharaoh had told Joseph to make full citizens of them.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   וילקט יוסף את כל הכסף, “Joseph collected all the money,” the Torah reports some of Joseph’s astuteness as a ruler, as well as his fairness and faithfulness in that whatever he collected he handed over to Pharaoh’s treasury. He did not amass a private fortune of his own.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויתום הכסף מארץ מצרים, “Egypt completely ran out of money,” money stopped circulating as there was too little of it both in Egypt and in the land of Canaan. The reason why the Torah had to mention that money had also run out in the land of Canaan was that the Egyptians said to Joseph: “seeing that there is no point in your waiting for more buyers from the land of Canaan, as they have no money with which to buy, you might as well introduce a new bartering system in Egypt. If you keep waiting for customers and we die in the meantime, you will be left with tons of supplies and no one who will buy it from you. The disappearance of money from circulation occurred gradually, beginning with the poor running out of cash first. The words ויתם הכסף describe a state when even the wealthy people had no more ready cash.
      According to the <i>Midrash</i> Joseph had been equipped with a degree of prophecy so much so that he knew how much money every person still possessed. He used this knowledge to charge higher prices to the rich and lower prices to the poor, in order to preserve a certain degree of equality amongst the population when it came to obtaining the necessities of life.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויבואו אליו בשנה השנית, “They came to him in the second year, etc.” according to <i>Rashi</i> the verse speaks about the second year of the famine, even though Joseph had spoken about another 5 years of crop failures, (45,11) However, as soon as Yaakov arrived in Egypt, a miracle happened and the blessings returned as a result of his presence.
      Nachmanides writes that although Joseph’s prediction of seven consecutive years of famine did not come true, no one used this as an excuse to call Joseph a liar or a false prophet. The reason was that they noted that the famine continued in the surrounding countries, so that it was clear to them that special circumstances had arisen when Yaakov went down to the Nile and suddenly the waters of the Nile rose to welcome him. Pharaoh himself had witnessed this phenomenon. He showed it to his servants and they realized that Yaakov’s blessing had been effective. We must therefore understand Joseph’s pledge to support his brothers economically as being meant for the normal years to follow, a pledge which was to be valid for at least as long as his father would remain alive. In fact, Joseph continued to support his brothers financially even after his father’s death (50,51) 
      Even considering all this, if all this is true, then Pharaoh’s dream had not been interpreted correctly seeing that Pharaoh had not really been shown the decree nor how it could be changed.
      There is an interesting <i>Tossephta</i> in <i>Sotah</i> according to which Rabbi Yossi said that as soon as Yaakov died, the famine resumed in Egypt. There is also a statement in the S<i>ifri</i> according to which Yaakov’s blessing to Pharaoh consisted in the promise that the famine would cease forthwith. Nonetheless, seeing seven years of famine had been decreed in the dream, these did in fact occur, at intervals, after Yaakov’s death. Rabbi Shimon protested such an interpretation, saying that it does not confer glory on either G’d or His righteous people on earth if the promise (blessing) of a צדיק remains effective only during his own lifetime. In response to this Rabbi Eleazar, son of Rabbi Shimon (ben Yochai) said that he prefers the interpretation of Rabbi Yossi to that of his own father, as it is a greater sanctification of G’d when people observe that as long as a <i>tzaddik</i> walks the earth there is visible blessing on earth thanks to his merit. The very fact that the blessings on earth we due to the presence of <i>Tzaddikim</i> at that time, becomes manifest when these blessings cease as soon as the <i>Tzaddik</i> leaves this earth. The fact is that there are 5 more mentions of famine in Egypt scattered throughout the Bible; these five years of famine completed those predicted by Joseph but interrupted by the blessing of his father Yaakov when he went to see Pharaoh. 
      [by the way, the clue Yaakov had found in Pharaoh’s dream that gave him the opening for this blessing was that the parched ears of corn symbolizing the years of famine, did not grow on a single stalk, whereas the good ears of corn all grew on a single stalk, suggesting that the good years would be consecutive. Ed.] 
      Ibn Ezra claims that here we are speaking about the first 2 years of the famine after Yaakov’s arrival in Egypt. We find support for this in the <i>Midrash</i>, which states that the famine ended thanks to the merit of Yaakov. It is also possible that the division was four years of famine at once, and three years at a later date, but of far less severity.
      Nachmanides writes that he finds these interpretations as unsatisfactory, for if that had been so the Torah herself would have referred to some of these events explicitly.
      At any rate, the meaning of the text read straightforwardly is that Joseph collected all the available money during five years of the famine, but seeing that during those five years no new elements developed, the Torah did not refer to those years individually, but treated them as if they had been a single year. When a new development occurred, i.e. the people for the first time confronting Joseph, the Torah resumes the thread of the narrative. What is related now actually occurred during the sixth year of the famine. At that time Joseph handed out grain and took cattle and beasts of burden as payment for this. When the people came back again in the following year, the second of the last two years, he acquired their land on behalf of Pharaoh and made sharecroppers out of all of them. When he began to hand out seed for sowing it became clear that this had been the last year of the famine.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   קנה אותנו ואת אדמתינו בלחם, “acquire us together with our land in return for bread!” They asked Joseph to also acquire their bodies as slave labour, and this is confirmed when Joseph told them in verse 23 that he had indeed acquired both their soil and their bodies on Pharaoh’s behalf. Seeing that this has all been spelled out by the Torah in unmistakable language, what do the words in verse 20: “Joseph acquired all the soil of Egypt on Pharaoh’s behalf,” add to the information we have already received? In fact that verse seems to contradict what we read in both verse 19 and 23 in that it speaks only of soil and not bodies having been sold. The reason for the insertion of this verse was to show that although the Egyptians were willing and eager to even sell their bodies, Joseph did not acquire their bodies,- as he considered the personal freedom of the body of a human being as of paramount importance- but he established a system of share-cropping, the former landowners being legally obligated to work the lands in question on behalf of Pharaoh, but sharing in the success or failure of the annual crops to the extent of 80%. When he did say to them in verse 23 “here I have acquired you,“ he refers to the entitlement to their labour, not to their bodies being owned, and subject to resale to other human beings, (as was the custom in the United States until1866)
      Moreover, Joseph’s concern for “human rights” was such that instead of allocating to Pharaoh 80% of the fruits of their labour he allocated only 20% to Pharaoh, the remainder belonging to the farmer who had worked the land. The expression קניתי “I have acquired you,” is justified as the farmers were not allowed to leave the land or offer their labour to someone else.
  
     והאדמה לא תשם, “and the land will not become waste.” Neglect of the land now would result in the land becoming permanently unable to grow crops. In light of this it is not surprising that the farmers said to Joseph (verse 25): “you have kept us alive; let us find favour in your eyes and we will gladly be slaves to Pharaoh.”
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   רק אדמת הכהנים, “only the land-holdings of the priests, etc.” Some commentators believe that Joseph favoured the priests because his former master Potiphar was now a priest in the monastery of On.
      Other commentators attribute Joseph’s showing preference to the priests to the tradition that it had been the priests who had to sit in judgment deciding if the accusation of Potiphar’s wife that Joseph had attempted to rape her was true or not had ruled in Joseph’s favour basing themselves on the manner in which his garments had been torn. Had the tears occurred in the frontal part of the garments this would have been incriminating. The fact that the tears were in the rear indicated to them that Joseph had fled from her and not <i>vice versa</i>. You need not consider the statement in our verse that there was a special law for the priests as contradicting the tradition we just quoted, seeing that this very law had been introduced by Joseph.
      Some commentators do not understand the word כהנים as referring to a religious order, but as a description of the local aristocracy, whom Joseph exempted from these new laws restricting land ownership to a numerically insignificant number of people.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   וארבע הידות יהיה לכם, “and the other four fifths will be yours.” One quarter of the crop was intended to provide seed for next year’s crop; another quarter was intended for consumption by the farmer and his wife, yet another quarter for the farmer’s resident helpers other than his immediate family, and one quarter for use by the children.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   החייתנו...והיינו עבדים לפרעה, “you have saved our lives, and we have becoming willing slaves of Pharaoh.” The emphasis on the unnecessary word לפרעה was a blunt hint to Joseph that whereas they were willing to become Pharaoh’s slaves, they would not have been willing to become Joseph’s slaves. 
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   ויחי יעקב, “Yaakov lived (peacefully), etc.” The descent of Yaakov to Egypt is meant to be reminiscent of the third exile of the Jewish people, the exile under Roman domination, as the sons of Yaakov had brought about their exile in Egypt themselves through having sold their brother Joseph to Egypt. Yaakov descended there under the impression that he would be saved there due to his beloved son occupying such an illustrious position in a country that was not severely damaged by the famine. The brothers themselves had declared that they had only come to Egypt for a brief stay, expecting to return to Canaan as soon as the famine had come to an end. In the event, this is not how things worked out, the exile in Egypt dragged on for one reason or another, and even Yaakov himself was only brought back to the land of Israel after he died, and even that only because Joseph told Pharaoh that his father had made him swear not to bury his remains in Egypt. While it is true that he was buried with great honour and the elite of Egypt participated in his funeral, his death put an end to any chance of the brothers returning even if they had wanted to.
      Something very similar happened during the later years of the Hasmonean reign when two brothers vied for the position of King, and the one who did not succeed by his own strength, called in the Romans to support him politically and militarily. They did, but they never left the country again after King Agrippas took refuge with them. Eventually, due to famine in Jerusalem after years of siege, the defenders of Jerusalem were captured and until this day we are enduring this ”Roman” exile. In contrast to previous exiles, we have no idea when this exile will come to an end. Who knows how far off is the day when the tables will be turned and we will go up to Jerusalem and offer offerings of thanksgiving, and all the nations will witness the redemption of the Jewish people.
        <i>Rashi</i> explains that the reason why this portion has not been separated from the previous portion by even the space of a single letter, is to allude to the fact that as soon as Yaakov had closed his eyes for the last time, the ability of the Jewish people to look into the future with any sense of confidence and assurance had vanished. This remained true although, according to tradition, the Egyptians did not commence any repressive measures against the Jewish tribe until after the last one of the brothers had died. The enslavement commenced immediately after the death of the last surviving brother 
        Another approach to the peculiar lack of the separation of the previous portion in the Torah from this one, is that before the Torah had commenced with the chronology of the years of the life of Yaakov who was 130 years old when he came to Egypt, now the Torah relates that he had 17 years left to live out his life while in Egypt, and the Torah did not want to interrupt its chronology. [Joseph spent the first 17 years of his life under the care of his father, whereas his father spent the last 17 years of his life under the care of Joseph. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ויקרבו ימי ישראל למות, “As Israel’s time to die approached, etc.” These words do not refer to the sickness from which Yaakov died eventually, but they refer to a period when Yaakov began to experience the weakness which is common to people whose strength begins to ebb prior to their death. At a later stage, when Yaakov actually took sick and Joseph was told about it, he rushed to see his father and obtain his last blessing as well as to obtain blessings for his sons.
  
     ויאמר..שים נא ידך תחת ירכי, “he said: ‘please place your hand beneath my loins.’” Here the Torah does not continue with reporting that Joseph did as requested, as it had done when Avraham made a similar request to Eliezer when he sent him to look for a wife for Yitzchok. Here the Torah did not want to spell out this detail, preserving the element of delicacy of this procedure.
        Some commentators, claiming to interpret the plain meaning of the text, say that the request to place his hand under Yaakov’s loins did not refer to an oath, seeing that Yaakov requested the oath at a later stage (verse 31). 
        They say that Yaakov requested Joseph to take over the position known in Talmudic parlance as עובי הקורה, “center post,” i.e. the position of head of the clan with all the attendant responsibilities.
  
       ועשית עמדי חסד ואמת, “and perform for me a true deed of loving kindness.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the term “true loving kindness” is always used when the party performing the deed in question entertains no expectation of being rewarded for it in this life. The question raised against this interpretation is that we see that Yaakov immediately recompensed Joseph by giving him the city of Shechem over and above the normal portion allocated to the tribes of Ephrayim and Menashe. The answer given is that we are to read the line as: “you will do with me something which would be a true act of kindness when performed for other מתים, dead people who cannot reciprocate in kind.” However, in my opinion the question is not even in place, as nothing was further from Joseph’s mind than expecting a reward. Yaakov’s giving Shechem to Joseph was entirely free-willed, not in the nature of a reward at all.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   אנכי אעשה כדברך, “I shall do as you have said.” I will carry out your instructions. Alternately, the meaning is that Joseph conveyed to his father that he would do what he had asked him to do because he himself would do the same when the time came, and he too would ask his brothers and children to ensure that he would eventually be interred in the Holy Land. Both Yaakov and Joseph made his son/brothers swear, even though Yaakov had already had a direct assurance by G’d before he came to Egypt that He would accompany him back to his grave in the land of Canaan. He also had no reason to doubt Joseph’s sincerity and uprightness. He wanted Joseph to render an oath so that he could use this as an argument before Pharaoh in case the latter would object to the fact that someone who had been able to stop the famine, would not be honoured by the Egyptians by being given a burial and a monument in that land. In the event, Pharaoh did give permission, stressing that it was Joseph’s duty to honour his oath to his father. (50,7)
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה, “Israel prostrated himself at the head of the bed.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the Presence of G’d usually positioned itself near the head of the bed of the sick person. This is difficult according to the view we quoted earlier, that at this point Yaakov was not yet sick, so that we would have to say that at this point Yaakov was sitting on his bed and he prostrated himself as a mark of gratitude to Joseph for having agreed to honour his wish. His gratitude was expressed to G’d Who had given him a son who, in spite of his elevated position, honoured his father’s every wish. It is also possible that he literally prostrated himself before Joseph, thus fulfilling the last detail in Joseph’s dream about the sheaves.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויתחזק ישראל, “Israel strengthened himself;” in order that the blessing he would bestow would be that of a healthy human being.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ויאמר אליו הנני מפרך והרבתיך וכו', “He said to him: here I am about to fructify you and to multiply you, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that Yaakov reminded Joseph that at the time when G’d had said to him that he would be the founder of nations and communities of nations (35,11), he had only had 11 sons, so that part of the blessing had not yet been fulfilled. He therefore directed that the as yet unfulfilled part of that blessing should be applied to Joseph and his sons. This is also the reason why he mentioned Rachel’s death at this juncture. Seeing that the missing part of the blessing could not have applied to any further children whom Rachel would have, it must apply to existing children, and he chose to channel this blessing to Joseph and his children.
        It is also possible that seeing he had allocated to the two sons of Joseph territory in the land of Israel on the same basis as that of Reuven and Shimon, i.e. as that of his actual sons, he mentioned that he had received the authority to make such allocations from G’d Himself.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   אפרים ומנשה כראובן ושמעון יהיה לי,” Ephrayim and Menashe will be to me just as Reuven and Shimon.” It appears from <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary that the division of the land in the days of Joshua was not based on the actual claimants, the sons of Yaakov still being alive at the time, but it was based on a principle known as גלגול, re-incarnation. It did not matter therefore, that Yaakov appeared to have compared the younger son Ephrayim, to Yaakov’s eldest, Reuven. Ephrayim and Menashe were to be “tribes” in name only, they did not replace the concept of “the tribe of Joseph.” [the cut off point for being included in the original family of Yaakov was the date of their arrival in the land of Egypt. Seeing that both Ephrayim and Menashe had been born prior to Yaakov’s arrival, even though they had been born on the contaminated soil of Egypt, enabled Yaakov to confer the status on them that he is about to bestow. Ed.]
        Nachmanides questions the wordsעל שם אחיהם יקראו בנחלתם, “they will be included under the names of their brothers in their inheritance,” claiming that these very words indicate that the “name” is of the essence, not as <i>Rashi</i> suggests that they were “tribes” in name only. Besides, Nachmanides holds that the land division under Joshua was not based on the original Israelites who had left Egypt being considered as having been resurrected, and the size of the land holdings being based on the size of their families at that time, but that each tribe received the same size of territory in the Land of Israel, although the parcels were not of equal quality as farmland, etc. When the Torah had instructed that the more numerous tribes should receive larger portions of land, whereas the less numerous ones would receive a smaller share, (Numbers 26,4) this referred to the basic family units within the tribe, not to the tribes themselves. These family units were based on the state of affairs of the families when they left Egypt. [if, due to the sin of the spies and the death decreed on that whole generation, taking possession of the land had not been postponed by 40 years, a whole generation, there would not have been a problem in understanding the instructions of the Torah. Ed.] It is therefore quite easy to understand that the tribal portions allocated to Ephrayim and Menashe by Yoshua equaled those of Reuven and Shimon.]
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   אשר הולדת אחריהם, “whom you have sired after them;” according to the past tense used here, it is quite possible that Joseph had begotten more children after Menashe and Ephrayim. The reason why the Torah had not spelled this out is because they would inherit with their brothers, not separately. The fact that this is the likely explanation is supported by the fact that Yaakov continued at length with: “and now, your two sons who have been born before I came down to Egypt, etc.” This appears to support the theory that Joseph had indeed had other children, and that these were born to him after the famine had ceased.
      Alternately, the words אשר הולדת could be understood to mean אשר תוליד, “whom you will beget;” we have numerous examples of a past tense being used where we would have expected a future tense. The fact that we do not hear about other children does not prove that there were none. At any rate, Yaakov may have told Joseph what the status of such children would be in the event they would yet be born for him.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ואקברה שם, “and I was forced to bury her there.” Nachmanides questioned what <i>Rashi</i> explains here, i.e. that Yaakov apologized to Joseph that he had not even been able to transport the remains of Rachel the short distance to Beyt Lechem so that she would be buried on holy soil. Nachmanides feels that the text does not only not support this, but supports the very reverse, that Rachel, though not buried in a cemetery, was indeed buried within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. Why else would Yaakov have said that Rachel had died suddenly, “in the land of Canaan?”
      Yaakov’s apology concerned the fact that he had not buried Rachel in the cave of Machpelah in Chevron, not that he had buried her outside the boundaries of the Holy Land. He emphasizes that although he had not been able to bury her in Machpelah, at least he had been able to bury her inside the Holy Land. He had not been able to abandon his entire family and carry the remains of Rachel all the way to the cave of Machpelah. He himself was likely to be buried outside of the Holy Land unless he could arrange before his death to have his remains transferred, as he was about to request from Joseph. If, at the time of Rachel’s death he would have moved his entire camp with him to the cave of Machpelah, a journey which takes a half a day for a single traveler would have consumed many days and would have been a great indignity for the remains of Rachel as he had no means to embalm her and to prevent her body from decomposing in the interval. Joseph had been fully aware of the circumstances of his mother’s death, as well as the fact that Yaakov could not have buried the remains of two sisters both of whom had been his wife, in the cave of Machpelah. The reason why he buried Leah in that cave was that he had, after all, married her first. Rachel died in “Ramah,” hence רמת רחל,” part of the territory of Binyamin after the distribution of the land by Joshua.
      Our sages who explain all this allegorically, say that Rachel had to die when she entered the Holy Land, in order that Yaakov not become guilty of being married to two sisters both of whom were alive, something that the Torah had forbidden. Yaakov received instructions from on high to bury Rachel where he did, so that her spirit, in due course, could petition G’d when her “children,” would be taken into captivity by the Babylonian general Nebuzaradan. Some commen-tators say that Yaakov explained to Joseph that the reason he had buried his mother on the way to Efrat was that this was within the tribal territory of one of her sons, whereas had she been buried in Machpelah, she would not have been interred in soil belonging to her offspring. Burying her in earth that would belong to the descendants of Leah would not have been something compatible with her dignity.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויאמר מי אלה, He said: “who are these?” According to the plain meaning of the text, Yaakov’s eyesight was failing to the extent that he no longer recognised his grandchildren, especially those who did not live in Goshen.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   בני אשר נתן לי אלוקים בדה, “they are my sons whom the Lord gave me here.” There had been no need for Joseph to tell his father that these children had been born in Egypt, for Yaakov was not only aware of this but had already referred to them in verse 5 as the two sons who had been born for him in Egypt. The whole point Joseph was making was that these were the sons who had been given to him by G’d even before his father had come to Egypt. Yaakov had said that he considered them as his own sons, (not only as his grandchildren)
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   וישק להם ויחבק להם, “he kissed and embraced them.” Man is not blessed with the presence of the Divine (spirit) unless he is in a state of joy, happiness. This is why being kissed and embraced by his father enabled the blessing to take hold on Joseph and his sons.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   לא פללתי, “I had not dared to expect.” I had not even entertained such a thought in my heart. The word is derived from פלילים, criminal judgments.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויברך את יוסף, “He blessed Joseph.” Although, literally speaking, as we can see, he blessed Joseph’s sons, when the sons are blessed this is a great blessing for their father. Seeing that Joseph had only these two sons, Yaakov invested all his blessings in these two sons, thereby blessing all of Joseph. Even if Joseph were to have more children in the future, their blessings would be derived through the blessing now given to Ephrayim and Menashe.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   המלאך הגואל אותי, “the angel that has redeemed me, etc. Some commentators understand this as a reference to G’d Who had shepherded Yaakov by means of an angel, seeing that no angel has independent powers such as attributed to him by Yaakov here. There is little doubt that the words המלאך and האלוקים which are used interchangeably (here 15 and 16) refer to the same Divine manifestation, but when viewed by the immediate recipient of the miraculous providence of G’d, appear as a more immediate Divine providence than when viewed by bystanders, who did not experience this on their own bodies. [my wording, but I trust the author’s meaning. Ed.]
  
     ויקרא בהם שמי ושם אבותי, “and may my name and the name of my forefathers be declared upon them.” Ibn Ezra explains that Yaakov wishes that the Jewish people be known as “the children of Ephrayim,” just as they are known as “the children of Avraham Yitzchok and Yisrael.”
      Nachmanides disagrees, seeing that the verse addresses itself to both Ephrayim and Menashe, even though Ephrayim may have been mentioned ahead of his senior brother. History shows that although traditionally, the Jewish people have been referred to as “Ephrayim,” by some prophets, Menashe has never been used as an alternative for “the seed of Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yisrael.” Perhaps what Yaakov meant was that the Jewish people appear collectively as “the house of Joseph” in a number of prophecies by our prophets. The plain meaning of the blessing appears to be that just as the descendants of Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yisrael are blessed and assured of eternal continuity, so Yaakov wishes that the same may apply to the seed of both Ephrayim and Menashe, individually, as tribes.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   וירע בעיניו, “Joseph was displeased by his father having placed his right hand on Ephrayim;” perhaps Joseph loved Menashe better seeing that he was his eldest son, and that it bothered him that his father appeared to ignore this point. Perhaps he only thought that Yaakov had done what he did mistakenly; and as soon as he heard that his father had done so intentionally he was reconciled to the holy spirit which guided his father’s hands.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   לא כן, “not so,” some people claim that Joseph certainly did not say to his father outright that he had not acted correctly, but that the words meant that he, Joseph, had been mistaken when he had thought that his father had erred. Nonetheless, Joseph told his father that he preferred for him to place his right hand on the firstborn Menashe.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויברכם ביום ההוא, “He blessed them both on that day;” the words “on that day,” are important, seeing that Joseph pressured his father to place his right hand on Menashe and to bless him first. The Torah clearly shows that Yaakov resisted this pressure and did not want to remove his right hand from the head of Ephrayim. Not only that, but when Yaakov eventually pronounced the blessing, he made a point of naming Ephrayim first in his blessing so that when the parents of Jewish children would bless their children in the future they would always mention Ephrayim first when wishing that their children model themselves after these two sons of Joseph.
  
     בך יברך ישראל, ”when the Jewish people bless their children they will do so by referring to you, Joseph, to your well turned out children.” They will express the fervent hope that their own children would turn out as successfully.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ואני נתתי לך שכם אחד על אחיך, “and I have allocated to you one additional portion in excess of that of your brothers;” this was a reference to the birthright. Joseph became the official firstborn of Yaakov, and that is why his two children each received a share of the holy Land, just as Yaakov’s own sons. According to <i>Rashi,</i> Yaakov referred to the birthright that he had purchased at the time from his brother Esau, as a result of which, he, Yaakov, was entitled to an extra share in the inheritance from his father Yitzchok.
      I must confess that I do not understand <i>Rashi’s</i> words here. Yaakov did not give Joseph the birthright he had taken away from Esau, but he gave him the birthright he had taken away from Reuven, as is spelled out when he blessed the other sons, and when referring to Reuven, (49,4) that Reuven had desecrated him when he entered his bed-chamber,.claiming it as his abode. The birthright had been transferred from Reuven to Joseph as penalty for the act of desecrating his father. Furthermore, how would the fact that Yaakov had personally taken the city of Shechem from the Emorite have any bearing on his deal with Esau that acquired Esau’s birthright for him? He had been forced to justify giving this extra portion of land to Joseph by making reference to the fact that it had not come to be his through inheritance passed on, but through personal acquisition when he had risked his life for it in war.
      Nachmanides explains the words אשר לקחתי מיד האמורי,in this paragraph as meaning that the words refer to the time when the land of Israel would be conquered by the sword. Yaakov, already now, tells Joseph that his sons, i.e. the tribes of Menashe and Ephrayim, who would be in the forefront, especially Machir ben Menashe, as we know from Numbers 32, 33-42. According to Nachmanides the promise of בקשתי ובחרבי would be fulfilled in the future when the tribe of Menashe would conquer distant parts of the east bank of the Jordan, such as Gilead, etc, as described at the end of <i>Parshat</i> Mattot. The reference to these weapons were only allusions to the fact that actual fighting would have to take place to secure the land of Canaan as the homeland of the Jewish people for all times. חרב and קשת, sword and bow, are presumed to be symbolical references to the battles against Sichon and Og, both kings of the Emorite tribe. These battles were the fiercest of the conquest of the land of Israel, although they were fought for land on the east bank of the river Jordan. Joshua 11,19 himself testified that not a single city in the land of Canaan made a peaceful surrender to the Jewish army in order to emigrate and save their lives. When Yaakov used the expression לקחתי, “I have taken,” he refers to his moral and legal right to engage in that battle against a people who -according to United Nations statutes- had been rightful owners of the land they dwelt on. Yaakov may very well have done what a number of prophets did when they wanted to make similar points regarding the legality of Israelite expansionary wars. They took arms symbolically, and shot them at imaginary targets, to explain to the king that what they had done symbolically, it was up to the king to do in practice.(compare Kings II 13,16-17).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   אשר יקרא אתכם באחרית הימים, “what will happen to you in the latter days.” At this point Yaakov wanted to reveal to his sons details about the ultimate redemption of the Jewish people, but this vision was withheld from him by G’d, so that he had to make do with allusions to earlier events, although he managed to insert hints of what was to happen still later. The words עד כי יבא שילה, are proof of this.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ראובן בכורי אתה, “Reuven you are my firstborn, etc.” Yaakov meant to imply that due to his being the biologically first born, he should normally have been accorded a preferential rank, as is customary for firstborns, such as being the family’s priest, as well as its leader in secular matters. However, on account of the unfortunate incident in Genesis 35,22, he had disqualified himself for such preferential treatment. When he demonstrated an inability to control his biological urges, something Yaakov compares to the unstoppable tendency of water to flow downhill, he proved unfit for the task normally allotted to firstborns in those days.
      An alternate explanation of the line בכורי אתה כחי וראשית אוני יתר שאת, is: “you were my firstborn as long as you were reminiscent of the first product of my virility. At that time you possessed the advantage known as יתר שאת, the word meaning the same as in Job 13,11 הלא שאתו תבעת אתכם, “will not his height terrify you, etc?” The expression ויתר עוז refers to superior physical power, such as is useful in battle. You possessed this advantage only as long as you fulfilled the function of the firstborn. Since this task has been transferred to Joseph, you no longer possess it, as elaborated on by <i>Rashi.</i> You forfeited your advantages.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   אז חללת יצועי עלה, “then you desecrated Him Who abode on my bed.” According to our sages, Yaakov referred to Reuven having desecrated the Presence of the Divinity, which was ever present near his father’s bed.
      Another explanation: your פחז, i.e. “your haste,” which was comparable to the ease with which water gushed forth from a spring, caused you to forfeit your advantage, for in your haste to ascend my couch you desecrated it thereby.
      Ibn Ezra understands the word עלה here as meaning “disappeared, withdrew,” as if the Torah had written עלה מעלי, “distanced himself from me.” He quotes David in Psalms 102,25 אל תעלני בחצי ימי, “do not let me die when only half my allotted lifespan is over.”
      Rabbi Joseph Kimchi views the paragraph as a blessing (just as the others) each of the sons receiving a blessing compatible with his personality. He includes the wish that just as he is willing to forgive Reuven for his indiscretion, so may the Lord also forgive him this sin. As a result you will be able to display the natural advantages common to a firstborn. The word שאת appears in the context of forgiveness, (Genesis 4,7 with Kayin). Yaakov described Reuven’s inability to control his libido as comparable to water gushing forth. The episode was understood by Yaakov to have been a momentary failure of reason controlling natural urges, resulting in his couch being desecrated. The word עלה belongs to the words פחז כמים instead of being part of חללת יצועי.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   כלי חמס מכרותיהם, “their occupation with weaponry is stolen.” Onkelos understands the word מכרותיהם as similar to מגורותיהם, “places where they sojourned,” meaning that both Shimon and Levi had (stolen?) weapons from their uncle Esau and they used them to perpetrate acts of violence in the land they sojourned in. 
      Other commentators feel that the expression כלי חמס defines their lifestyle, i.e. wherever they sojourned they used strong-arm methods to get their way and to secure their livelihood.
      Still other commentators understand the word מכרותיהם as derived from מכירה, “sale,” Yaakov saying that these two brothers had figuratively speaking “sold themselves” to the use of violence, similar to Judges 5,18 עם חרף נפשם למות, “a people that mocked death.”
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   בסודם, “to their counsel,” a reference to the deceitful answer they gave to Shechem and Chamor in the matter of Dinah’s rape and how to compensate for this.
  
     ובקהלם, “and in their congregation, etc.” a reference to the plot to kill the male inhabitants of Shechem.
  
     כי באפם הרגו איש, “for in their anger they killed a man.” A reference to the inhabitants of Shechem.
  
     וברצונם עקרו שור, “and it was their wish to uproot an ox.” Onkelos translates the word שור as סנאה, “the hated one.” It is similar to the word שור in Genesis 49,22 where it means “wall.” After they had killed the inhabitants of Shechem they climbed its protective wall.
      An alternate explanation understands שור as an allusion to חמור, Chamor and Schechem, the leaders of the town of Shechem. The ox is considered the largest of the domesticated animals, as we know of the description פרות הבשן, Amos 4,1, where the prophet describes the people oppressing the poor in such terms. It is also possible that the word איש describes all the people killed in Shechem, and that after having killed the males they plundered their belongings, and that Yaakov describes that with the words עקרו שור, “they uprooted all their belongings, their valuables.”
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   אחלקם ביעקב, “I will separate them within Yaakov;” this happened indeed. The ancestral portion of the tribe of Shimon was completely enclosed by the territory of the tribe of Yehudah, whereas the ancestral portion of the tribe of Levi did not exist as such at all, but there were 48 cities allocated to that tribe which had been chosen by G’d to be the spiritual mentors of the people, and whose cities also served as alternate cities of refuge for people who had killed human beings through carelessness.
      Rabbi Joseph Kimchi explains that Shimon and Levi who had demonstrated brotherly love by their jealously avenging the honour of their sister Dinah, employing weapons of war in their pursuit of the perpetrators, were now blessed by Yaakov. He said that when they used such weapons, which are normally cursed weapons, in their rightful anger, as a result of venting their anger in a noble cause, they would henceforth be deprived of such emotions that normally are considered as negative virtues. The word ארור, describes a deficiency, lack of virtue. By distributing them among the various tribes, Yaakov hoped to infuse rightful anger when the occasion would arise also in the hearts of the other tribes.
      Some commentators hold that Yaakov even wished to share some of this rightful anger and apparently unbridled behaviour demonstrated by these two sons of his, and they understand the word תבוא in אל תבא נפשי in the same sense as Leviticus 22,7 ובא השמש וטהר, where it means that as soon as the sun sets the priest in question is purified, that he too wishes to be purified by having a share in the righteous anger displayed by Shimon and Levi on the occasion in question. I do not believe that such an explanation is tenable, for if it were, how will these scholars explain the words ובקהלם אל אל תחד כבודי, “may my honour not be considered as at one with theirs?”
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   יהודה אתה יודוך אחיך, “as far as you, Yehudah are concerned, your brothers will have to admit to you, etc.” They will acknowledge you as already foretold in your very name, for they will realize that your hand will vanquish the neck of your enemies thereby saving them.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   מטרף בני עלית, “you my son, removed yourself from the prey.” The reason the simile of טרף, prey, is used by Yaakov, is that it is appropriate for someone described as אריה, lion. You got up and removed yourself from treating Joseph as “prey.” The word טרף here is to be understood as a transitive verb.
      Some commentators understand the word as an intransitive verb, so that the words מטרף בני עלית would be an allusion to David (re-incarnate of Yehudah) standing by the lion that had become his prey. He had succeeded in killing a lion and a bear, which gave him the courage to engage in battle against Goliath. (compare Samuel I 17,34) David’s victory over Goliath was the foundation of his subsequent greatness.
  
     כרע רבץ כאריה, “He will kneel and crouch like a lion.” It is the nature of a lion that after having secured its prey it kneels and crouches, stretching out and not leaving that spot even if danger appears to threaten it. Here too, Yaakov alludes to David, who after securing prey, did not flee the site out of fear of a counter attack (avengers).
      Some commentators see in the words מטרף בני עלית, a description of how the Jewish people after vanquishing their enemies will arise, and assume a posture of fearlessness, unconcern. [as opposed to Yaakov who, after Shimon and Levi killed the male inhabitants of Shechem, worried about retribution by the surrounding Emorites. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   לא יסור שבט מיהודה, “The rod will never leave Yehudah, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra this means that even before having been crowned king officially, already when Israel would be in the desert, the army group featuring the tribe of Yehudah will march at the head of the people.
  
     עד כי יבא שילה, “until Shiloh emerges,” a reference to David who will be the first king establishing a dynasty; the מחוקק mentioned in our verse refers to the scribe recording the king’s edicts. The expression מבין רגליו, is a description of how the scribe holds the book in which he writes between his legs, seeing that he sits at the feet of the ruler whose decrees he records for publication and for posterity. The word שילה means “his son,” based on the word ובשליתה יוצאת מבין רגליה ובבניה אשר תלד in Deuteronomy 28,57, which means “the afterbirth which issues from between her legs and the babies she bears.” 
      Nachmanides queries this commentary which is attributed to Ibn Ezra, saying that Yaakov could not have referred to David, claiming that the word שבט, “scepter” cannot be used except in conjunction with a crowned head. He supports this with several quotes from Scripture, stating that until David’s advent to the throne, no one from the tribe of Yehudah had possessed such a symbol of authority. The promise of the scepter of Royalty not departing from Yehudah, is not meant to suggest that it will never depart from Yehudah, i.e. the dynasty of David. It could not mean that as the Torah has stated specifically in Deuteronomy 28.36 that יולך ה' אותך ואת מלכך אשר תקים עליך אל גוי אשר לא ידעת, “that the Lord will lead you and the king you appointed over yourself into exile to a nation whom you have never heard of.” In other words, not only the people but also their (former) king will experience exile in a foreign land. Clearly, when in exile, they will not have a king of their own ruling over them, whether Davidic or otherwise. What Yaakov meant was that as long as there would be kings in an independent state of Israel, such a king would be from the tribe of Yehudah through his illustrious scion David. Jerusalem would not be ruled by a king from some other tribe.
  
     עד כי יבא שילה. A reference to David’s son (offspring), i.e. the Messiah.
  
     ולו יקהת עמים, “to whom the gathered nations will belong.” The Messiah will rule over all of them. We have here a clear statement that Yaakov “crowned” Yehudah as authority over the other brothers, assuring him of eventual rule over the entire Jewish nation. 
      This raises the question of why Sha-ul who was from the tribe of Binyamin was appointed king over Israel at all? We must remember that in G’d’s and Samuel’s eyes, the very demand for a king at a time when the judge and Seer Samuel led the Jewish people successfully in war and peace, was anathema to G’d. Samuel, i.e. G’d, therefore did not want at that time to appoint a king from the tribe of Yehudah, the very tribe who once it supplied a king would at the same time have founded that king’s dynasty, as predicted by Yaakov here. Even if Sha-ul had not sinned by failing to completely wipe out Amalek, his dynasty would have extended only over his own tribe, not over the whole people of Israel. He might possibly also have ruled over the tribe of Ephrayim. The Kings who ruled over the ten tribes all did not do so with G’d’s approval, i.e. they violated Yaakov’s last will and testament by doing so, and even the Hasmoneans who were otherwise fully traditional and meticulously observant but arrogated the mantle of Royalty to themselves, were punished by their family being completely wiped out, as stated by our sages. Their sin was that they made the scepter depart from the rightful claimants, a scion from the house of David. As a symbol of all this, only kings descended from David had ever been anointed with the oil of anointing described in Exodus 29,7 and elsewhere.
      <i>Rash’bam</i> explains the words לא יסור שבט מיהודה to mean that the position of authority accorded by his brothers to Yehudah will not be usurped until Yerovam and ten tribes secede from the Davidic dynasty at Shechem, (very close to Shiloh, compare Kings I chapter 12) Shiloh and Shechem are names used interchangeably This becomes clear in Joshua 24,1 and the whole paragraph following. Joshua’s referring to the people standing in the presence of the Lord, i.e. near the Tabernacle which was in Shiloh, makes all this very plausible.
      Yet another explanation of the words לא יסור שבט, understands the following words עד כי יבא שילה, as a description of the “sun” represented by Shiloh, the presence of the <i>Shechinah,</i> i.e. the Tabernacle, at that time. Only then would the kingdom (and dynasty) of David the scion of Yehudah truly begin to assert itself as we know from Psalms 78,60 ויטוש משכן שילו, אהל שכן באדם, “He forsook the Tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent He had set among men.” 
      Yet another approach to our verse understands the words to mean that Yehudah’s authority and preferential status as first among the princes and leader in the battle formations of the Jewish army will last until Joshuah will erect the central Tabernacle at Shiloh [for the first time in a permanent location, Ed.] From then on, all the people will congregate around that Tabernacle in equal measure so that Yehudah will no longer need to be “first” in the sense of providing inspiration for the remainder of the nation.
  
     עד כי יבא שילה, the words עד כי are to be understood in a sense similar to Genesis 28,15 כי לא אעזבך עד אשר אם עשיתי את אשר דברתי לך, ”and I will not abandon you until I have carried out all that I have said to you.” The meaning of that line is not that after G’d had fulfilled the promise made to Yaakov in the dream of the ladder He would abandon him, but that after that stage had been reached Yaakov would be able to manage on his own. Similarly, after Shiloh, Yehudah, i.e. its scion David, would proceed to grow in importance and following without overt intervention by G’d.
  
     ולו יקהת עמים, “and nations will flock around him.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the word יקהת refers to an assembly of people. Other commentators understand the word as referring to people subordinating themselves. Still another view understands the word as describing people disciplining themselves and willingly accepting commands. Yaakov predicts that other nations will accept the rule of Yehudah upon themselves without challenging any of it.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   אסרי לגפן עירה, “he will tie his ass to a vine.” Seeing that grapes will be in such abundant supply he will not worry that by tying his ass to a vine the ass would be tempted to eat the grapes. 
     סותה, “his garment.” The letter כ at the beginning of this word has been omitted. Alternatively, the word is derived from מסוה, the cloth Moses wrapped around his forehead so as not to frighten the people by the rays of light his face emitted upon his return from the mountain. (Exodus 34,33) 
  
  Verse 12
  
   הכלילי עינים מיין, “red-eyed from wine;” due to the large quantities of wine he consumes his eyes will reflect the redness of that wine. Similarly, the amounts of milk consumed will be reflected in the whiteness of his teeth.
      Other commentators understand the word שנים as referring to the crags of a rock, suggesting that milk will be flowing from between crags in the rocks.
      Still other commentators interpret the word חכלילי as a comparative mode, meaning that the eyes will be even redder than wine, and the teeth even whiter than milk.
      Nachmanides says that the meaning is exactly the reverse, i.e. citing Ezekiel 23,40 כחלת עיניך, “you daubed your eyes.” The letter ל was repeated here, something not unusual. The message Yaakov conveys is that whereas normally women daub their eyes with a bluish coloured cosmetic, Yehudah will employ reddish looking cosmetic for that purpose. Similarly, whereas others whiten their teeth by applying cosmetics, Yehudah will use milk instead. The entire verse is a euphemism for the abundance of both wine and milk that Yehudah will experience in his territory. The wine will drip from his eyes like tears, so that envious youngsters will have to use cosmetics constantly in order to compete.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   זבולון, Zevulun is the only one of Yaakov’s sons not mentioned in order of his seniority vis-à-vis his brothers. His name was mentioned ahead of its proper place in order for the name of his brother Yissachar to appear in between his name and that of Dan. The reason is that his ancestral heritage was situated between that of Dan and Yissachar. 
  
     והוא לחוף אניות, “and he will border seas.” There are many locations in the sea itself which do not qualify as anyone’s heritage.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   רובץ בין המשפתים, “crouching between boundaries.” Some commentators equate the word משפתים with “loads,” i.e. משואות, that the ass crouches with loads that it is carrying on either side of it. The ass is not allowed the luxury to lie down and rest, but has to snatch brief moments during which to renew its strength while crouching. The intensity with which the members of the tribe studied Torah was compared by Yaakov to this simile.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויט שכמו לסבול, “so he inclined its shoulder to bear the burden.” The burden referred to is the task of teaching the Israelites the Torah. At the same time for the Israelites on their part, the tribe of Yissachar became a tax burden, מס עובד, as they had to look after these Torah teachers financially while coming to Yissachar’s territory to study Torah.
      Some commentators understand the words ויהי למס עובד as meaning that these Torah teachers were relieved of the duty of actively doing army duty during wars, paying a tax instead, so as not to appear as freeloaders. Alternatively, it describes a tendency by these members of Yissachar of paying off potential invaders rather than to engage in physical confrontation with them.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   דן ידין עמו, “Dan will avenge his people.” The word ידין is understood here as “taking up the quarrel on someone’s behalf.” 
  
     כאחד, “similar to the “one,” i.e. the tribe of Yehudah who normally played the role of saviour of his people. The meaning could also be that Shimshon, from the tribe of Dan, would be the only judge who would rule over the entire people, something that otherwise would be the prerogative of the tribe of Yehudah. Yaakov likened Shimshon the Danite to a snake, as just like a snake he acted on his own, without the support of an army. He acted aggressively just as certain types of snakes who attack unsuspecting travelers without warning. 
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויפול רוכבו אחור, “and its rider falls backwards.” When the snake bites the heel of the horse, it rears up with its head , throwing off its rider in the process.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   לישועתך קויתי ה', “I hope for Your salvation, <i>Hashem.”</i> The attacker, having bitten the victim’s heel, is afraid of the sword of the horse’s rider, and therefore implores G’d to save him from retribution.
      Another explanation of why Yaakov added this line at this point; is that he foresaw that Shimshon would eventually be at the mercy of the Philistines. He prayed on his behalf while blessing his tribe Dan.
      Another reason for the insertion of this line at this point could be that although the prophet Samuel in the Book of Samuel describes G’d as being supportive of the respective judges in their time, Yaakov foresaw that history would prove that Shimshon would be the exception. He therefore prayed that he would be proven wrong, and that G’d would remain at his side. The fact is that Shimshon would be the last of a string of judges, Samuel, his successor as the leader of the people fulfilling primarily a role as the “Seer.” In fact, before the death of Samuel the Jewish nation would for the first time be ruled by a King (Sha-ul), someone specifically crowned for the position and meant to be the founder of a dynasty, a ruler by merit of his ancestry.
      Some commentators feel that when Yaakov foresaw his descendant Dan as embodying the character of a serpent, he became so frightened by this image that he spontaneously protested by crying out: “may the Lord help me!” 
      <i>Rash’bam</i> explains the exclamation as pertaining not just to Shimshon but to the entire tribe of Dan, whose task in the desert was to be the rearguard of the Israelites’ army, the tribe most exposed to attack from the rear. He, <i>Rash’bam,</i> does not like to apply this outcry to Shimshon, as Yaakov did not prophesy his eventual defeat and capture.[a very nice interpretation, but not found in our editions of the <i>Rash’bam.</i> Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   גד גדוד יגודנו, “Gad will experience having to face troops from time to time;” seeing that the territory of this tribe will be on the east bank of the river Jordan, and hence more exposed to hostile forces, military exercises will be a common experience in this tribe’s history.
  
     והוא יגד עקב, “and he will troop back in their tracks.” Another way of saying that the Gadites will cut down their enemies while the latter are retreating. The Talmud uses this expression for cutting down trees. Alternately, Yaakov referred to the military courage of the members of this tribe who would wage battle both at the head of the army as well as at its rear. 
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   מאשר שמנה לחמו, “the food emanating from the territory of Asher will be rich in fats.” The letter מ at the beginning of the word מאשר is an addition, (not absolutely necessary) Alternately, it was used to make plain that the territory of Asher is meant, and not the people of the tribe. Yet another possibility is that this letter מ refers back to the blessing of Gad, as if to say that seeing that Gad will be preoccupied fighting wars and would therefore not have sufficient time to plant his crops and to harvest them, his brother tribe Asher would compensate him and provide him with royal delicacies.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   נפתלי אילה שלוחה, “Naftali’s territory will be as productive as a free-running doe. It was a custom among kings to send one another does as gifts, seeing that the does raised in the Northern kingdom would be looked after in the Royal Palace of the Kings in the south who would tie messages to their horns after which they would return to their habitat. [they were used as fast mail couriers. Ed.] The meaning of the words אמרי שפר, is that Yaakov wishes that they be bearers of good tidings. Yaakov hints that there would be ample reason to send good tidings from the territory of Naftali.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   בן פורת יוסף, “Joseph is a charming son;” all other sons of Yaakov are named before any description of their virtues or otherwise is mentioned. Here we find at least one of Joseph’s attributes preceding the mention of his name. The reason why Joseph was not first mentioned by name was that he was as if still a son living at home, so that he did not need any introduction.
  
     בן פורת, <i>Rash’bam</i> comments that we find a similar construction to that in our verse in Psalms 93,3 נשאו נהרות ה' נשאו נהרות קולם , the rivers raise their voice, etc,” and only afterwards are we told in response to what these rivers raised their voice, i.e. in response to כי הנה אוביך ה', etc, “here G’d’s enemies are described as perishing.” A similar construction is found in Moses’ song after the splitting of the sea of reeds, i.e. ימינך ה' בכח ימינך ה' תרעץ אויב, instead of ה' ימינך תרעץ אויב, “Lord You smash the enemy with Your right hand.” (Exodus 15,6) The expression בן פורת parallels the expression in Ezekiel 19,10 פוריה וענפה, where it describes being fruitful.
      Some commentators view the word פורת as related to פארות as in ותעש פארות, in Ezekiel 17,6 where it means “it brought forth branches.” (Additional verses are quoted to show that this is not so far-fetched).
  
     עלי עין, “when it is planted near a spring of water.”
  
     בנות צעדה עלי שור, “girls stepped atop the wall.” Here Yaakov compares the leaves sprouting forth from the afore-mentioned branches to the daughters who are offspring of mature women, describing them as the rich fruit of these branches, all having deep roots from which to draw nourishment. They require walls to support them and to ensure them against being trampled and broken, seeing they are so heavy with fruit; hence the mention of עלי שור, “along the wall.” 
      Nachmanides writes that Yaakov mentioned daughters, thereby alluding indirectly to the two tribes Joseph would become. He could not do so directly, seeing that there could not be more than twelve tribes altogether, and he had already blessed Levi. Moses, when he blessed the Israelites at the end of his life, did something similar when instead בנות he employed the simile of שור, ox, and the simile of קרנים, horns, horns, as being projections emanating from the same body, but suggesting through this smile that each is a body in its own right. Seeing that Moses did not extend a blessing to the tribe of Shimon at all, he could name Ephrayim and Menashe separately, without upsetting the total number of twelve tribes. He therefore referred to the “tens of thousands of Ephrayim, and the thousands of Menashe,” describing how fruitful Joseph would become.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   וימררוהו ורובו, “they made life bitter for him and became his adversaries.” Compare Job 16,13 יסבו עליו רביו, “his adversaries ganged up on him with their arrows.” Yaakov employs the brothers’ conduct versus Joseph as similar to that described in the verse we quoted from Job, so that the simile of בעלי חצים, and ותשב באיתן קשתו, that Joseph when he had the opportunity to exact retribution from his brothers when he had many arrows at his disposal, refrained from doing so by keeping his arrows safely tucked in his quiver and his bow inactive, is most appropriate. 
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ותשב באיתן קשתו, Joseph’s ability to restrain his natural desire to punish his brothers was due to his attitude towards the One Who had also been the G’d of his father, Who had guided matters in a manner that eventually transformed Joseph to become the shepherd of Israel, i.e. making him the essence of Israel, the true תולדה, “offspring” of his father.
      Some commentators understand the expression רועה אבן ישראל, as Yaakov describing his reaction when being reunited with Joseph. Whereas his (Israel’s) heart had already been dead like stone, he had been almost literally resurrected and began to live after being reunited with his beloved son Joseph. This was also the meaning of the words ותחי רוח יעקב אביהם, “their father Yaakov’s spirit was resurrected.” ()
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   מאל אביך, “From your father Almighty, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra the letter מ at the beginning of this verse refers forward to the words ואת שדי in our verse. Yaakov explains that Joseph’s strength of character was assisted by these two attributes of G’d. It is the G’d of his father Who will truly bless him. 
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ולקדקוד נזיר אחיו, “on the head of the one who was separate from his brothers.” The word נזיר here may be understood in the sense of נזר, “crown” i.e. the most superior, of his brothers. Another way of looking at this expression is that seeing that the head is the highest, most valuable of all our organs, by blessing the head one automatically blesses the entire body, i.e. all twelve tribes.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   בנימין זאב יטרף, “Binyamin is a wolf garnering prey.” The kingdom of Sha-ul, the first king of Israel, a descendant of Binyamin, has been compared to that of a wolf. One of the characteristics of a wolf is that it flees from the place where it killed its prey, and does not wait around like a lion. King Sha-ul’s kingdom endured for no more than two and a half years, whereas his successor’s David’s kingdom, endured for 40 years. Yaakov therefore likens his domain to that of a lion, which, after killing its prey does not flee in fear of pursuit.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   וזאת אשר דבר להם אבותם, “and this is what their father told them.” This is how he concluded his blessings with the word זאת. Moses in his turn, commenced his blessings with the word זאת, as we know from Deuteronomy
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ויצו אותם, “He commanded them;” Ibn Ezra understands this command as being the order to follow Joseph in every respect. Nachmanides writes that there had been no need for Yaakov to command his other sons to be obedient to Joseph, but the “command” Yaakov issued to the brothers was to bury him in the cave of Machpelah, as he had commanded Joseph already on a previous occasion. He remained afraid that perhaps Pharaoh would not give Joseph permission to personally leave the country. Yaakov was proven correct, seeing that Pharaoh consented to Joseph leaving only in order to enable him to honour the oath to his father.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   במערה וגו'...אשר קנה אברהם, “in the cave of Machpelah which Avraham had acquired, etc.” According to Nachmanides the reason why Yaakov recalled the details of the cave and who had been buried inside it, was to add distinction to that site in order to give his sons additional incentive to bury their father in that cave also. He added the words: “which Avraham had acquired as an inalienable ancestral plot,” in order to make them aware that Avraham had already designated this cave as an ancestral burial plot, so that they would have a legal basis for disputing anyone among the Hittites who might challenge their right to bury Yaakov there. The reason why the Torah repeats this once more in 50,13, is to indicate that with the burial of Yaakov in that cave Avraham’s intention at the time he purchased that cave had been carried out completely. He had purchased the cave for three pairs of human beings to be buried inside it, and not more. This is the reason that when the time came, Joseph did not ask the brothers to bury him there also.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   שמה קברו את יצחק, “this was where they had buried Yitzchok.” The reason why Yaakov phrased it thus, instead of saying: “there I buried Yitzchok,” is that at the time he had to share that duty (honour) with his brother Esau. He had no wish to even mention Esau at this time. Furthermore, he wanted to avoid the fact that his mother Rivkah had also been buried there, but that he had not taken part in her burial at the time.
  
     ושמה קברתי את לאה, ”and I also buried Leah there.” Although, no doubt, his sons knew this, he used mention of the fact to establish his right to be buried there as her husband, in the event that anyone would dispute this. There was the chance that Esau, being the firstborn, might claim the right to be buried there with father and grandfather. Seeing that he had not disputed Leah’s right to be buried there, he should not dispute Yaakov’s right either. The reason why he considered it necessary to add (compare 50,5) the words אשר כריתי לי, “which I dug out for myself,” was to reinforce his claim to be buried there. The reason that Joseph took a whole army with him in order to fulfill his oath and to bury his father in the location he had chosen, was precisely because he anticipated that the wicked Esau might use the occasion to dispute Yaakov’s right to burial there. According to our tradition, Esau and his clan did indeed try and prevent Yaakov being buried there. In fact, the Torah does allude to this obliquely when writing in 50,14 that Joseph and his brothers and all those who had participated in this burial returned to Egypt. This was recorded only in order to inform us that during the armed dispute which preceded Yaakov’s burial, his side did not suffer any casualties. Yaakov’s merit was great enough to protect all those participating in his burial.
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   ויגוע ויאסף, “he passed away painlessly and was gathered to join his people.” Our sages use this phraseology to comment that “Yaakov did not die,” seeing that the Torah avoided the word וימת, “he died,” in spite of the fact that he himself had announced that he was going “to die.” (compare 48,21). Possibly, he himself did not know that he would not die in the accepted meaning of the word, or he did not want to make a statement which sounded arrogant, bombastic. We also have the report of the Torah in 50,15 ויראו אחי יוסף כי מת אביהם, “Joseph’s brothers saw that their father had died.” This is no contradiction. As far as the brothers were concerned their father had ”died.” Or, they too, had remained ignorant of what has been revealed to us by our tradition and the allusion in the text, something the brothers did not know as the Torah had not been written and revealed as yet.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   דברו נא באזני פרעה, “please tell Pharaoh the following:” the reason why Joseph did not tell this to Pharaoh personally, was that it was forbidden to appear in the King’s palace dressed in mourner’s garb.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויעש לאביו אבל שבעת ימים, “he observed a seven days’ mourning period for his father.” According to Ibn Ezra this took effect as soon as they had buried Yaakov in Machpelah, in accordance with the tradition handed down by our sages.
      Some commentators believe that Joseph first returned to Egypt from the threshing ground of Atad, for when all the kings of the region had assembled there and had expressed fear that the Egyptians would use their presence as a pretext to invade and annex their lands, the elders of Egypt reassured them explaining that Joseph would return to Egypt immediately after the burial. (compare in part <i>Sotah</i> 13).
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויעשו בניו לו כן כאשר צום, ”his sons did for him exactly in accordance with his instructions.” <i>Rashi</i> understands the emphasis in our verse as being the word בניו “his sons,” i.e. that his grandsons were not to be pallbearers. Some of these grandsons had been mothered by Canaanite women, and Yaakov did not want to be carried by them.
      If so, it seems hard to understand that Yaakov, while alive and much younger, had not forbidden his sons to marry such women, seeing that Avraham and Yitzchok had both been very concerned about this. Not only this, but <i>Rashi</i> himself on Genesis 38,2 where Yehudah’s marriage to the daughter of a “Canaanite” man by the name of Shua is reported, goes out of his way to explain that the word “Canaanite” in that verse is not an ethnic description but means: “a trader.”
      It is possible that among Yaakov’s grandchildren there were at least some who had been born to Canaanite mothers, such as “Sha-ul son of the Canaanite” in Genesis (adoptee of Shimon?) As to <i>Rashi</i> explaining that Ephrayim and Menashe acted as pallbearers in lieu of Levi and Joseph, although they too were grandsons of Yaakov, this is no problem, Yaakov having explicitly described both Ephrayim and Menashe as being just like Reuven and Shimon (his sons) in every respect. (Genesis 48,5)
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   לו ישטמנו, “supposing Joseph were to turn hostile against us? They hoped that Joseph’s hostility against them would be restricted to his heart and would not manifest itself openly. [this interpretation assumes that the word לו is a wishful expression as it is elsewhere. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויבך יוסף בדברם אליו, “Joseph cried when they spoke to him.” He cried when he realized that they suspected him of harboring hostile thoughts against them. This verse is proof that Joseph had never informed Yaakov that the brothers had sold him, for if Yaakov had been aware of it, he would have ordered Joseph not to hold a grudge against the brothers on that account and to make up with them
      According to the <i>Midrash</i>, after Joseph’s original meeting with his father in Egypt, Joseph made a point of never again to meet his father without someone else being present so that his brothers would not have reason to suspect him of his telling his father that they had sold him.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   התחת אלוקים, “if in lieu of G’d?” Some commentators understand Joseph as remonstrating with his brothers who had prostrated themselves before him as if he were G’d, something most inappropriate, especially when they said: “here we are ready to be your slaves.” [Jews are G’d’ servants, not men’s. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויאמר יוסף אל אחיו הנה אנכי מת, “Joseph said to his brothers: ‘here I am about to die;’” this indicates that they all survived him.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   וישבע יוסף את בני ישראל, “Joseph adjured the Children of Israel.” When he realized that his brothers were advanced in age, he included also their offspring in this oath as none of his surviving brothers might be alive when the Israelites would leave Egypt. Everyone knew of the exile that awaited them in Egypt and that its conditions would be very harsh. The reason that he did not make them swear to transfer his remains to the Land of Canaan immediately after his death, may well have been that he knew that it was beyond their political power to have such an illustrious ruler as Joseph buried in a foreign country.
  
     פקוד יפקוד אתכם אלוקים, “when G’d will eventually recall you, etc.” Joseph reminds his brothers that he is merely a mortal human being, whereas G’d, Who is eternal, will in due course remember them and liberate them from their exile. The reason why he chose the expression פקד as characterizing this redemption may be because this expression was used by the Torah when soldiers returned from battle without having incurred any casualties. (Numbers 31,49) The word also lends itself to allusions of a numerical nature, i.e. the original number of years of slavery i.e. 400 would be reduced by the numerical value of the word פקוד i.e. 190, so that in actual fact the stay of the Israelites in Egypt would amount to only 210 years after Yaakov’s arrival there, the number being characterized by the numerical value of the word רדו, the word used by Yaakov when he instructed his sons to go down to Egypt to buy food in the first place. (compare Genesis 42,2)
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  ויישם בארון, “he was placed in a coffin.” Ibn Ezra draws attention to the vowel <i>kametz</i> under the letter ב which suggests that this coffin was a known entity, drawing the conclusion that Joseph, personally, had prepared his coffin prior to his death.
  
  
  Exodus
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ﻿   ואלה שמות בני ישראל, “and these were the names of the Children of Israel, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra the reason why the Torah decided to repeat the names of the sons of Yaakov here once more is because at the end of the last portion of the Book of <i>Bereshit</i> the Torah described how Joseph lived to see grandchildren and great grandchildren and how they multiplied. The Torah now wants us to know that the other sons of Yaakov experienced a similar blessing after arriving in Egypt.     Nachmanides explains that the mention of the names here is designed to impress upon the reader that the exile in Egypt did not begin with the suppression of the Jews by the new Pharaoh, but that it commenced with Yaakov’ and his family’s descent to Egypt some 93 years earlier. The report helps to establish the fact that the Book of Exodus is a direct continuation of the Book of Genesis. The Torah abbreviates here, mentioning only “the sons of Yaakov, his family totaling 70 souls,” instead of listing their names again as in chapter 46 of the Book of Genesis. 
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   וימת יוסף וכל הדור ההוא, “Joseph and his whole generation died.”
  Ibn Ezra feels that the line וכל הדור ההוא, “and that whole generation,” refers to what follows, i.e. the connection with the following verse that introduces a new ruler in Egypt. 
  
  Verse 7
  
   ובני ישראל פרו, “and the Children of Israel were fruitful;” in spite of the fact that the Egyptians oppressed them in order to limit their natural increase. Not only did they keep increasing in numbers, but they increased disproportionately, as do vermin.
  
     וירבו, “they multiplied,” they did not die in the manner other people die, i.e. leaving replacements for themselves, but they left behind far more than that.
  
     ויעצמו, “they became powerful;” they were all physically exceptionally strong specimens, in spite of the fact that most were born as twins.
  
     במאד מאד, “very greatly indeed.” They had reached their full physical potential.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויקם מלך חדש, “a new king arose.” According to Ibn Ezra the way the Torah introduces the new king is proof that he did not belong to the dynasty that had ruled Egypt up to that point. A similar phrase is used in Samuel I 22,8 הקים בני את עבדי עלי, “my own son has set my servant in ambush against me.”
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   הבה נתחכמה לו, “come on let us outsmart it!” Neither Pharaoh nor his servants wanted to do violence to the Israelites, as it would have been a major act of betrayal to commit genocide against an innocent nation that had settled in Egypt at the request of the previous king. He was afraid that even if he were to give an order to destroy these people his subjects would not obey that order. Moreover, the descendants of Ephrayim and Menashe possessed considerable influence in the highest governmental circles, and the very number of the Israelites would have made open warfare against them a highly dangerous undertaking. The Israelites would surely resist any attack upon them by violent means.
      Therefore, he imposed a form of taxation upon that nation, a common practice in those days. When this did not have the desired effect, he resorted to instructing the midwives who assisted the Jewish women at birth, to kill the male babies before the mothers had held them in their arms. This was done clandestinely, so that even the mothers were unaware that they had given birth to a male baby. When this proved impossible to carry out, he issued the decree to drown all male babies. Instead of the government killing the babies, the population was encouraged to drown Jewish babies when found, and if the father would protest he would be invited to prove his allegation in court by producing witnesses to that murder. He would be assured that if the murderer would be found he would be duly punished for what he had done. As the restrictions the king had imposed upon himself were gradually loosened, many of his people would enter Jewish homes at night, misrepresenting themselves, searching for recently born boy babies. They would snatch these babies. This is why the Torah reports that Yocheved, after Moses was three months old, no longer risked hiding him at home. This situation was in effect for a relatively short period, as 3 years earlier, when Aaron had been born, this decree had not yet been in force. It appears to have been cancelled shortly after Moses’ birth, perhaps due to the intervention of the daughter of Pharaoh who had been audacious enough to save Moses’ life. It is also possible that the decree had been inspired by the astrologers who had predicted the birth of a saviour of the Jewish people on a certain day or in a certain month, as mentioned by our sages. This may also have been at the root of the overseers saying to Moses (and Aaron) 80 years later (Exodus 5,21) הבאשתם את ריחנו, “you have made our very scent abhorrent in the eyes of Pharaoh, etc.” They meant that until these “so called saviours” had given the Egyptians an excuse to deal harshly with the Jewish people, they had at least had to use subterfuge when applying discriminatory legislation. Now they felt entitled to repress the Jews with all their might openly.
  
     ועלה מן הארץ, “and go up from the land.” <i>Rashi</i> views this simile as similar to people who are superstitious enough not to mention possible disaster in the same breath as themselves, so what the Egyptians were really afraid of was not the emigration of the Jews, but their own expulsion from Egypt by the Israelites. It is also possible to explain these words at face value, i.e. that they were afraid that the Israelites would emigrate to the land of Canaan, taking with them all the chattels of the Egyptians.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   שרי מסים, “taskmasters;” Jewish officials who would select men from among their people whom they considered as fit to perform hard physical labour at the command of the King. In turn, Pharaoh appointed officials of his own to supervise the activities of these Jewish taskmasters. The taskmasters would designate what precisely these servants were to do and where, in this case that they were to build fortified cities by means of laying the bricks for the buildings involved. When the Egyptian overseers became aware that this stratagem did not slow down the birth rate of the Israelites, they decreed that Egyptians generally were allowed to impose all kinds of menial labour on Israelites whom they chose for that purpose. This is why the Torah speaks of the Egyptians generally enslaving the Israelites, i.e.ויעבידו מצרים את בני ישראל בפרך, “the Egyptians (man in the street) enslaved the Israelites imposing harsh conditions.” They added a new element to the hardship by not only making the Israelites build with bricks supplied by them, but by expecting them to also make the bricks themselves. An additional hardship imposed was that they were made to perform labour in the fields, something the Israelites had not been trained to do. This was not constructive work such as sowing and planting, but digging canals, reservoirs, etc. The Torah emphasizes that the conditions under which all these tasks were performed were quite intolerable, and the food supplied by the king for these labourers was minimal and unappetizing. We can understand how ungrateful the Israelites who had been redeemed from such conditions must have been when they longingly looked back on that period in Numbers 11,5 implying that the only redeeming feature of the fish that Pharaoh had supplied had been that they did not have to catch the fish or pay for them. Similarly, gourds, melons, garlic and other low ranking produce they had been able to help themselves to as their staple diet in the fields in which they had been made to work.
      Our sages view the word לפרעה, “for Pharaoh,” in our verse as meaning that they consoled themselves by being slaves of Pharaoh, instead of slaves of Pharaoh’s slaves. If so, we must understand the line ויעבידו מצרים את בני ישראל as referring back to the phrase וישימו עליו שרי מסים, “they imposed taskmasters upon them.”
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   וכאשר יענו אותו כן ירבה, “they would continue to multiply in direct ratio to the degree of greater hardships imposed upon them.” This means that they maintained their birthrate at the same level as when they had been free men.
  
     וכן יפרוץ, “and they would proliferate ever more.” The term is borrowed from פורץ גדר, “making a breach in a fence,” (both literally and figuratively speaking, in this case making the efforts of the Egyptians to contain their birthrate ineffective). According to the commentators specializing in allegorical approaches, מדרש, the more the Egyptians tried to control the Jewish birthrate the more G’d blessed them by making them ever more fruitful.” This was most noticeable in the much smaller birthrate of the tribe of Levite, a tribe that remained exempt from performing slave labour. When the people were counted at the beginning of the Book of Numbers, the males of the tribe of Levi, even though they were counted already from one month up and not from twenty years up as the rest of the people, amounted to approximately 30-50% of the other tribes.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ויעש להם בתים, He made houses for them.” This means that G’d made these midwives especially fruitful and people would refer to these offspring as “the children of Shifrah and Puah.” [instead of their fathers being mentioned as the progenitors. Ed.] The expression בתים, i.e. plural of בית is used in lieu of the word בנים, children, as for instance in Samuel II 7,11 בית יעשה לך ה' “for He will establish a dynasty for you.”
     Other commentators understand this as relating to the line ויהי כאשר יראו המילדות את האלוקים ויעש להם בתים, “when, due to the midwives being in awe of G’d, and Pharaoh’s decree therefore becoming futile, Pharaoh placed pregnant Jewish women in houses surrounded by Egyptians so that their neighbours would know when they would be likely to give birth.” These women were forbidden to give birth anywhere else but in these houses. Still a third way of interpreting this verse is that the “houses” were jails in which the midwives would henceforth be kept. The word בית does appear in this sense in Genesis 40,14 Joseph saying to the chief of the cupbearers והוצאתני מן הבית הזה, “so that you will bring me out of this jail  (the jail being called a house).”
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וילך איש מבית לוי, “A distinguished man from the house of Levi went, etc.” our sages comment that this means that Amram followed the advice of his daughter. (He had divorced his wife so as not to condemn any new born children to death. Thereupon his daughter accused him of being worse than Pharaoh who only murdered the male babies. Thereupon, Amram reconsidered and remarried his wife).
      Ibn Ezra comments that the Israelites at that time lived in many different cities of Egypt, and that the wife Amram married lived in another city, so that he had to go there to ask her to marry him.
      Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah tells us of the apparently trivial fact that Amram went to get a wife, is only to show us that Amram publicly demonstrated that he was unconcerned about Pharaoh’s decree, and that he married precisely in order to sire children. The word וילך is used by the Torah again and again when it introduces any act performed by someone which demonstrates special initiative by that person. Examples are found in Genesis 30,14 and 35,22 where the Torah describes initiative displayed by Reuven. Similar use of the word וילך occurs in Genesis 22,13, Samuel II 21,12, Kings II 5,5, and Hoseah The Torah did not bother to mention Amram’s name at this point, nor that of Yocheved, as the important thing was only to report whose offspring they were. The Torah was anxious at this stage to reveal the birth of the Israelites’ saviour.
  
     ויקח את בת לוי, “he married Levi’s daughter.” According to our sages this was a second marriage for both, but to the same spouses.
      According to the plain text we speak about the first marriage of this couple. However, seeing that the Torah has never felt constricted to report events in their historical sequence, we are in order to understand this wedding as having occurred prior to Pharaoh’s decrees. During those years Yocheved bore Moses and Miriam for Amram. Their births were not reported as this was nothing out of the ordinary. 
      <i>Rashi</i> claims that Yocheved had miraculously regained her youth at the time, basing himself on the fact that the Torah did not write that Amram married “Yocheved, a daughter of Levi.” [which would not necessarily have meant that Yocheved was a real daughter, but a descendant, Ed.] Instead, the Torah wrote that he married a daughter of Levi, which means that the woman in question was 130 years old at least when she gave birth to Moses. 
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ותרא אותו כי טוב הוא, “she realized that he was ‘good.’” <i>Rashi</i> says that although this baby was born several months prematurely, after a pregnancy of 6 months and a day, all his limbs were perfectly formed already at birth. Hence she saw that he was “good.”
      Some commentators hold that the word טוב here means something similar to Jeremiah 44,17 ונשבע לחם ונהיה טובים, “when we will at our fill of bread we will be טובים, “good.” [in good shape. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ולא יכלה עוד הצפינו, “and she could no longer hide him.” According to <i>Rashi,</i> the Egyptians who had been aware of Yocheved’s pregnancy had miscalculated, expecting her to give birth after 9 months. This is based on <i>Sotah</i> which claims that she had been pregnant with him already for 3 months before Amram remarried her. The Egyptians assumed that her pregnancy did not predate her remarriage, so that she could not have been due to give birth to a live baby at the time she did. There is therefore no need to postulate that Moses was born after a mere six months’ pregnancy. Had he been born after a six month pregnancy, under these circumstances, Yocheved should have been able to hide him for 6 months, not merely three, unless we assume that the Egyptians were keeping a close check after Yocheved had been remarried for six months. Under such circumstances, according to the view that Moses was indeed born 3 months premature, this occurred three months after her remarriage.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ותרד בת פרעה לרחוץ על היאור, ”Pharaoh’s daughter descended to the banks of the river to bathe.” <i>Rashi</i> claims that our verse is truncated and that its correct meaning is as if the Torah had written: “ותרד בת פרעה על היאור לרחוץ בו.” [as written it could be understood as “Pharaoh’s daughter descended to bathe above the river.” Ed.]
      Nachmanides writes that it is possible to understand the verse to mean that there were steps leading down to the banks of the river and that these steps led directly to the river from the palace of the king, the lowest step being covered by the water in the river. When reaching that lowest step, Pharaoh’s daughter saw the basket in which Moses had been placed from a distance and she ordered one of her attendants to bring it to her. Alternately, the words לרחוץ על היאור is another way of writing לרחוץ ביאור, “to bathe in the river.”
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  והנה נער בוכה. “and here there was a crying lad.”  <i>Rashi</i> understands the phrase as meaning that the voice of this baby was as strong as that of a lad, i.e. a growing youngster.”   According to Nachmanides, <i>Rashi’s</i> explanation has already been discounted, for if it were correct we would have to view Moses as being <i>halachically</i> blemished, something that according to our tradition disqualifies a person from becoming a prophet, or performing priestly duties.  Ibn Ezra writes that Moses’ limbs were exceptionally large for a baby of his age, as large as those of a growing lad. This would not be a blemish, but, on the contrary, would be a compliment to Moses and might account for the fact that Pharaoh’s daughter took pity on that child.   I believe that the correct interpretation of our phrase is that the manner in which Moses cried was that of an older child, something not as irritating as a baby’s howls, and that this was what prompted Pharaoh’s daughter to have pity on him. According to the <i>Midrash</i> Moses did not display symptoms of being much older, but the angel Gavriel struck him so that he broke out weeping on account of his pain, which in turn attracted the attention of the daughter of Pharaoh and aroused feelings of pity within her.   I do not believe that there is any need for such esoteric explanations. Children are described as נער already at birth, compare Judges 13,8 מה נעשה לנער אשר יולד, “what are we supposed to do to the child that is going to be born?” on the other hand, growing lads are referred to by the Torah as ילד, such as when Avraham placed the 17 year old Ishmael on Hagar’s shoulder in Genesis 21,14, so that there is nothing strange in the Torah again applying this adjective in our verse.
        ותאמר מילדי העברים זה, “She said: “this is one of the Hebrew boy babies.” According to the plain text she had every reason for this assumption, for why would an Egyptian place her baby in such a place at such a time? Our sages, however, say that she arrived at that conclusion when observing that Moses had been circumcised.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ותקרא שמו משה, “she named him Moses.” Rabbi Joseph Kimchi writes that according to the rules of grammar she should have called him משוי, if she wanted to name him in commemoration of his having been pulled from the water. Similar constructions such as קנוי from the root קנה, “to acquire,” describe something that has been acquired. However, Pharaoh’s daughter was not sufficiently familiar with the finer points of grammar in the (Hebrew?) language and did not know how to distinguish between a verb in the active mode and the same word when used as a past participle. The name she gave Moses was inspired by Divine input as is appropriate seeing that in due course this child would pull the Children of Israel out of their exile, i.e. מושה.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ויגדל משה ויצא אל אחיו, “when Moses grew up he went out to his brethren, etc.” In verse 10 when the wet nurse brought Moses back to his foster mother the daughter of Pharaoh, he is described as ויגדל הילד, the child grew up. Now, in the verse following, the adjective “the child,” has been omitted. He was now an adult and had been told that he was actually Jewish.
  
     מכה איש עברי מאחיו, “striking down a Hebrew man, one of his brethren.” Ibn Ezra queries the need for the additional word מאחיו in our verse, something we knew seeing that the man had been described as being a Hebrew. He therefore concludes that this word means that the individual in question belonged to the family of Moses. [seeing that his family members were all Levites and exempt from the forced labour, this appears tenuous. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   מי שמך לאיש, “who has appointed you as a dignitary?” He implied that Moses was far too young to have been given any position authorizing him to act on his own. He added the word ושר, in order to say that even assuming that you were old enough and mature enough, no one has appointed you as an authority, שר, over us to unilaterally execute anyone. He added the word שופט, judge, to emphasise that even if you had the legal status of being a judge, you would not have authority over us. (Israelites)
  
     הלהרגני אתה אומר?, “are you going to say something which will kill me?” From this phrase we learn that Moses had killed the Egyptian by cursing him in the name of the ineffable G’d. This does not contradict what the Torah wrote, i.e. ויך את המצרי, “he struck (dead) the Egyptian,” (verse 12) The Bible uses the verb הכה to describe words, such as in Isaiah 11,4 והכה ארץ בשבט פיו, “and he will smite a land with the rod of his mouth.” (the Messiah when he comes.)
      Although, according to <i>Sanhedrin 105,</i> what Solomon means in Proverbs 17,26 when he says גם ענוש לצדיק לא טוב, is that the righteous should never place themselves in a position of causing or administering punishment, even when the victim would be a confirmed heretic, this situation did not meet the criteria discussed in the Talmud. The victim of Moses was guilty of raping a married woman, and clearly deserving the death penalty, as our sages derive from the words ויפן כה וכה, that Moses saw not only what this Egyptian had done in the field, but what he had done prior to this in the house of the Jew whom he had killed.
      Nachmanides questions this whole line of exegesis, writing that if Moses had used the holy name of G’d to kill the Egyptian, who had told the quarrelling Jew about this? He reasons that possibly Moses had placed his hand on the Egyptian prior to cursing him, so that the words ויך את המצרי, “he struck the Egyptians,” may be understood literally without contradicting the opinion that his death was caused by G’d honouring Moses’ curse. When the Egyptian suddenly fell dead as his feet, Moses became afraid and covered him with sand, The wicked Jew who had observed all this realized that either G’d had caused the death of the Egyptian, or if he had not observed the actual death, assumed that Moses had killed him with the sword, and that therefore he had buried him to obliterate the fact that the man had been killed violently, seeing he only had seen Moses burying the corpse.
      If we follow the plain meaning of the text, the words אתה אומר, need not refer to words spoken by mouth at all, but may describe someone’s intention, as in Kohelet where Solomon repeatedly introduces a thought with the words אמרתי אני בלבי, “I used to say in my heart.”
  
     אכן נודע הדבר, “indeed the matter has become known.” Ibn Ezra equates the word אכן with the expression אם כן, “if so, etc.”
      <i>Rash’bam</i> changes the meaning to אכן אם כן, “if indeed it is different from what I thought, and the matter has become common knowledge.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ולכהן מדין שבע בנות, “and the priest of Midian had seven daughters.” Their father was not mentioned by name as his reputation was based on his official status, i.e. that he was the High Priest of the Midianites. In fact, he was identical with the well known Yitro about whom we will hear more. We know that it was he, as the Torah narrates: וישב אל יתר חותנו, he (Moses) dwelled with his father-in-law Yeter, which is short for Yitro. We find similar interchangeable names elsewhere, such as Elijah sometimes being spelled אליה and other times אליהו. After Yitro converted to Judaism he was renamed חובב, as we know from Judges 4,11 מבני חבב חתן משה, “and from amongst the descendants of Chovav, Moses’ father-in-law, etc.” It is customary to give new names to people who convert to Judaism. Chovav was actually a son of Re-uel, as is written in Numbers 10,29 ויאמר משה לחבב בן רעואל, “Moses said to Chovav son of Reu-el.” As to Exodus 2,18 ותבאנה אל רעואל אביהם, “when they came to Re-uel, their father,” which on the face of it seems to contradict what we have said, it is not unusual for the paternal grandfather to be described as “father.” Yaakov himself described Avraham, his grandfather, as “my father,” when he spoke about “the G’d of my father Avraham” in Genesis 31 as well as in Genesis The reason why the daughters of Yitro are reported as returning to the house of Re-uel is that their father was not at home but occupied with his tasks as the High Priest of the country.
  
     ותבאנה ותדלנה, “they came and drew water, etc.” According to Nachmanides these words describe their normal habits, i.e. that on every day the male shepherds would water their flocks first, before the arrival of the daughters of Yitro with their flocks. On that particular day, the daughters of Yitro arrived at the watering troughs ahead of the male shepherds, assuming that they could proceed and water their flocks first, without interfering with the flocks of the male shepherds who were due to arrive at that spot later. They had already filled the troughs with water from the well used. As luck would have it, they had miscalculated, and the male shepherds arrived prematurely, and when they saw what had happened they simply drove off Yitro’s daughters, intending to water their flocks first as was their custom. The violent means used by the male shepherds enraged Moses so that he intervened on behalf of the female shepherds, helping them to water their flocks first as they had intended. He also helped with the actual drawing of the water, as the troughs did not hold enough water to still the thirst of the whole flock in one filling. Upon their return home, their grandfather was surprised to see them return so early. This is why he questioned them, and they answered that a distinguished Egyptian had helped them.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   איש מצרי, “a distinguished Egyptian.” Moses had deliberately dressed as an Egyptian, seeing that he was a fugitive and had to mislead his pursuers.
      There is a comment in a <i>Midrash</i> that Moses, who had allowed others to think of him as an Egyptian, did not merit to be buried in the Holy Land, whereas Joseph who had proclaimed the fact that he was a Hebrew even when it could have hurt him socially and career wise, did merit to be buried in the Holy Land. The other <i>Midrashim,</i> including<i> Shemot Rabbah 1,32,</i> understand this differently, Moses declining to accept the thanks of the shepherdesses by saying that it was actually due to the Egyptian man whom he had killed that they had been helped, as if he were not trying to escape Pharaoh’s police he would not at that time have been near these troughs. [in other words, Moses, far from using his disguise to merit the gratitude of the Yitro’s daughters, attributed their good fortune as due to his victim the Egyptian whom he had slain. It would appear most unwise for Moses to have revealed at this stage why he had come to Midian just then. On the other hand, if the <i>Midrash Shemot Rabbah</i> is correct, it makes the fact that the daughters of Yitro did not immediately invite him to their house much more understandable. They were scared to harbour a fugitive from Egyptian justice. Ed.]
  
     וישק את הצאן. “he watered the flock.” The reason why they did not say: “he watered our flock,” was that they had witnessed that due to Moses’ intervention the waters came forth on their own until there was enough to also water the flocks of the male shepherds.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויאמר....למה עזבתם את האיש, “He said: ’why did you abandon the man?” According to Ibn Ezra the Torah searched for a brief method of describing what happened. It omitted reporting that the daughters complied with Reu-el’s instructions, as it is clear from what follows that they had done so.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויהי בימים הרבים ההם, “it happened during these many years, etc.” Our sages explain that the reason these years are described as “many,” is the fact that all these years were filled with pain for the Israelites. They therefore appeared as lasting far longer than if they had been years filled with happy events.
      Nachmanides writes that it is not customary to refer to years as ימים ההם, “those years,” or יום ההוא, “that day,” unless one wants to pinpoint a certain time during which an event not yet discussed took place. When the event in question is already history, the Torah customarily introduces such a narrative with the words ויהי אחרי וגו', “it was after a certain event, etc.” Accordingly, we would have expected the Torah, at this juncture, to write: ויהי אחרי הימים הרבים ההם וימת מלך מצרים, “it happened after those many years that the King of Egypt died, etc.” By writing בימים ההם, “during those years,” the Torah alluded to the nature of these years, i.e. that they represented a most painful period to the Israelites, and that when the king died, they used the opportunity to cry out to G’d on account of their sorry condition, and that G’d immediately responded to their outcry. The period described was not really so long in astronomical terms. We can therefore explain, in conjunction with the description of Moses’ growing up in the palace Pharaoh, until he went out and for the first time met his brethren, as a result of which he smote an Egyptian, that he was possibly 12 years of age but certainly not over twenty, so that he spent 60 years or more in exile, seeing that the Torah describes him as being 80 years of age when he first approached Pharaoh. (Exodus 7,7) We may assume that he came to Midian only toward the end of those 60 years. We know that when G’d first appeared to him he had only fathered Gershom, as when the angel tried to kill him for failing to have circumcised his son Eliezer, the latter could only just have been born. Seeing that according to the narrative, the reader may form the impression that Moses’ slaying the Egyptian, finding refuge in Midian, marrying Tzipporah, and encountering the burning bush, and his subsequent return to Egypt, that all these events occurred with practically no interval between them. The Torah therefore mentions that many years had passed between different events reported here as if they occurred successively within a short time capsule. The “long” period of which the Torah speaks here referred to time already elapsed. From the time the King of Egypt died, matters moved at a much faster pace.
  
     וימת מלך מצרים, “the King of Egypt died.” According to our sages the King did not actually die, but was smitten with a form of leprosy. Jewish children were slaughtered as their blood was supposedly capable of alleviating his condition.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, normally, when a king who ruled harshly dies, the survivors hope that the new king would treat his subjects more kindly. In this instance, the Israelites found out that the new king was even worse than the old one so that they turned to G’d in prayer, begging for Divine intervention on their behalf.
      Some commentators say that what happened is that contrary to accepted norms, when the king dies the prisoners are given an amnesty, in this case the Egyptian prisoners did indeed get a pardon, but no Jewish slaves were allowed to return to their homes. This finally triggered the Jewish people turning to G’d in prayer.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   וירא אלוקים...וידע אלוקים, “G’d saw and took notice of the condition of the Israelites.” <i>Rashi</i> explains these various verbs as meaning that G’d responded to their prayers by paying heed with His heart and by not ignoring their plight. Anyone who does not recognize the person who walks in front of him is considered as not seeing him, even if he knows that person well. If he recognizes him but does not love him, he is also considered as behaving as if he did not know him at all, did not “see” him. The Torah therefore describes G’d’s reaction as one of seeing the plight of His people, i.e. “loving” them, as in וידע אדם את חוה אשתו, “Adam had intimate relations with his wife.” G’d’s love manifested itself in His taking note of the Israelites’ plight. 
      Ibn Ezra explains the words וירא אלוקים as G’d taking note of the violence committed against the Israelites in public, and the expression וידע אלוקים as referring to the violence committed against His people under cover of darkness.
       Nachmanides writes that the various statements of G’d’s reaction which appear in our verse mean that although the time intended for the enslavement of the Jewish people had expired, the people had not yet become worthy of being redeemed. However, G’d decided to intercede at this time already in light of their complaints, i.e. in response to their נאקתם, their moaning. He remembered His covenant, i.e. as promised in Ezekiel who describes G’d remembering the people and redeeming them in spite of their not being worthy of this.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וינהג את הצאן אחר המדבר. “he guided the flock out into the wilderness;” Ibn Ezra understands this expression in light of the fact that Midian was sort of a satellite state, subject to Pharaoh’s sphere of political influence. This necessitated that Moses became a shepherd, a vocation that enabled him to operate beyond the reach of Pharaoh and his secret service. Once G’d told him that Pharaoh and the members of his regime whom he had fled had died, he was able to name his son Eliezer by saying that G’d had saved him from the sword of Pharaoh. (compare Exodus 18,4)
  
     אל הר האלוקים חרבה, “to Mount Chorev, the mountain of G’d.” Some people are astounded and cannot understand that Moses took the sheep of his father-in-law such a great distance away from Midian, seeing that the territory of Midian is far to the east of Sinai. Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer (chapter 40) claims that on occasion the flock Moses tended went for 40 consecutive days without food.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   וירא מלאך ה', “An angel of the Lord appeared to him;” First the Torah reports that an angel of the Lord appeared to Moses, and afterwards we read that G’d saw that Moses had taken note of the spectacle of the burning bush whereupon G’d called out to him. This prompted Ibn Ezra to say that the word אלוקים in verse 4 refers to the angel mentioned in verse 2 as מלאך ה', “an angel of the Lord.” We find a parallel construction in Genesis 32,31 where Yaakov describes himself as having “seen G’d face to face.” This in spite of the fact that G’d had described himself to Yaakov as “the G’d of your father.” The fact is that the messenger is permitted to assume the name of the One Who has dispatched him while he is carrying out the instructions of his master. [clearly, Yaakov had not had a vision of G’d Himself, face to face, something which is impossible, as explained by G’d to Moses in Exodus Ed.]
      Nachmanides disagrees with the commentary of Ibn Ezra, claiming that Moses, the most outstanding of all the prophets would certainly not be afraid to look at the vision of an angel, a vision granted to many prophets who were inferior to him. He goes on to say that our sages describe the angel Moses saw as being Michael, a most high ranking angel, not one of the lower ranking angels that appeared to other prophets. He identified this angel with the one described by Yaakov before his death as המלאך הגואל אותי in Genesis Elsewhere this angel is described by G’d as incorporating some of G’d’s essence, שמי, “within him.” (compare Exodus 23,21). (see <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 97,3 that whenever Rabbi <i>Yossi ha</i>-<i>aruch</i> is mentioned the listeners felt that his mentor, Rabbi Yehudah <i>hanassi,</i> was personally present. [Rabbi Yossi <i>ha</i>-<i>aruch</i> was not only a disciple but a personal valet of Rabbi Yehudah <i>hanassi</i> while the latter was alive. Ed.] The <i>Midrash</i> brings this example in order to illustrate the concept of angels of the caliber of, for instance, the one describing himself as שר צבא ה' in Joshua This type of angel, the one described as bearing the name of the Lord, is understood as being the category closest to the throne of G’d in the celestial regions. At the revelation of the burning bush, Moses encountered one of these angels.
  
     והנה הסנה בוער, “and lo, the bush continued burning.” The word בוער is equivalent to the expression דולק באש, “is in flames.” As to the Torah describing Moses as wanting to investigate why the bush did not turn into ash,מדוע לא יבער הסנה הסנה, he marveled at the phenomenon, seeing that flax in similar circumstances would have disintegrated into ash without delay.
      It is also possible to understand the word יבער as a form of בעור, destruction, elimination, as in ובערת הרע מקרבך, “you must eliminate evil from your midst.” (Deut. 13,6 and 8 other times in the Torah)
      Some commentators follow a forced approach to the words אסורה נא ואראה, understanding these words as an introduction to the statement that Moses wanted to find out why this bush would not be consumed by the flames. [I suppose the reason why our author describes this interpretation as “forced,” is that the Torah had already described Moses as having observed the phenomenon. He had not remained at a safe distance. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ויקרא אליו אלוקים מתוך הסנה, “G’d called out to him from inside the bush.” A reference to the immediate area of thorns, the raw material attacked by the flames, a place which was uncontaminated, seeing that neither man nor beast would walk there, being afraid of being stung by the thorns. This was the reason that site qualified for a manifestation of the Divine.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the reason that this mountain was subsequently known as הר סיני, was in commemoration of the סנה, the burning bush which refused to be consumed by the flames.
  
     משה משה, there is no comma between these two words. It is similar to אברהם אברהם in Genesis 28,19, or יצחק בני יצחק, (Chronicles I 1,34) [the author quotes a couple more examples of such constructions, without elaborating. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   אל תקרב הלום, “do not come any closer.” This was a warning to Moses that he had not yet attained the degree of holiness permitting him unrestricted entry to holy sites. We know that prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai, Moses entered the thick cloud in which the holy mountain was enveloped at the time without hindrance or harm befalling him. (Exodus 20,18) The Torah describes G’d there as being behind this thick cloud. Moses having turned aside his face when coming face to face with a supernatural spectacle, was prompted by the same consideration of his inadequacy in matters spiritual, which at that time were still very strong within him.
  
     של נעליך!, “remove your shoes!” It is noteworthy that whereas when Moses and Ezekiel were commanded to remove their shoes, they were told to remove both shoes, or in the case of Ezekiel, not to remove them, whereas Joshua was commanded to remove only one shoe, נעלך, (compare Joshua 5,15) The reason may have been that Moses being a shepherd by vocation, wore big boots in the manner of the shepherds. Ezekiel, who was also a farmer, may similarly have worn big boots. Joshua being a highly placed officer, almost a crowned head, wore only light shoes in the manner of all the kings. Both of his shoes, נעליך, would have been equivalent to only one of Moses’ shoes in size and weight. Furthermore, the angel speaking to Joshua described only the immediate site on which Joshua was standing as a holy site, אדמת קודש, whereas in the case of Moses the entire mountain was holy ground. It is also interesting that whereas Joshua is reported as having complied with the command to remove his shoes, no such thing is reported of Moses. Perhaps, Moses not having entered holy ground before being told to take off his shoes, preferred not to come closer so that he would not have to remove his shoes, whereas Joshua was told to do so only after he had already been standing on holy ground, so that he had no other option.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   אנכי אלוקי אביך, “I am the G’d of your father, etc.” according to our sages, Amram, Moses’ biological father, is referred to in this verse.
      Nachmanides writes that when the sages said this they meant that G’d meant that He was Moses’ G’d, but that He preferred to associate His name with a righteous man who had already died, instead of with a living person, whose freedom of choice still enables him to turn his back on G’d at some time in the future if he so desires, and to thereby make G’d’s association with him a mockery. At a later stage, G’d referred to Himself as the G’d of the patriarchs, implying that He was the G’d of the entire Jewish people.
      Ibn Ezra explained that the word אביך in our verse refers to the first patriarch Avraham, seeing he had been the first to proclaim G’d’s name and his faith in Him in public. In subsequent visions G’d speaks of also being the G’d of the other patriarchs.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the expression אלוקי אביך is not materially different from the Torah having written אלוקי אבותיך, “the G’d of your forefathers.” The reason why the Torah uses the word אביך in the singular mode here is that people generally refer to G’d as their “father.” We find a similar description in Kings II 20,5 when Isaiah is instructed to give a message to King Chiskiyah, a parallel verse in Isaiah 38.5 when G’d describes Himself as the G’d of his father.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויאמר ה' ראה ראיתי, “The Lord said: ‘I have truly seen, etc.” Although throughout this portion G’d appears in His attribute of אלוקים, the attribute of Justice, in this verse He is referring to Himself as the attribute of Mercy, the ineffable name. The reason is that here He demonstrates His pity on the condition His people find themselves in.
  
     ראה ראיתי, according to Ibn Ezra the formula here describes G’d’s response to the unnecessarily harsh and violent conduct of the Egyptians <i>vis</i> a <i>vis</i> their Hebrew slaves. G’d assures Moses that although the Egyptians had usually chosen to practice their violent attacks on the Israelites in the privacy of their homes or the dark of night, He, the G’d of the Israelites, was aware of it all. He was also aware of the feelings of the Israelites that were being so maltreated.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   אל ארץ טובה ורחבה, “to a good and spacious land.” G’d first praises the quality of the land, i.e. its climate which is healthy for its inhabitants, and secondly, that the land is spacious so that it can accommodate the entire nation without danger of the country becoming crowded.
      It is also possible that the meaning of the words ארץ רחבה is that the land contains wide expanses of both valleys and mountainous regions, and that though there are mountains, they do not cover most of its territory. The Torah comes back to describe the land as especially suitable for cattle and sheep raising, i.e. a land flowing with milk and honey. This also implies that the water supply in this land is ample and that it is of good quality, as otherwise it would not be ideal for raising sheep and cattle. Seeing that mountainous regions do not produce fat cattle, G’d assures Moses that the land is suitable to raise good cattle also.
  
     אל מקום הכנעני, “to the area now inhabited by the Canaanites.” The reason that G’d did not describe that region as ארץ הכנעני, “the land of the Canaanite,” as is customary when referring to lands inhabited by different peoples, is a hint that the Canaanites will be uprooted and dispossessed. The Israelites would not share the land with the Canaanites but would live there instead of the Canaanites.
  
     הכנעני והחתי והאמורי והפריזי והחוי והיבוסי. Note that the “<i>Girgashi</i>,” another one of the Canaanite tribes inhabiting that region, is not mentioned here. The reason is either that their land may not have been as excellent, or that these people would emigrate rather than defend their land against the Israelites, being aware that the Jewish G’d Who had made good on His threats against Pharaoh would most likely also make good on the promises He had made to the Jewish people beginning with Avraham.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why the <i>Girgashi</i> has not been mentioned here is that that tribe was relatively insignificant in terms of manpower and military might. He questions that seeing that six Canaanite tribes have been listed here by name, why did the Torah have to use the word הכנעני, “the Canaanite” altogether? We all know that these tribes form part of the Canaanite family of nations. He answers that the entire region was known as the “land of Canaan,” and it extends beyond the regions inhabited by the six tribes listed here, especially in the north.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   וזה לך האות כי אנכי שלחתיך, “and this will be the sign for you that it I Who have sent you as My messenger.” Nachmanides refers to numerous interpretations of the above line; the correct interpretation according to the plain meaning of the text being that seeing that G’d told Moses two distinctly different things, i.e. that He would liberate the Israelites from the yoke of the Egyptians and that He would lead them up to the land inhabited by the Canaanites which would become their future homeland, and Moses’ reply had been to ask how he could be expected to accomplish even the first one of these tasks. In response to G’d telling Moses that he would be leading them to the land of the Canaanites, Moses added that the people would not follow him, being afraid to face a land populated by powerful nations, and considering the prospect of warring against these nations as unrealistic. G’d reassured Moses on both scores separately, knowing that Pharaoh’s releasing them and their engaging in a march to dispossess the Canaanites were matters that were conceptually not connected. Concerning Moses’ misgivings in connection with the chances of Pharaoh releasing the Israelites, G’d told him not to worry, that He would be with him, and that he would have proof of this once the Israelites would accept the Torah on this very mountain that he was facing at that time. This revelation would also serve the Israelites as a sign that they had nothing to fear from the Canaanites. Pharaoh would agree to let them travel a relatively short distance of three days’ march to the Sinai region.
      Rabbi Joseph Kimchi understands the words וזה לך האות as G’d’s promise that He will be at Moses’ side all the time, enabling him to face that despot without fear or trembling. The fact that Moses would face down Pharaoh would be the great miracle. As to the line about what would happen at Mount Sinai, this was a reference to the second aspect of the liberation, the need to secure a country for themselves. At that mountain the people would become inspired to accept the Torah, and with it gain the confidence of securing the land of Canaan as their future ancestral home.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ואמרו לי מה שמו, “(how am I to answer them) when they will say to me: ‘what is (this G’d’s) name?” Nachmanides writes that this verse cries out to be interpreted (not just read). It is quite inconceivable that the verse means that Moses said to G’d: “what is Your name, what shall I say to them?” and that the instruction by G’d to tell them His name would be the kind of אות, convincing sign or symbol that he was trustworthy in his claim to be this G’d’s appointee, sent to orchestrate their deliverance. How could such a simplistic statement as telling them of G’d’s name make believers out of confirmed non-believers? What proof did Moses bring with him that would encourage the people to believe that he indeed had been chosen by G’d to be their redeemer? We see indeed that immediately after G’d told him to relate His name to the people, Moses countered that he was convinced that the people would not believe him.
      Ibn Ezra understands Moses’ question to refer to the numerous attributes, (names) of G’d, and his wanting to know which of these attributes he was to stress when telling them that he had been sent to deliver them from the yoke of Pharaoh. It was a well known fact that miracles are not performed by the attribute <i>Shaddai</i>, but only by the four-lettered ineffable name of G’d. Ibn Ezra’s words do not appear acceptable at all, seeing that the question of performing any miracles had not yet been raised by either G’d or Moses. Moses had not been instructed as yet to perform any miracles in Egypt; he had only been told to lead the Jews out of Egypt by convincing Pharaoh in G’d’s name to release the Israelites from bondage. Moreover, the people had the tradition that Joseph had spoken of the attribute <i>elokim</i> remembering the Israelites when the time came to take them out of Egypt, (Genesis 50,24) There would therefore appear to be no reason for Moses to refer at this stage to any other possible attribute of G’d. Also the patriarch Yaakov had already told his sons that the attribute <i>elokim</i> would come to the assistance of the people when the time would be ripe. (Genesis 48,21) Seeing that the attribute of <i>elokim</i> had been sufficient to assure Avraham’s single-handed victory over the four Kings who had defeated the five kings of Sodom, there was no reason at all for Moses to suggest that another attribute of G’d need to be invoked in order to make the Exodus from Egypt possible.
      I believe (still Nachmanides writing) that we must understand matters in the following manner. At that time Moses was already privy to profound prophetic insights, having previously mastered all the philosophic wisdom available at his time, [perhaps also having composed the Book of Job at that time, a book that testifies to the profound wisdom of its author. Ed.] In light of his knowledge of the complex nature of G’d and His attributes, he enquired under which heading G’d had intended to appoint him as the leader of the Israelite nation. He was convinced that this would be the first question by the elders of the people that he would have to answer in order to establish some degree of credibility. The elders knew of two of G’d’s attributes, the attribute <i>elokim, i.e. el shaddai,</i> the attribute which had successfully assisted the patriarchs throughout their lives, and the attribute <i>Hashem</i>, i.e. the attribute under whose aegis miracles of supernatural character are performed. The obvious reason which prompted Moses to raise this question was that G’d had introduced Himself to him as the G’d of the patriarchs, i.e. אלוקי אביך. Seeing that the patriarchs’ lives had been guided by the attribute of <i>shaddai,</i> it was quite possible that the Exodus would also be orchestrated under that heading. If G’d, at that time, had mentioned a specific attribute of His as enabling Him to forthwith orchestrate the redemption of the Jewish people, Moses would not have raised the question at all. G’d’s answer now was to ask Moses to wait until the people would come to Mount Sinai and experience the revelation, when it would become clear that such an event could not occur under the aegis of the attribute <i>shaddai.</i> The people would experience an attribute of G’d with which even the patriarchs had not been familiar. This was the attribute used to create the world, not the attribute employed to merely keep the world functioning as a going concern. Moses wanted to know if he were to reveal this attribute of G’d to the people already at this time. In other words, was he to reveal to them at this time universal aspects of G’d, or was he to restrict himself to representing G’d in His capacity as manager of the earth in its present format?
      When G’d answered אהיה אשר אהיה, this meant that there was no need for Moses to broaden the people’s theological base by dragging in the universal dimensions of G’d as the Creator, etc. It would suffice to assure the people that the same G’d (attribute) Who had been with the patriarchs would continue to be with both Moses and the people. This attribute would suffice, if called upon during periods of distress, to propel G’d to help His people. G’d’s response to His people’s prayers would be enough proof to them and to the people around them that there was a living G’d Who took an interest in the fate of His creatures. This corresponds to how our sages explained the name אהיה אשר אהיה, i.e. “just as I have seen them through this major problem, so I will see them through any major problems in the future.” It is assumed that the Jewish people, whenever they are in distress, will call upon this attribute of G’d asking for relief. The manifestation of the attribute of <i>shaddai</i> on such occasions is abundant proof of the existence of a living and caring G’d.
      Moses felt that it was premature to hint at future times when the Israelites might encounter similar distress; this is why he suggested that he introduce G’d simply as אהיה, the four letters of the ineffable name, the attribute of Mercy, an attribute which presupposes that this G’d is the Creator, hence He can operate freely in all of His creation, that He is the universal G’d. The word אהיה is repeated here three times, indicating that in G’d’s approach to the universe, seeing that He is eternal, there are no such concepts as past, present, and future, they are all one, i.e. , היה, הווה, יהיה“He was, He is, He will be,” are parts of the same concept. Only to mortals such as we, are these concepts separate and non-interchangeable time zones.
      Some commentators see in the expression אהיה אשר אהיה, a command for Moses to tell the people that G’d Himself suffers with the people whenever they endure suffering. G’d explained that the reason why Moses was granted this vision of G’d was precisely because the people had turned to Him, pleading for relief, and that G’d was about to answer their plea. He was sure, He said, that as soon as Moses would tell the people this they would indeed believe him when he said that he had been sent by this G’d. In other words, the answer to Moses’ question “what shall I tell them in order that they will believe me?” is that ”I will be with them.”
      Still another approach to our problem. Moses made the same mistake as Yaakov had made when he asked the angel in his nocturnal encounter his name, and who had been told that this was irrelevant. Celestial forces, unlike terrestrial phenomena, do not have fixed names, as they adopt names that match whatever task they perform at a given point in history. Seeing that G’d is active simultaneously on many different “fronts,” He ”travels” under many different “names.” [In colloquial terms: “G’d uses many different passports on different occasions.” Ed.] The meaning of the words אהיה אשר אהיה is simply “I will adopt whatever name the occasion and the circumstances call for at the time I manifest Myself.”
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   וזה זכרי לדור דור, “and this is My remembrance from generation to generation.” G’d reverts to His reference as being the G’d of the patriarchs. He assures Moses, and through him the people of Israel, that His covenant with the patriarchs is of an eternal, enduring nature, one that will always be referred to at critical times in Jewish history. He responded to the children of the patriarchs in the past and will continue to do so.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויאמר, הראני נא את כבודך. “I said: please reveal to me Your glory.” Moses requested that G’d show him His true face in a vision, something our sages are in the habit of referring to as אספקרלריא המאירא, “a clear, unambiguous visual image.” G’d answered him that what He would do was to parade before him a number of phenomena, each of which represented some of the ways in which He demonstrated His earnest desire to be of benefit to His creatures; as a result of viewing these phenomena one after another, he, more than any other human being, would develop an appreciation of what G’d’s essence was all about; however, it was impossible to do more without terminating Moses’ life, as it was not given to mortals to get a still deeper insight into what an Eternal G’d, the Creator of the universe, was truly like. 
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ולא יתן אתכם מלך מצרים להלוך, ולא ביד חזקה“and the King of Egypt will not let you go, except through a strong hand.” According to <i>Rashi</i>, the line means that G’d says that as long as G’d would not display His strong hand Pharaoh would not let the Israelites go.
      	According to Nachmanides we are to understand the line as follows: Pharaoh will not let the Israelites go voluntarily, not even when I apply pressure, until I will display all the power at My command. I will use a strong hand in demonstrating this power of Mine to him, working many miracles. This is a preview of what the Torah describes later progressively as יד חזקה, זרוע נטויה, אותות ומופתים, “a strong hand, an outstretched arm, a variety of supernatural miracles.”
      All these instruments of G’d’s persuavive power would have to be experienced by Pharaoh before he would dismiss the Israelites.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ושאלה אשה משכנתה, “Each woman will request from her neighbour, etc.” even though the Torah had used the masculine mode when speaking of the actual event, i.e. (Exodus 112, and 12,35) implying that both the males and the females would request valuables from their Egyptian neighbours, the reason that a feminine mode was chosen by the Torah here is that it is usually women who borrow from their neighbours, not men.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויען משה ויאמר והן לא יאמינו לי, Moses answered saying: “but they will not believe me, etc.” According to <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 3,12 Moses sinned in the manner in which he spoke to G’d at this point, seeing that he contradicted G’d Who had told him that the people would listen to what he had to say (3,18). G’d responded to Moses in the manner in which he had spoken to G’d. He asked him what he had in his hand, i.e <i>mazeh beyadcha?</i> When Moses replied that he had a staff in his hand, G’d turned the staff into a snake to show Moses that his answer had been quite wrong. G’d demonstrated that by reading the letters מזה not as “<i>mazeh</i>,” “what is this?” but as “<i>mizeh</i>” “with this,” that He would provide him with a means by which to make the Israelites believe him. (the <i>Midrash</i>, according to <i>Mahar’zu,</i> appears to imply that the need to employ miracles in order to make the Israelites believe that Moses was not an impostor was held as a sin against Moses, not against them.)
      Ibn Ezra, approaching the text as being quite plain, and Moses’ reply as being in order, writes that when G’d had said to Moses that the Israelites would listen to him, (3,18) He had spoken of the elders to whom Moses would have to identify himself in the first place. When Moses now said that the Israelites would not believe him, he did not refer to the elders, but to the masses of the Jewish people. He may also have referred to their having unspoken reservations in their hearts, disbelief they would not dare to voice at that time.
      Nachmanides explains that Moses meant that it is entirely possible that the words in ושמעו לקולך in 3,18 were not to be understood as an assurance, but as a command, a directive to Moses to make sure that the people would take him seriously, would believe what he had come to tell them. 3,18 is immediately followed by G’d Himself telling Moses that the elders following him notwithstanding, Pharaoh will turn a deaf ear to their mission. In other words, G’d had never promised immediate success at all. Moses was therefore entitled to point out additional factors which would make his mission difficult in the extreme. There are numerous instances in the Scriptures where the meaning of such words as ושמעו, or ואמרו, is not a prediction of what will happen but an assessment of what ought to happen.
      It is also possible that in 3,18 G’d had only meant that the elders would be willing, on the strength of Moses having identified himself, to go for an interview before Pharaoh with him, and to tell him that their G’d had instructed them to ask for a three day furlough to offer sacrifices to Him. After all, in their own estimation, what did they have to lose by going along? G’d had already told them that the mission would not be successful. (3,19) Moses therefore was quite correct in saying that after the interview with Pharaoh, also attended by the elders, had failed to produce the desired results, the masses of the people would not believe in him as their saviour. They would argue that if he had truly been a messenger from G’d he would have been successful.
      Another approach to the subject could be that what the people would refuse to believe would be Moses’ claim to have been privy to the instructions of G’d in His attribute as <i>Hashem</i>, the attribute of Mercy, rather than having received instructions from <i>elokim,</i> the attribute of <i>shaddai,</i> that was known to them but had not produced relief from their sorry condition. They would refuse to see in him a prophet with greater powers than the patriarchs who had not been known as miracle workers. No wonder, they would say, that Pharaoh was not impressed by him. They would argue that their sorry state was not due to their sins, for as far as their sins were concerned these would not form an impassable barrier between them and G’d’s attribute of Mercy.
      Yet another way of understanding our verse is that Moses simply meant that the Israelites would not believe him unless he could produce some kind of miracle to convince them that he had not lied. There was no suggestion that Moses did not accept G’d’s statement that the people would listen to him. .
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויאמר השליכהו ארצה ויהי לנחש, “He said: ‘throw it to the ground so that it will turn into a serpent.” Nachmanides has trouble understanding the need for G’d to perform these miracles in front of Moses, seeing Moses had not been a doubter here. In his (preliminary) view it would have been more appropriate for G’d to tell Moses to perform this very miracle in front of the Jewish people, as He did with the third miracle the turning of water into blood. It is considerations such as these which prompted our sages to say that Moses was meant to consider the first miracle here as a personal rebuke for having spoken badly of the Jewish people, for having accused them of lack of faith. He was to realize that he deserved to be punished, and this is also why he reacted in fear, fleeing from the serpent. He considered it entirely possible that this snake would bite him as a penalty for badmouthing his people. The same applies to his hand turning leprous; this too was to remind him that the affliction known as <i>tzoraat</i> is in the main reserved for people who were derelict in their relationship with their fellow human beings, in particular by speaking badly about them. Their forced stay in isolation would bring this home to them even more forcefully. Moses did not recover from his fright until G’d told him to grab the snake by its tail. Moses is then described not as taking hold of the snake’s tail merely, as G’d had instructed, by אחיזה, a somewhat tenuous hold on things, but the Torah uses the word ויחזק בו, “he took a firm hold of it.”
      Some commentators claim that the miracle of the staff was a demonstration by means of a simile, that the great Pharaoh whose career had started out as a malleable human being, something similar to a pliable staff, had then become hard as a תנין הגדול, a great sea-monster, only to become all soft again, none of his powers remaining, his glory having vanished into thin air. When Pharaoh had turned “tough” on him after he had killed the Egyptian, Moses had already fled from him, as we read in The miracle of the staff would reassure Moses that he no longer had anything to fear from him.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   שלח ידך ואחוז בזנבו, “extend your arm and take hold of it by its tail!” This means simply to establish physical contact, not that Moses would thereby control the snake’s movement, as the snake will attempt to wriggle free. This is why the Torah reports Moses as ויחזק בו, “he took firm hold of it.” This demonstrates that Moses had thought that as soon as he would get to Egypt Pharaoh would release the Israelites immediately, that there would be no attempt on his part to wriggle out of the demands made upon him. The redemption would not occur until strong-armed measures, such as Moses employed to control the movements of the snake would be employed. The second miracle would be performed in the presence of the assembled people who were mired in spiritual pollution absorbed through their being part of the Egyptian culture. G’d demonstrated by means of that miracle [the healing of an affliction considered incurable, Ed.] that the Israelites would become penitents and thus fit for redemption.
      Some commentators understand the meaning of that miracle to be that just as the Israelites who were free men when they came to Egypt had been afflicted by G’d so that they had become slaves, they would once more be able to regain their former freedom thanks to the same G’d Who had caused them to become afflicted in the first place. 
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   למען יאמינו כי נראה אליך ה', “in order that they will believe that the Lord, (attribute of Mercy) G’d of your fathers has indeed appeared to you.” The Torah refers to the demonstration of this miracle, the verse being an abbreviation, seeing that it was quite understood that this was to be the purpose of the miracle.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   והיה אם לא יאמינו, “in the event that they will not believe you, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that seeing that we know full well whether or not the Israelites would believe Moses’ claim to be the redeemer appointed by G’d, it is clear that this verse was addressed only to Moses, to tell him that in the event that some of the people would not believe that Moses was the chosen redeemer after having seen the first miracle, the second miracle would convince also these doubters. 
      As to the Torah describing the reaction of the people to the miracle as a קול האות, a miracle with an audible impact, rather than as it having a visual impact, this is an example of what Rabbi Yishmael had described as the Torah employing a syntax familiar to the common people. Furthermore, as to the Torah describing the second miracle as אות האחרון, “the last miracle,” when in fact it would be followed by a third miracle, the reason is that as of that point in time only two miracles had been demonstrated to Moses. The verse hints that if after two miracles there would still be doubters, a third miracle would be performed which would silence the remaining doubters. As a matter of fact, in due course, Moses performed these miracles, and the people all believed that he was the chosen redeemer. (verses 30-31)
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   והיו המים אשר תקח מן היאור והיו לדם ביבשת, “and it will be that the waters which you will take from the river will turn into blood on the dry land.” Even though G’d had already told Moses that he was to take water from the river,ולקחת ממימי היאור, He repeated the word “you will take” once more. The idea was that Moses should not take the water from the river by means of some container, but directly by hand.
  
     והיו, “they will be (remain).” Why has this word והיו been repeated? According to <i>Rashi</i> this means that the waters in question will not turn into blood until poured on the dry land.
      Nachmanides writes that there is no need for this explanation in order to justify the repeated use of the word והיו, as it is part of the usual syntax of the Torah to repeat certain words whenever the Torah wants to emphasise a point, or when there is a lengthy interval between the legislation becoming applicable and its being carried out in practice. A case in point is Leviticus 27,3 where the Torah repeats the words והיה ערכך. [you will note there that when the Torah speaks about shorter time frames such as ages between a month and five years, or five years and 20 years, instead of a time frame between 20-60 years, the words והיה ערכך are not repeated. Ed.] The first two miracles were temporary phenomena, the natural state of events being restored in short order. The water which Moses poured on the ground and which turned into blood, never reverted to becoming water; hence the words והיו לדם the second time would be aptly translated as “they will turn into blood permanently”.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   גם מתמול גם משלשום, “not since yesterday nor since the day before.” We learn from all this that G’d spent seven days trying to convince Moses to accept the mission voluntarily. 
      Looking at the plain text and trying to understand the relevance of Moses’ remarks, (as if G’d were not aware of his speech defect as well as his not being an orator), Moses argued that seeing that the people know that I have had this speech defect since youth, they will be astounded that You have not first fixed this, but have sent a prophet who suffers from such a blemish. Would not Pharaoh consider it an insult to have to deal with someone like me who suffers from such a blemish? Seeing that Moses, basically, did not wish to assume the burden of leadership at all, he did not pray to G’d to heal his speech defect. He contented himself with saying that someone with a blemish such as he suffered from was not likely to be the most suitable candidate for the task proposed by G’d. G’d, for His part, did not want to heal his speech defect precisely because he had not prayed to Him to do this. He simply told him to go and fulfill his mission, and that He would come to his aid whenever required. Whatever he would be saying to Pharaoh would come out of his mouth clear without Pharaoh ever becoming aware of the fact that 
      he suffered from any speech defect. Moses therefore experienced a double miracle in that whenever he faced Pharaoh he could suddenly speak normally, without there being even a trace of his usual handicap. Both what he said an how he said it sounded complexly normal. 
      Some commentators attribute Moses’ speech defect to the well known story in the <i>Midrash,</i> according to which Moses’ life was spared on account of something which led to his speech defect. He was suspected by the astrologers of becoming the redeemer of the Jews, and when, as a two year old, he was put to the test, being given the choice of grabbing for the king’s crown or for glowing coals, he grabbed for the latter and put them to his mouth when an angel had given him a push in that direction. Seeing that his very speech defect, in a manner of speaking, had been his “life saver,” it would have been inappropriate to reverse this “defect.”
      Some commentators do not agree that G’d healed Moses’ speech defect at all, even when he used to stand before Pharaoh, but that G’d might have done so if Moses had not used it as an excuse not to do His bidding. As it were, G’d expressed His displeasure by not healing Moses of this defect.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   מי שם פה לאדם?, “Who has equipped man with a mouth?” The Torah refers to the mouth here as an instrument of formulating speech.
  
     או מי ישום אלם?, “or Who makes (man) dumb?” The verb ישום, refers back to the word אדם in the first half of our verse. G’d does not “make“ man dumb, as dumbness is the lack of something, something similar to “nothing,” in the sense that it did not require to be created or refined. If the Torah, nonetheless, created the impression as if G’d had made some people “dumb,” perhaps the reason is that man is considered a נפש מדברת, “a personality equipped with the power of speech.” When one encounters a human being who lacks this power, one assumes that someone, i.e. Gd, had locked the power of expressing itself within that personality, and had made him dumb. The word אלם is the opposite of the word פה, mouth, just as the word פקח is the opposite of the word עור, blind; and the word חרש describes someone not equipped with the sense of hearing. Seeing that the word פקח can be applied to both eyes and ears, describing a lack of perceptive powers of the eyes or ears, we encounter such expression as לפקוח עינים,עינים פקוחות , i.e. “to open one’s eyes”, or “open eyes”, as otherwise we could not be certain in which mode the word פקח was being used at the time.
      Some commentators view the line מי שם פה simply as a rebuke to Moses, G’d saying: “did you really think that I was unaware that you had a speech impediment?” Surely, seeing that I have made you, you need not remind Me of such matters!”
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   שלח נא ביד תשלח, “please my Lord, send through whomever You will send!” According to Onkelos, Moses referred to people whom G’d had used in the past as His messengers, and who had a record as being fit for such errands. He implies that among those there were people who were quite willing to be G’d’s spokesmen as well as being spokesmen of the people, people who also possessed the gift of oratory. He meant that even though G’d had assured him that He would be at his side every step of the way, it was not fitting for the representative of G’d to be a person who was afflicted with such a blemish as he was afflicted with.
      During all the time that Moses had been debating with G’d about whether to accept this assignment, he had been secretly hoping that perhaps G’d would cure him of his affliction, and this would be a sign that he would indeed be able to carry out his assignment successfully. When he had become convinced that this would not happen, he had suggested to G’d to send someone else.
      Nachmanides understands the words שלח נא ביד תשלח, as meaning that G’d should send anyone else in preference to himself, seeing that no one on earth could be as unsuitable for this task as he was. Moses’ refusal to accept the position of leadership was motivated exclusively by his exceptional modesty and humility. Some understand the comment by Moses, as if he told G’d: “seeing that I am not fit to deliver oral messages due to my handicap, let me present my case by letter, i.e. provide me with a written document to submit to Pharaoh, outlining our case for being released from bondage.”
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ידעתי כי דבר ידבר, “I know that he is a fluent orator.” This means that G’d tells Moses that He is aware that Aaron is willing to act as his mouthpiece even without being commanded by G’d to do so. As proof of Aaron’s helpful attitude, He tells Moses that he is on his way to meet his younger brother, not harbouring any resentment that his younger brother has been chosen for such a fateful mission. The only reason G’d had to tell him to meet Moses in the desert was to inform him of where in the desert he would find his brother.
      It is also possible that Aaron had heard that Moses had left Midian and that he had gone forth to meet him without even having received any instruction from G’d on the subject. Once Aaron had been on the way, G’d gave him directions where to meet Moses.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ואנכי אהיה עם פיך, “and I shall be with your mouth, etc.” I shall give you precise instructions what to say to Pharaoh. At this point, G’d did not say that Aaron would speak on his behalf. Aaron would only speak on Moses’ behalf to the people, not to Pharaoh. We know this from verse 16 ודבר הוא אל העם, that it would be Aaron’s task to address the people, but the people would know that he was the “mouthpiece.” The word נביאך, means that just as a prophet is G’d’s mouthpiece, so Aaron will now become Moses’ mouthpiece.     It is possible that this arrangement was out of the desire to show deference to the Egyptian establishment, in particular Pharaoh personally, who might be insulted if he received the word of G’d not even through his prophet but through the prophet’s mouthpiece. In spite of these considerations, in the end, Moses queried that the chances of Pharaoh paying heed to a stammerer such as he, was too much to expect.
  
  Verse 16
  
    ודבר הוא לך אל העם, “and he will speak on your behalf to the people;” Ibn Ezra writes that this was not a demotion of some kind for Moses, but the very reverse. Aaron’s role in this is to be compared to the role of the mouth of a person which represents the thoughts of that person’s soul. The soul, by definition, is not visible, just as the angels are not visible, seeing they have no body. Moses therefore had been elevated to the stature of an angel by having Aaron as his interpreter. This is how we can understand G’d saying that Moses would be to Aaron similar to אלוקים. The word אלוקים throughout Scripture is a name symbolizing the majesty of G’d or that of His holy angels. The angels are the ones who familiarize us with what G’d is doing at certain times during our history. At any rate, Aaron, far from being demoted to being a mere “mouthpiece,” had been promoted to reveal the invisible thoughts of Moses, i.e. of what G’d had communicated to him. 
  
  Verse 17
  
   אשר תעשה בו את האותות, “by means of which you will perform the miracles.” Although at this time, Moses had been instructed only to perform a single miracle, i.e. אות, not אותות, it was a hint to Moses that there would be a need for further demonstrations of G’d’s power. You will recall that G’d had spoken of כל נפלאותי, “all My miracles,” already in Here the Torah is somewhat more specific than in the previous chapter. This is why here the Torah adds: אשר תעשה בו את האותות, with which you will perform the miracles, (pl.}
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ויאמר ה' אל משה במדין, “the Lord said to Moses in Midian, etc.” Ibn Ezra reminds us that the Torah is not bound to narrate events in the order in which they occurred, and that what G’d is now reported as having told Moses, He had told him already on a previous occasion. 
      Nachmanides disagrees with Ibn Ezra, saying that G’d’s first communication to Moses did not take place in Midian but at Mount Sinai (Mt. Chorev). According to him, G’d spoke with Moses only on this occasion while Moses was in Midian. It is possible that once Moses had reluctantly agreed to assume the mission G’d wanted him to perform, he returned once more to Midian to obtain his father-in-law’s permission to return to Egypt. It was his intention to do so incognito. This is when G’d told him that there was no reason for this, as all the people who had sought his death had long since died. This message came to him while he was still in Midian. G’d made it clear to him that he should remain in Egypt until the redemption, the Exodus. This is why Moses took his family with him at that stage. It appeared to be a logical move as it would show the Israelites that he was convinced that the redemption was near, otherwise he would have left his family behind in Midian where they were safe and comfortable.
  
     כי מתו כל האנשים, “for all the people have died, etc.” according to <i>Rashi</i> the words כל האנשים refer to Datan and Aviram, the two men who had told Pharaoh about his slaying the Egyptian. How could G’d describe them as “having died,” when during the uprising of Korach a couple of years later, they were very much alive and ringleaders in that rebellion? The answer is that whereas at the time the incident with the Egyptian occurred these two men were among the wealthiest Jews in Egypt, so that what they said carried weight, in the meantime both had become paupers so that their influence was nil, no more than that of dead people. Sometimes people afflicted with the dreaded disease <i>tzoraat</i> are described as “dead,” as they are isolated beyond contact with society, but this was not the case with Datan and Aviram, whose posture in Numbers 16 shows them a) to have resided within the camp, and b) to have had good eyesight. C) They could not even have been described as “dead” because they had no children, as the Torah describes their challenging Moses brazenly together with their wives and children (Numbers 16,27).
      However, it is difficult to understand why both of these men should have wanted Moses dead, seeing he had saved the life of one of them by his interference in their quarrel? Besides, granted that both men had become paupers, how did this prevent them from being a threat to Moses’ life? They could still act as informers to Pharaoh? 
      According to the plain meaning of the text, G’d informed Moses that the one who had ever been a real threat to him, i.e. Pharaoh, had died physically.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויקח משה את אשתו ואת בניו, “he took his wife and his sons, etc.” This verse is similar to Numbers 26,8 ובני פלוא אליאב, “and the sons of Phalu were Eliav. Even though Phalu is reported as having had only the one son, the Torah uses the plural mode ובני, when referring to this. Similarly, here. At this time Moses had only one son, Gershom. Tzippporah who had been pregnant with Eliezer at that time gave birth to him on the way, as becomes clear in verse 24 of our chapter. It is possible that before G’d had spoken to Moses at Mount Chorev, Tzipporah had born Gershom, and that she had again become pregnant. When Moses returned to Yitro from the desert Eliezer had just been born. Seeing that Moses was anxious to be on his way, he had not yet circumcised his new born son, so that his mother had not yet named the baby. She did not name him right after she had circumcised him, being not yet sure whether Moses would survive his encounter with the angel who had tried to harm him. It was only after Moses arrived safely in Egypt and realized that he had indeed been saved from all those who had wanted to kill him, that he named the baby with a name which reflected his gratitude to G’d for having saved him from all this.
  
     וירכיבם על החמור, “he made them ride on the donkey.” The Torah specifies that it was a donkey, not a camel or some other animal used to ride on; perhaps because he had a number of animals to choose from for his wife and children to ride on.
  
     וישב ארצה מצרימה, “he returned in the direction of the land of Egypt.” According to Nachmanides, even though the Torah uses the singular mode וישב, what are meant are Moses and his family.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why the Torah used the singular mode is that though Moses had intended to bring his family with him to Egypt; he changed his mind after his encounter with the angel and the circumcision, after which, in the interest of the baby’s recovery from that procedure, Tzipporah decided the return to her father’s home for a while. Moses had not wanted to delay beginning his mission while waiting for his son to recover. It is also possible that they all went to Egypt together, and that when it became evident that the redemption of the Israelites was still some time in the future, Tzipporah, who had pined for her father’s home, returned there pending the Exodus becoming reality.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויאמר ה' אל משה בלכתך לשוב מצרימה, “The Lord said to Moses: ‘when you are on the way to return to Egypt, etc’.”
      According to Ibn Ezra what follows was said to Moses while he had still been in Midian. G’d told him that in spite of all the miracles He had provided Moses with to perform in Egypt, that He, G’d, had made Pharaoh’s heart strong so that he would not discharge the Israelites from serving him on account of the miracles Moses would perform. This would only occur as a result of the final miracle when, after being told that G’d would kill all the firstborn Egyptians including Pharaoh’s own firstborn, he would capitulate
      Nachmanides writes that Ibn Ezra’s description of events is not correct, for if it were, why did the Torah write the line בלכתך לשוב מצרימה ראה, “when you are on the way to return to Egypt, see!” Rather, the true meaning of the verse is that when Moses had already taken his staff and was about to set out on his return journey to Egypt, G’d warned Moses to perform all the miracles in spite of the fact that Pharaoh would not be sufficiently impressed by them to let the Israelites depart. The way things would develop would be that while Moses was doing “his thing,” i.e. what G’d had empowered him to do, and while Pharaoh, on the other hand, would do “his thing,” Moses was not to become discouraged. He warned him further that when it would come to the final plague when he would warn Pharaoh that G’d would strike dead his own firstborn son, Pharaoh would capitulate. The words אשר שמתי בידך, “which I have placed at your disposal,” mean that G’d had provided only Moses exclusively with the power to perform all these miracles. He gave Moses a review of how things would develop in order to encourage him to proceed with appropriate dispatch. Subsequently, he would receive detailed instructions concerning each of the miracles, i.e. each of the plagues.
      It is also possible that the words ואמרת אל פרעה וגו' are instructions to Moses concerning the 10th and final plague, when he would warn Pharaoh of G’d killing his firstborn son. Whereas with the other plagues the Torah reports G’d instructing Moses, and Moses then carrying out the instruction, we do not find G’d issuing any instructions there to Moses before he proceeded to announce the forthcoming plague to Pharaoh, (Exodus 11,4)
      It is also possible that G’d instructed Moses here to perform the same three miracles before Pharaoh that He had already instructed him to perform before the Israelites. This was in order that Pharaoh should realize that the only reason that the elders of the Israelites had requested what they did, was because G’d had sent them Moses who had performed these miracles for them in order to identify himself as their redeemer. Pharaoh would therefore have no reason to fault the elders of Israel for their request. Moses acted in this fashion although the Torah had not bothered to spell this out.
      Concerning the fact that the Torah also wrote “when Pharaoh will say to you that you should legitimize yourselves by means of a miracle” (7,9), and that He commanded Moses to turn the staff into a sea monster instead of into a serpent, as he had done before the Israelites, and that he showed Pharaoh that Aaron’s staff would swallow those of his magicians, this was a hint that He would overpower the magicians.
      In the <i>Midrash</i> Shemot <i>Rabbah</i> (5,6) we are told that in the event that someone were to claim that the miracles of blood, <i>tzoraat</i>, and the staff turning into a snake, that these had been performed only before the Israelites and not before Pharaoh, the Torah adds the word ראה, that G’d told Moses to look at the letters ד'צך ע'דש ב'אחב the respective first letters of each plague, letters which were engraved on the staff in order to confirm that all these plagues, i.e. miracles, would be performed in the presence of Pharaoh.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויפגשהו ה', “the Lord encountered him;” as a rebuke for having concerned himself with private concerns at the inn, instead of first performing the circumcision on his son Eliezer. The excuse that he was on the way and that the circumstances were such that circumcision would place the life of the infant in danger, did no longer apply as the inn in question was already close to Egypt, not in the desert
      Some commentators claim that because this was close to Egypt, Tzipporah suggested that she should await the Exodus of the people of Israel while remaining at the inn, and join the Israelites on their way to the Holy Land from there. Moses entertained the thought to leave her there. Seeing that he considered the place safe enough to leave his wife and children there, he had no excuse not to immediately perform the circumcision.
      Still other commentators claim that he was punished because he should have circumcised Eliezer while still in Midian and not have taken Tzipporah and her children with him at all at that time. Still another view holds that this was the punishment for Moses having agreed with Yitro at the time he married Tzipporah that he would leave half of the children born to him uncircumcised. As a result, he was not at liberty to perform circumcision on his second son in Yitro’s house.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ותקח צפורה צור, “Tzipporah took hold of a sharp edged piece of stone, etc.” she took a kind of chisel, the same kind as has been described in the Book of Joshua (5,3) as חרבות צורים, the instrument used by Joshua when he circumcised all the Jews that had been born since the Jews had left Egypt who had not been circumcised in the desert because the climactic conditions would have posed a threat to the lives of the infants.
  
     ותכרות את ערלת בנה, “she cut off the foreskin of her son.” Moses did not circumcise him as the angel had incapacitated him. This is the meaning of the words ויבקש להמיתו, “he tried to kill him.” If these words referred to the infant, as some believe, why would not Moses have circumcised his son himself instead of his wife performing this task?
  
     ותאמר כי חתן דמים אתה לי, “she said: ‘you caused my bridegroom’s bloodshed.’” Tzipporah’s remarks were addressed to her young son. She blamed him for causing Moses’ death, had she not intervened. When the angel released Moses she changed the meaning of what she had said first to mean that her infant’s blood, (the blood of the circumcision) had made him a bridegroom of blood. [she had acquired the child at the cost of some of his blood. Ed.]
      Some commentators claim that Tzipporah’s comment was addressed to Moses, i.e. that she felt the angel’s threatening to kill Moses was part of the punishment for his having married a Midianite woman. In other words, she felt that she had acquired her bridegroom at the possible cost of her bridegroom’s life. When the angel released Moses, she realized that the problem had not been her marriage to Moses but the failure to circumcise her son on time.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   וישק לו, “he kissed him.” Aaron kissed Moses. Seeing that Moses was so humble, it would have been unseemly for him to take the initiative by kissing his senior brother. This accounts for the fact that contrary to similar encounters reported elsewhere, the Torah did not write “they kissed one another”). (compare Samuel I 20,41)
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   את כל דברי ה', “all the words of the Lord.” He explained to Aaron that he had repeatedly refused the mission G’d wanted him to carry out, and that in the end he had accepted the task only under duress.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   דרך שלשת ימים, “a distance of three days’ journey.” If Moses had declared that they wanted to leave the country for good, the Egyptians would never have agreed to lend them their valuable trinkets to use in their rituals.
      There is a comment in the <i>Midrash</i> according to which when G’d told Moses to have the Children of Israel ask for these trinkets, he replied to G’d: “is it worth the effort to make the Israelites borrow these trinkets for a mere three days?” G’d answered him that He was aware that Pharaoh would not even grant a vacation of three days, and that in response to his refusal G’d would bring on the plagues, at the end of which he would send the Israelites from his land permanently.
  
     פן יפגענו בדבר או בחרב, “lest He will strike us dead either with the plague or the sword.” According to <i>Rashi</i> this was a veiled warning to Pharaoh and meant “lest He strike you dead either by the plague or by the sword.”
      Ibn Ezra understands the line as a warning to Pharaoh as well as to the Israelites who would be punished for not heeding their G’d’s commandment. This is the reason why when the time came for the slaying of the firstborn, the Egyptians were afraid that they would all die. They had belatedly remembered what Moses had said during the first interview with Pharaoh. 
      Nachmanides rejects this commentary as he is bothered by the fact that Moses and Aaron had not been commanded by G’d to say to Pharaoh that their G’d had threatened to punish the Israelites if they failed to offer sacrifices to Him.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   למה....תפריעו, “why do you disturb, etc?” According to <i>Rashi</i> the meaning of תפריעו is the same as תבטלו, “you are causing idleness.” 
      Ibn Ezra interprets the word as תשבתו, you cause them to deteriorate as in Proverbs 5,23 (29,18) באין מוסר יפרע עם, “the people will become corrupt in the absence of discipline.”
  
     לכו לסבלותיכם, “go about your own business!” <i>Rashi</i> equates סבלותיכם with עבודתכם, “your work,” as opposed to סבלות, forced labour, as the members of the tribe of Levi were exempt from forced labour.
      Ibn Ezra does not perceive the word סבלותיכם as addressed to Moses and Aaron, but as referring to the forced labour of the masses of the Israelites whom they claimed to represent. Some commentators claim that even the ordinary Israelites did not have to join the workforce until they had reached the age of nine, and that they could “retire” at the age of 60.
      Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the words Pharaoh told Moses and Aaron to rather perform their duties for their King, together with the remainder of the nation, seeing that on that occasion Moses and Aaron appeared before him accompanied by the common people. Pharaoh therefore told those people to get back to work instead of wasting their time dreaming of an illusory redemption. When Moses and Aaron, instead of complying with Pharaoh’s command, appeared before him once more, he commanded them to legitimize themselves by means of a miracle. Once Moses and Aaron had done so, he no longer looked upon them as part of the common people but respected them as elders, as sages. Once they had begun to decree plagues upon Egypt, he no longer treated them only with deference, but with fear, with dread. It appears that not all of the Israelites were slaving away making and laying bricks all the time, for if so the country would have become a large heap of bricks. Making bricks was a tax imposed by Pharaoh on the entire population, but the Israelites were singled out by working far longer hours and by having to supply a much larger percentage of their manpower.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ואל ישעו, “let them not pay heed, etc.” some commentators believe that the root is שען, to rely on, to draw support, and that the root letter נ has been omitted in this case.
      Ibn Ezra explains the term as meaning “so that they do not become weak,” ירפאו, in the sense of becoming weak through indolence, נרפים. False hopes would engender general slackness.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   גם תמול גם היום, “as (much as) yesterday also today?” According to Ibn Ezra the day referred to here as “yesterday,” was the day on which Moses had performed the miracles before the people, and “today” was the day on which Moses and Aaron had their first audience with Pharaoh. On both of these days the Israelites did not deliver their quota of bricks.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  וחטאת עמך, “and it is considered a sin by your people!” The overseers instead of accusing Pharaoh outright, phrased it in a less offensive way, i.e. as if the Israelites were the guilty party. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ויראו שוטרי בני ישראל אותם ברע לאמור, “The foremen of the Israelites saw themselves in an untenable position, saying:” Ibn Ezra understands the word אותם here not as referring to someone else but as referring to themselves, as if the Torah had written: עצמם. He quotes a couple of other verses where the word is used in similar fashion, one being in Deut. 34,6 ויקבור אותו בגיא, “He buried himself in the valley.” [Moses entombing himself. Ed]
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   למה הרעות לעם הזה?, “Why did You allow more evil to be done to this people?” Some commentators are stymied by Moses’ reaction, seeing that G’d had warned him beforehand that things would be tough for a while. Ibn Ezra thinks that Moses had thought that from the moment he would speak to Pharaoh there would at least be a gradual improvement in the people’s situation. Instead, the people’s lot had actually worsened. This is why he asked G’d what such worsening was meant to achieve. He could not square this with G’d having told him that He had observed the terrible condition His people were in and that He was about to respond to their pleas. This is why G’d immediately tells Moses that he would witness an improvement in short order.
      Nachmanides is not content with this answer, seeing that Moses had accused G’d of not having saved His people thus far, one of the promises made in 3,8 and there is no other way of “saving, i.e. rescuing” the people except by leading them out of Egypt. He explains therefore that Moses had thought that although G’d had prepared him for the fact that Pharaoh would turn a deaf ear to his request, his refusal would be followed by G’d beginning to orchestrate the plagues immediately. When this did not happen, and Pharaoh appeared to carry the day by imposing even stricter decrees, Moses was nonplussed, and sought answers from G’d. Three days had passed since his interview with Pharaoh and he had not received any additional instructions from G’d. He thought that enough time had elapsed for the people’s condition to undergo a healing process. When he saw that he had miscalculated G’d’s timetable, he wanted to know why G’d had not waited with sending him on this mission until the time for the redemption was at hand.
      According to a statement in <i>Shemot Rabbah,</i> when Moses saw that the Jewish foremen had been beaten and nothing happened to Pharaoh, he went back to Midian with his family to Yitro, leaving his family in his care until after the redemption would have materialized.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   עתה תראה, “now you will see;” according to <i>Rashi</i> the word “now” means that whereas Moses would witness the redemption from Egypt, he would not witness the entry of the people into the Holy Land. Both the accusation Moses leveled against G’d that He had worsened the fate of the people, and the failure to speak to the rock instead of hitting it in Numbers 20, 5-14, combined to his not being allowed to witness conquest of the land of Canaan.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   וידבר אלוקים....וארא אל אברהם, “G’d said….I have appeared to Avraham, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that instead of writing הודעתי, “I have made known,” the Torah wrote a passive mode לא נודעתי, “I have not become well known.” This means that G’d’s attribute of <i>Hashem</i> had not become properly known, familiar, to the patriarchs. Seeing that this attribute reveals more of G’d’s essence than such attributes as <i>shaddai,</i> or <i>elokim,</i> the element of G’d’s fulfilling commitments He made of a long term nature, such as the promise to Avraham that his descendants would survive 400 years of exile and enslavement and proceed to the land of Canaan and take it over as their ancestral homeland, this attribute would from now on become better known. G’d implies that seeing that the time frame after which the redemption was supposed to occur had not yet been completed, the fact that this attribute of G’d had not yet been appreciated was not a reflection of G’d having withheld important information.
      <i>
      Rashi</i> also quotes an alternate commentary which suggests that the people should have inquired after this attribute of G’d, [why He had failed to keep His promises, the ones made to the patriarchs, Ed.] and that G’d now explains the reason why He had not yet seen fit to do so. <i>Rashi</i> rejects such a commentary saying that the time for G’d fulfilling His promises had not arrived yet, so that such a complaint would have been inappropriate. 
      The problem with such interpretations is that already during the very first revelation of G’d to Avraham at the covenant between the pieces (Genesis chapter 15), the Torah clearly states that “the word of <i>Hashem</i> came to Avram,” In other words, G’d introduced Himself to Avram not as <i>shaddai</i> or as <i>elokim,</i> but by His name <i>Hashem</i>.” He had added further that His claim on Avraham’s obedience was based on His having saved him from the furnace Nimrod had thrown him into in Ur Casdim. <i>Rashi’s</i> rejecting לא נודעתי as meaning “I have not made known,” is based on this appearance of G’d precisely as the attribute of Mercy, an essential attribute, as Avraham had not had a claim to being saved at the time, seeing he had voluntarily submitted to that test of his faith. [my words based on Rabbi Yitzchok Arama. Ed.]
      The question is why did G’d have to tell Moses: “I am <i>Hashem</i>,” seeing that He had been known as such to the patriarchs. I believe that the answer is simple. G’d tells Moses that although He had been known in His capacity as <i>Hashem</i> to the patriarchs, [compare how Avraham describes Mount Moriah after the binding of Yitzchok, as compared to the opening lines of that chapter (Genesis 22) Ed.] He had not appeared in that guise to the Jewish people as yet. The problem was that the people had not enquired as to the difference between these various attributes of G’d, i.e. when He would prefer to relate to them under one heading (attribute), and when He would prefer to relate to them under a different heading (attribute).
      Knowing all this, we can better understand Moses’ question to G’d in 3,13 “which of Your attributes (name) shall I say to them is the one which will orchestrate the redemption?” According to the interpretation of לא נודעתי להם, “I have not been known to them,” Moses’ question at that time should have been: “when they ask me what shall I tell them?” <i>Rashi’s</i> explanation that the entire paragraph contains a criticism of Moses who had questioned G’d’s handling of the situation since He had appointed him as leader, was to contrast his behaviour with that of the patriarchs who, even when faced with what appeared G’d’s inexplicable behaviour, had not questioned this. [I find all this somewhat strange. Avraham, when having to come to terms with G’d’s treatment of others, such as the people of Sodom had questioned G’d’s judgment, though he had never questioned it when it concerned his own fate. Moses too, questions why his people are suffering more; he does not question his own image being tarnished. Ed.]
      At any rate, we must not mistakenly understand G’d as saying that He had not been known as possessing the attribute of <i>Hashem</i>, but as explaining that only now had the time come to guide the fate of the Jewish people under that heading.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the letter ב in the word בא-ל, suggests that it applies also to an additional factor, i.e. meaning ”with.” [as in “and in addition to”, i.e. ובשמי ה', “and with My additional name, etc.” Ed.] Accordingly, we are to understand the line וארא אל אברהם ואל יצחק ואל יעקב בא-ל שדי ובשמי ה' לא נודעתי להם, “My task in appearing to the patriarchs as the attribute <i>shaddai</i>, i.e. the attribute which governs My power to control nature, the sun, moon, etc., was different from My task at this time when I have to demonstrate My power on earth, a domain basically assigned to man. [some of these words are my own, though I trust they reflect that of the author quoted. Ed.] The patriarchs had been taught that their experience when G’d saved them from famine, from the sword during war, etc., that these were phenomena not related to their specific good deeds, but to G’d exercising His השגחה, benevolent providence, as part of the השגחה כללית, supervision of the universe as a whole. [When directing phenomena devoid of free will such as nature, G’d employs a different attribute from that which He has to employ when facing opposing forces equipped with a free will, such as man. Ed.] During His guidance of the universe at the time of the patriarchs, He did not confront man’s free will. 
      The blessings and curses promised in the Torah are not addressed to the conduct of individuals but to the conduct of mankind as a whole or the Jewish people as a whole, [although G’d warns individuals not to use the people as a whole as an umbrella to hide their individual misdeeds (Deuteronomy 29,17-20) Ed.] The real reward in this life for observing the Torah’s commandments is something known only to G’d, the lawgiver, it is in the nature of a נס נסתר, “a hidden miracle,” i.e. when it does occur no one can pinpoint it as something unnatural. [the concept is familiar from the string of “natural” coincidences and their timing which combine to make up the Purim story. Ed.] These apparent coincidences are actually part of the process of reward and punishment, except that they are not recognized by us as such at the time. The reason why the sages tell us that astronomical influences, i.e. <i>mazzal,</i> do not govern the lives of the Israelites is that the same G’d Who runs nature, also interferes in an invisible manner in what astrologers believed was a forecast of their fates in the stars. This does not mean that astrology is “for the birds,” on the contrary, it means that the Creator can manipulate the events forecast by astrology in a manner which changes their impact on the individuals whom He chooses to be so impacted. Such intervention enabled Rivkah to become pregnant and have children, and it resulted in the Jewish people surviving a bloody encounter forecast by the stars, by the blood in question becoming the blood of the mass circumcision performed by Joshua, instead of becoming the loss of their lifeblood.
      Moses had actually posed two questions to G’d. 1) Why did you send me on this mission at all? 2) Why have you so far failed to save the Jewish people from their misery? Concerning his second question G’d answered him: “now you are going to see why I sent you. You will witness what I am about to do to Pharaoh.” Concerning Moses’ first question G’d said: “I am <i>Hashem</i>.” G’d told him that He had used the patriarchs to demonstrate His stature as <i>shaddai,</i> the G’d controlling events from the heavenly throne, whereas now He would employ Moses to demonstrate how He organized events on earth, by Moses being as it were “His hand and His outstretched arm.” It is your task to make My attribute of <i>Hashem</i> familiar both to the Israelites and to the Egyptians, i.e. the rest of mankind.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   וגם הקימותי, “moreover, I have established;” I have also sent you in order for you to be the instrument through which I will keep My covenant with the patriarchs, if they are like them, to give them the land of Canaan 
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   וגם אני שמעתי, “moreover, I have heard, etc.” an additional reason why I have sent you is that I have heard the groaning of the people, i.e. that they have repented their ways and seen fit to appeal to Me. Hence, just as I endure forever, so My promise will be in effect until carried out. I will demonstrate this with My outstretched arm.
      Concerning the opening line in our paragraph ושמי ה' לא נודעתי, something which we might have expected to have employed the same verb, i.e. ראה, for instance וארא אל אברהם...ושמי הי לא נראתי, “I have appeared to Avraham, but My name <i>Hashem</i> has not appeared, etc.” the reason for this is that, generally speaking, visions granted to the patriarchs occurred during the night, while they were asleep, whereas the manifestations of G’d you and your people will experience will all occur while you are fully awake. In other words, you will become privy to revelations of far greater dimensions than the ones granted to the patriarchs.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   והוצאתי אתכם מתחת סבלות מצרים, “I will take you out from under the slave labour of Egypt.” This is G’d’s promise that He would take them out of the land of Egypt and that they would not again experience having to perform slave labour. Seeing that this promise still left open the possibility that after leaving Egypt the Israelites would be subjected to heavy taxation in their host country, G’d added:
  
     והצלתי אתכם, “I will save you,” i.e. you will not be subjugated to some other government at all.
  
     וגאלתי אתכם, “and I will liberate you.” I will perform so many judgments on the Egyptians that they will liberate you altogether in preference to enduring more plagues. The word גאולה is used here in the same sense as “selling,” i.e. setting free. The meaning of the words בזרוע נטויה, is that G’d will twist their arm until they release the Israelites.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם, “I will acquire you to be My people.” This will take place when you come to Mount Sinai and accept the Torah.
  
     וידעתם כי אני ה' אלוקיכם המוציא אתכם, “then you will know that it is I, your G’d, Who is taking you out, etc.” Ibn Ezra says that according to astrology, the Israelites would have remained in exile still longer. G’d declared that He will supersede what is written in the stars concerning their fate.
      Nachmanides feels that this explanation does not conform to the tenor of the whole portion. He therefore suggests that the meaning is that when you will observe the brute force used by the Lord to bring you out of Egypt, and this will be witnessed by all the surrounding nations, you will realize that He is really your G’d, and that He has orchestrated all this on your account and for your benefit.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ונתתי אותה לכם מורשה, “and I will give it to you as an ancestral heritage.” G’d did not speak about ירושה “an inheritance;” this means that the people leaving Egypt during the Exodus would not be the ones inheriting that land, but their offspring would.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
     וידבר ה' אל משה לאמור, “the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, etc.” Nachmanides writes that some commentators claim that whenever the word לאמור appears in the Torah in the context of something being addressed to Israel, it means that G’d instructed Moses to address the text following to the Children of Israel, whereas in this verse there is an exception and the words of G’d were to be relayed to Pharaoh Such an approach is flawed, for when Lavan related to Yaakov that G’d had addressed him during a dream on the night before, warning him that he was not to harm Yaakov even by word of mouth, he quoted G’d as prefacing His remarks to him with the word לאמור, (Genesis 31,29). The same difficulty is obvious in all the instances when the Torah wrote וידבר ה' אל משה למור, followed by the words דבר אל בני ישראל וגו', “speak to the Children of Israel, etc.” If the wordלאמור had already meant that Moses was to relate what follows to the Israelites, why would we need the words דבר אל בני ישראל, “say to the people of Israel,” at all?     He believes therefore that the word לאמור precedes the instruction to Moses to be precise in his instructions to the Children of Israel, not to leave anything in doubt, not to speak allegorically, or by hinting only. The reason why this is so is because Moses, as the only prophet on such a level, received clear and unmistakable instructions from G’d. Other prophets received what our sages call “blurred visions.” If Moses were not to relay what he had been told clearly and unmistakably, why would G’d have troubled Himself to spell His instructions out to him in the first place? This is what G’d told Aaron and Miriam in Numbers 12,6-8, when He warned them not to compare their level of prophetic insights to that of Moses, with whom G’d spoke as clearly as a man speaks to his fellow man. 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   הן בני ישראל לא שמעו אלי, “behold, even the Children of Israel have not listened to me, etc.” according to <i>Rashi</i> this was one of the ten occasions when we encounter an “a fortiori” method, i.e. a logical argument in the Torah. This comment seems uncalled for, seeing that the Torah had spelled out that the reason why the Children of Israel did not listen to Moses was because the terrible conditions under which they laboured had which made them unable to think rationally, i.e. they suffered from קוצר רוח, “impaired intellectual judgment.” Seeing that Pharaoh did not suffer from that same ailment, where was the logic that Moses referred to? Seeing that the commentators are obviously aware of this counterargument, they explain Moses’ argument as follows: “if even the Israelites themselves are afraid of leaving Egypt seeing the very discussion of such a plan brought additional hardship upon them, surely this knowledge will fuel Pharaoh’s determination not to let them go.” Alternatively, Moses simply meant that when Pharaoh saw that the Israelites themselves did not pay heed to their leader, why should he pay heed to him?
  
     ואיך ישמע אלי פרעה?, “how can Pharaoh be expected to take me seriously?” We need to understand the sequence of events as follows: originally Moses had been instructed to take the elders with him when they would speak to Pharaoh. (3,18) It is possible that at that point the elders did the talking, while Moses was silently listening. Moses was also too shy to speak to the people, as we know from his having told G’d that he was not איש דברים, someone qualified to appeal to people by his oratory. At that point, G’d had assured him that his brother Aaron would make a good mouthpiece for him, and that he would formulate what Moses intended to say to the people. He would also perform the miracles, etc.
      Now that G’d suddenly tells Moses to speak to the people himself, without Aaron as his mouthpiece, and after having done so, the people did not respond to him, he asked G’d how he could possibly expect Pharaoh to be more responsive than his own people? G’d now added Aaron to be Moses’ spokesman in all interviews with Pharaoh. The Torah also confirms that Aaron addressed the people conveying all that G’d had said. (4,30) He had commanded both of them to address the people of Israel, but it was enough that one of them should be the actual speaker during these encounters. Now that G’d commands Moses himself to be the speaker, He repeats once more that He is the One Who had appeared to him previously. When G’d now said (verse 13) that he and Aaron are to speak both to the people and to Pharaoh, Moses is satisfied. The procedure was that G’d would tell Moses what was to be said, and he would tell Aaron of the instructions he had received, and Aaron would address these instructions to Pharaoh or the people, in accordance of what the situation called for. Aaron’s part in all this was comparable to the part of a prophet throughout the ages who would be commanded by G’d to relay a message to the people, except that in Aaron’s case the instructions would come from Moses, so that Moses fulfilled the role normally fulfilled by <i>elokim.</i> Hence G’d told him that he would have that role <i>vis a vis</i> Aaron. This was a major promotion for Moses, and enhanced his stature considerably. Moses merited this promotion due to his humility, not wanting to arrogate to himself a role unfitting for someone suffering from a speech handicap. This is also why the Torah testifies at a later stage, (11,3) that “Moses was considered as a person of great stature both in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of the Egyptians generally.” 
      This does not conform to <i>Rashi’s</i> explanation that the words וידבר ה' אל משה לאמור in verse 10 are an introduction to what follows in verse 13. The fact is that verses 10-12 are, while verse 13 is a separate paragraph, if you will, as is evident by their being written as separate paragraphs. We therefore do not need <i>Rashi’s</i> comment that Moses was to deliver the stark message and Aaron was to elaborate on it. Consequently, we stick by our explanation that Moses delivered the message in the presence of Pharaoh, but that Aaron addressed it to Pharaoh.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   אלה ראשי בית אבותם, “These were the heads of their father’s houses.” The Torah’s intention in this paragraph is only to give us the genealogy of the house of Levi, whereas Reuven’s and Shimon’s genealogy are mentioned only in order to accord them the courtesy due to seniority. Had the Torah ignored the genealogy of Reuven and Shimon at this point, some people might have thought that Levi was the senior of the brothers. In order to show that the Torah wishes to focus on the genealogy of Levi, the genealogy of the two senior brothers is abbreviated and is commenced only from the point where they arrived in Egypt. In the case of Levi, we are even told details of the number of years some of the principals lived. This enables the reader to reconstruct the chronology of the Jewish people commencing with the birth of Yitzchok.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the report of the number of years Levi lived was meant to honour Moses and Aaron. Seeing that the Torah meant to honour Moses and Aaron, it also included details about the years Amram, their father lived, as well as some details about the other sons of Levi. In the case of Yitzhar, even his grandchildren’s names were mentioned as the marriage of Amram to Yocheved is reported, seeing they were the founding couple from whom the leadership of the nation devolved. The sons of Yitzhar are mentioned only in order to put the conduct of Korach, the rebel, into proper perspective. The brothers of Korach, Nefeg and Zichri are mentioned without their children’s names, although they did not join their brother in his rebellion, whereas Korach’s sons are mentioned precisely because they did not join their father in his rebellion, as the Torah states on another occasion ובני קרח לא מתו, “Korach’s sons had not died during the rebellion.” (Numbers 26,11) Uzziel’s sons are mentioned as they distinguished themselves when removing Nadav and Avihu’s corpses from the Tabernacle. (Leviticus 10,4-5) Seeing that no information could be added to Chetzron, the Torah did not bother to list his children’s genealogy here. 
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויקח אהרן, “Aaron took a wife, etc.” This detail is mentioned to show that even members of the priesthood, a hereditary distinction, paid tribute to the line of the kings, so that Aaron married a member of the Royal House of Yehudah, i.e. the sister of Nachshon, who was the 5th generation after Yehudah through his son Peretz. (Chronicles I,2,7) The Torah also mentions by name the marriage of Eleazar, son of Aaron, to a daughter of Putiel, in light of their illustrious son Pinchas, seeing that Pinchas, though born before his father had become a priest, merited elevation to the priesthood by a special decree of G’d. [anyone born to a father who was already a priest at that time became a priest through hereditary genes. Ed.]
      Our sages state that the reason why the Torah mentioned that Eleazar married “one of the daughters of” Putiel, instead of simply ”a daughter of” Putiel, is a compliment, not a reference to a Putiel who used to sacrifice to idols, but a descendant of Joseph who had demonstrated self control in not allowing himself to be seduced by the wife of his master Potiphar. (<i>Baba Batra</i> 115) [the use of the expression בנות (plural of בת) here alludes to multiple genetic input, including that of Joseph. Ed.] Elezar’s wife being a granddaughter, not a daughter of Putiel, is the reason that her name is not mentioned.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   הוא אהרן ומשה אשר אמר, “this was Aaron and Moses to whom He said, etc.” The point of this verse is that in respect to אמירה, verbal communication, the Torah mentioned Aaron ahead of Moses, as it was he who delivered Moses’ message to Pharaoh. He did the actual talking. On the other hand, whenever the Torah makes reference to the Exodus, Moses is invariably mentioned ahead of his older brother Aaron.
      Ibn Ezra explains the Torah mentioning Aaron first as something natural, seeing he was the senior of the two. Moreover, Aaron had displayed prophecy to the people before Moses had been appointed as the prophet. After this, whenever they were speaking to Pharaoh, Moses is mentioned first, seeing he had superior rank. This is why after this exception you will no longer find that the Torah mentions Aaron first when G’d addresses both of them, or when the Torah discusses something in which both brothers participated. One cannot bring a counter argument from the verse (Numbers 3,1) אלה תולדות אהרן ומשה, “these are the generations of Aaron and Moses,” (in this order) or from the verse ותלד את אהרן ואת משה, ”she (Yocheved) bore Aaron and Moses,” seeing that the Torah there merely records the order in which they were born
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   ויהי ביום דבר, “It was on the day <i>Hashem</i> spoke, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra this verse is directly linked to what follows, i.e. verse 29 ויהי ביום דבר ה', “it was on the day that <i>Hashem</i> spoke,etc.” 
      Nachmanides claims that it is possible to understand verse 28 as referring to what had preceded it, i.e. to verse 26 where Moses and Aaron are described as the ones who had been commanded by G’d to take the Israelites out of Egypt. Seeing that once we have a verse in which Moses is mentioned first, and another in which Aaron is mentioned first, the meaning may well be that the commandment to take the Israelites out of Egypt applied to both of them in equal measure. The Torah now clarifies that the word of G’d was issued to Moses, but that the commandment to carry it out applied to both of them in equal measure. This is the reason why this paragraph was split into two sections.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ראה נתתיך אלוהים לפרעה, “see I have made you like a God as far as Pharaoh is concerned.” According to Ibn Ezra the word אלוהים here merely denotes that Moses had been elevated to a very high rank, so much so that Pharaoh would relate to him with the same reverence as he would display when facing a disembodied angel of G’d who addresses the prophet whereas the prophet subsequently relays the words of the angel to his people.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ואני אקשה את לב פרעה, “I will toughen the heart of Pharaoh.” Most people question G’d’s right to exact punishment from Pharaoh if He had first robbed him of the freedom of will which is an inalienable right of every human being created in the image of the Creator. The answer to this question is quite simple. Pharaoh was not punished for disobeying G’d’s command but for the relish with which he maltreated G’d’s people. He was punished for the excess cruelty he displayed. This was not due to G’d’s interfering with his free will, but to a flaw in his character as a human being. People who display this degree of inhumanity of man to man, are denied the opportunity to return to G’d in penitence. This is described in Ethics of our fathers as עברה גוררת עברה, the commission of deliberate sins brings in its wake the commission of more sins and yet more sins. There are numerous verses in Scripture confirming this principle.
      Furthermore, if you will examine the text of the ten plagues you will observe that G’d did not interfere with Pharaoh’s decision making brain or heart until after the fifth plague. The wording of the first five plagues describes that Pharaoh’s obstinacy in resisting G’d and Moses up until then was entirely spontaneous, not reinforced by any attempt of G’d to coerce his behaviour. During the last five plagues, when Pharaoh had initially indicated a preparedness to comply with G’d’ request and to let the people go, at least for a vacation of a religious nature, he reneged on his promises as soon as the plague had been called off by Moses. 
       Some commentators simply see in the words ואני אקשה את לבו, not an interference with Pharaoh’s free will, but a device that enabled him to endure the plagues without collapsing. This, as a corollary, made him feel that he was strong enough to withstand anything G’d would try and do to him.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ונתתי את ידי במצרים, “I will put My hand upon Egypt;” the word ידי when applied to G’d, Who has no physical dimension, is parallel to the hand of a human being who uses it to punish, to inflict pain.
  
     צבאותי, “My hosts.” Just as the angels are perceived as G’d’s army in the celestial spheres, so the Jewish people are His army on earth.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ומשה בן שמונים שנה, “and Moses was eighty years old, etc.” Ibn Ezra, in dealing with the age of Moses at this time, mentions that no other prophet has ever been described as practicing his prophecy at such an age. The only ones able to do so were those that enjoyed an exceptionally high level of prophecy, 
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   בלהטיהם, “with their incantations.” A reference to a variety of activities all connected to witchcraft.
      Nachmanides explains that the word בלהטיהם is derived from the root להט, flame, i.e. that the activities of the Egyptian necromancers were concentrated on the use of the element of fire, one of the four basic components of the material universe. Apparently, the forces, i.e. “angels” in charge of this are afflicting man with fever (heat) i.e. an invisible flame. The fact that these sorcerers understood some of these processes in nature contributed to Pharaoh discounting the miracle, as in his eyes Moses was nothing but a more accomplished sorcerer. In non-professional parlance, the agents causing such frustrating phenomena are known as שדים, demons. What distinguishes this “demonic” activity is the fact that its approach is invisible, and therefore more frightening than visible phenomena. Just as we get no warning of attacks by viruses or similar disease carrying pollutants in the atmosphere, so these harmful phenomena not only cause disease and death, but they inspire fear in addition.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   לך אל פרעה בבוקר, “go to Pharaoh in the early morning, etc.” according to<i> Rashi,</i> Moses went to meet Pharaoh at a secret place near the waters of the river Nile, a place where he defecated secretly, maintaining the fiction that as a deity, he did not need to bother with such animalistic necessities. The fact that Moses would be in a position to reveal this well-kept secret, was meant to show Pharaoh that he depended on Moses’ discretion.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, Pharaoh was in the habit to take his daily exercise walk near the banks of the river Nile. Some commentators, focusing on the words הנה יוצא המימה, ”here he is going out towards the waters,” suggest that Pharaoh was given an opportunity to discuss the Israelites’ concerns with their leader, for there were guards at the entrance to his palace which prevented Moses from securing an interview with the king.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   והנה לא שמעת עד כה, “seeing that thus far you have not been willing to listen.” The meaning of these words, which appear at first glance as if they do not tell us something we did not learn from the narrative thus far, is that until I begin to carry out My threats, to bring on the plagues, you will not begin to listen. 
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   כה אמר ה'.....הנה אנכי מכה במטה אשר בידי, “Thus says the Lord….behold I am about to strike with the staff which is in my hand, etc.” 
      According to Ibn Ezra this verse is only a short summary of what is going to happen, the missing ingredient being the name of the One Who had entrusted Moses with this mission. The verse really should have read: “here I, the Lord’s messenger, am about to strike the waters in the river Nile with the staff which is in the hands of Aaron.” Moses described the staff as being in his own hand, although Aaron would use it to turn the water into blood, the reason being that he wanted to make plain to Pharaoh that both he and Aaron were equally involved in what was going to unfold before his eyes.
      Personally, I do not see why Ibn Ezra had any difficulty with the wording as it is, seeing that, as we already explained, it was always Aaron who addressed Moses’ words to Pharaoh. It is natural therefore that he referred to the staff as his staff.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   וירם במטה, “he held the staff aloft, etc.” Nachmanides explains the construction וירם במטה as meaning that Aaron raised the staff with his hand extending it in all the directions of the globe, exactly as commanded, i.e. קח את מטך ונטה את ידך, and after having extended his hand in every direction he proceeded to strike the waters of the river Nile.
      Ibn Ezra also writes that the Torah mentions the fact that the river was struck, but there was no need to mention the motions made with the hand or arm in all directions of the land of Egypt, as the raising of the staff automatically includes the raising of the hand holding the staff.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויעשו כן חרטומי מצרים, “the sorcerers of Egypt did likewise.” From where did these sorcerers take the water to duplicate Aaron’s turning the water into blood? They must have either used water that the Egyptians had dug up surrounding the areas that contained water, or they must have taken water in possession of the Israelites. Some commentators claim that the waters that Aaron had turned into blood reverted to being water in short order, so that there was no shortage of water anywhere. This would account for the fact that Pharaoh failed to be impressed with this miracle. This is why Moses and Aaron were not called in to reverse the plague, (as they were on the next occasion).
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ולא שת לבו גם לזאת, “his heart did not become perturbed even by this.” <i>Rashi</i> understands the word גם, “also,” as referring to both the miracles of the staff and that of the water turning into blood. 
      Nachmanides explains the words גם לזאת, as meaning that although the water having been turned into a blood was not a mere trick, but a real plague, Pharaoh refused to display any emotion at what he had witnessed. Normal people would have reacted by becoming afraid that the next plague would hurt them, personally.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   לא יכלו לשתות מים מן היאור, “they could not drink the waters from the river.” Even when the river again flowed with water, they could not drink those waters as they had become putrid from the dead fish that had died when the water had turned into blood. This explanation does not appear to stand up in light of what the Torah writes, as we have been told specifically (verse 25), that “seven days elapsed after the Lord had struck the river.” In other words, the plague ran its course for a whole week, unless we must understand that line to mean that after the blood reverted to being water the Egyptians still could not drink from the river for a full week.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   וימלא שבעת ימים, “seven days had elapsed.” This verse is a continuation of the previous verse that had told us that the Egyptians had been unable to drink the waters of the river without telling us for how long such a condition continued. For seven whole days the Egyptians, in order to secure drinking water for themselves, had to dig in the neighbourhood of the river’s embankment 
      Ibn Ezra writes that many people claim that the waters which, while in the hands of the Egyptians had turned red, immediately resumed normal colour as soon as the Jews held it in their hands. If that were true, why did the Torah not mention this additional miracle?
      Personally, [Ibn Ezra speaking, Ed.] I believe that the first three plagues, i.e. blood, frogs, and the vermin, struck not only the Egyptians but also the Israelites, seeing that these three plague caused relatively little damage to either property or life. I believe we are duty-bound to pay careful attention to the text, and seeing that the first three plagues were more of a nuisance than a real danger to life and property, and the Torah did not spell out, as it did later- that the Israelites were immune, we must assume that they were not.
      Only the fourth plague, wild beasts invading urban areas and wreaking havoc, were major disasters, and the fact that these beasts would not invade the province of Goshen, home to most of the Israelites, was predicted at the time when Moses warned Pharaoh of the impending plague. (verse 18) All subsequent plagues struck only the Egyptians, as testified by the Torah. 
      Therefore I conclude, that just as the Egyptians had to dig for water- but they secured it for themselves- so did the Israelites. Ibn Ezra’s determination to follow the plain meaning of the text prompted him to even assume that the locust and the boils (8th and 6th plague), which did not pose serious danger to people, afflicted also the Israelites. [Our author not only accuses him of ignoring the approach of our sages, but considers this as unnecessarily accusing G’d of afflicting His own people as if He were not able to immunize them. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   אמור אל אהרן נטה את מטך, “say to Aaron to stretch out his staff, etc.” seeing that we have been told earlier (6,6) that G’d would employ His זרוע נטויה, “outstretched arm,” when the “hand” was employed instead, the Torah had to spell this out.
      Ibn Ezra claims that the stretching out of Aaron’s hand with the staff in all four directions resulted in the frogs emerging from the streams and rivers as well as from the lakes, but not from the ponds.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויעשו כן החרטומים, “the sorcerers did likewise. “They succeeded in making frogs emerge from the relatively few ponds which had not yet produced frogs. Seeing that they were unable to make the frogs retreat to their natural habitat, [presumably this had been the task set for them by Pharaoh Ed.] Pharaoh saw himself compelled to appeal to Moses and Aaron to pray to their G’d to stop the plague.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   למתי אעתיר לך?, “for when should I entreat for you?” According to <i>Rashi,</i> Moses offered to pray immediately for the plague to cease at a time of Pharaoh’s choosing.
      Nachmanides, approaching the text from a literal perspective, claims the plague disappeared immediately at the time Moses prayed, as we know from verse 9 “G’d did in accordance with Moses’ word.” The Torah did not write that the frogs disappeared on the morrow. The letter לin the word למתי does not prove anything concerning the timing of the cessation of the plague. According to Nachmanides there is no special significance in the construction למתי, as to when precisely the frogs should die. 
  
     להכרית הצפרדעים, “to wipe out the frogs.” Seeing that Pharaoh had been under the impression that the frogs would increase dramatically, Moses prayed that the frogs should die forthwith, the word להכרית being of the same root as such verses as ונכרתה הנפש ההיא, “that particular life will be terminated, etc.” (Genesis 17,14, Exodus 12,15, et al.) The reason Moses prayed for the death of the frogs and not for their return to their habitat, was so that the stench from their carcasses should remind the Egyptians of how their conduct <i>vis a vis</i> the Jews was viewed by the G’d of the Jews. Pharaoh had assumed that Moses had meant that the removal of the plague meant that the frogs would return to where they had come from. Moses assured him that the frogs remaining at this time in the river would indeed remain there, but that the ones already on dry land would perish there. The line (promise) וסרו הצפרדעים, “the frogs will depart etc.,” (verse 7) was not meant to suggest that they would leave Egypt, but that a plague of frogs emerging from the river would not occur again. Moses’ elaborating on all this to Pharaoh only meant to prove to him that the plague emanated from G’d, and that it was decreed on account of his treatment of the Jewish people.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויאמר למחר, He said: “as of tomorrow.” The whole world wonders why Pharaoh did not choose an immediate cessation of the plague. The answer given is that Pharaoh was still under the illusion that possibly this was a natural phenomenon, the approach of which had been overlooked by the astrologers, and that the frogs would disappear of their own accord in short order. By asking Moses not to stop the plague immediately, he hoped to disprove that G’d had anything to do with it.
      Nachmanides writes that from the word למתי, “for when,” used by Moses, Pharaoh had thought that Moses would be unable to stop the plague in short order, but that it might take at least a week, (as it had with the plague of blood). This is why he allowed Moses only a very short period to make good on his boast. Moses told him that he would honour Pharaoh’s wish for when the plague should cease.
      Other commentators understand the word למתי as not relating to the plague and its cessation at all, but understand it as Moses asking Pharaoh when he would release the Israelites in response to the plague’s cessation. Pharaoh promised to do so on the following day. However, he conditioned this on the understanding that Moses would pray immediately. The tone signs under the letters support this explanation somewhat, seeing that there is a <i>pessik,</i> a clear division sign, between the word למתי and the word אעתיר, “I shall pray, entreat.”
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויצעק משה, “Moses cried out;” seeing that he had gone out on a limb giving Pharaoh a chance to prove him wrong (התפאר עלי) without having first consulted G’d, he now had to add an element of urgency to his prayer, i.e. “he cried out.”
  
     על דבר הצפרדעים, “concerning the matter of the frogs.” This is an allusion to what our sages (<i>Sanhedrin 80)</i> said when they claimed that the frogs were even quacking within the Egyptians’ entrails. [which would make G’d’s task of removing them difficult. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   וימותו הצפרדעים, “The frogs died.” How do we square this with verse 7 in which Moses predicted the frogs as “departing?” Moses had referred to the frogs as a plague departing, he did not predict that they would depart under their own power, as did the locusts in the eighth plague. On this occasion the dead frogs remained wherever they had died.
  
     מן הבתים ומן החצרות ומן השדות, “from the houses, the courtyards, and the fields.” You will note that the frogs that had put their lives at risk by entering the ovens of the Egyptians, are not reported as having died. This was their reward for their self-sacrificing conduct in the service of the Lord. They were rewarded by returning to their habitat, the river, alive. The frogs that had remained in the river also did not die so as to preserve the species.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויאמר ה' אל משה ,אמור אל אהרן, “The Lord said to Moses: “say to Aaron, etc.” This time Pharaoh was not given a warning of the upcoming plague. We do not find any warnings prior to the sixth or ninth plague either. Each of these plagues was the third in a series. We have a rule (Maimonides <i>Sanhedrin 18,4)</i> that if someone twice in a row ignores the penalty of physical punishment administered for sins committed and persists in his conduct, he will be confined in a prison on a starvation diet which will result in his early death.
      Nachmanides writes that Moses did not issue warnings to Pharaoh concerning impending plagues unless the plague in question would involve the death of Egyptians, and it would have been unfair not to forewarn them of impending death for ignoring Moses’ request. The plague of blood, for instance, could have resulted in the death of Egyptians who could not dig near the Nile to obtain subterranean water. Similarly, the plague involving the frogs wrought havoc amongst the Egyptians as we know from Psalms The three plagues vermin, boils, and darkness however, did not pose any threat to the lives of the Egyptians. Some of the warnings of the plagues were given by Moses after G’d had instructed him to deliver the warning early in the morning on the banks of the river Nile, -This does not mean an ungodly hour in the morning, but what is called “morning” for Kings, who habitually are presumed to be late risers.- The King at such times, would be accompanied by a sizable entourage so that the issuing of the warning was overheard by many people and Pharaoh could not have denied having received the warning. G’d selected this method in the hope that some of Pharaoh’s servants after hearing the warning, especially after the first plague, would try and make their ruler change his mind and release the Israelites. In the event that the servants did not try and change their ruler’s mind, they would be just as guilty as Pharaoh himself, and would have brought their misery on themselves by their own obstinacy. When we do not find G’d instructing Moses to warn Pharaoh in the morning, he received the warning while in a private audience with Moses and Aaron. Warnings in public also were the case when G’d had instructed Moses with the words: בא אל פרעה, “come to Pharaoh.” When such opportunities for Pharaoh’s servants to show themselves as less obstinate were not taken advantage of, the reason for delivering these warnings in public no longer existed. The well known abbreviations of the three groups of plagues, i.e. דצ'ך, עד'ש, באח'ב may also be explained in terms of the type of warnings preceding them, or no warning preceding them at all.. 
      According to the <i>Midrash,</i> the letters in these abbreviations were engraved on Moses’ staff to indicate which plagues would be preceded by which warning or by the absence of any warning. Others claim that the division is based on which plague was orchestrated by Aaron, which by Moses, and which by Moses and Aaron jointly. Others hold that they are hints as to which plagues originated in the atmosphere and which originated on earth or in the water. Yet other opinions draw attention to the purpose of each of these groups of plagues, a purpose spelled out clearly by the Torah before each group of plague, each time the operative clause begins with למען תדע, ”so that you will realize that, etc.”
      Ibn Ezra writes that the first three plagues used the least sophisticated phenomena in our universe, i.e. water and dust. These plagues were initiated by Aaron. The plagues that were brought about by phenomena in the upper regions of our universe were orchestrated by Moses, seeing that Moses represented the highest level attained by any of G’d’s creatures. These were: hail, and locusts, which is brought on by the wind, an almost non-physical phenomenon. Similarly, darkness was also a plague that was brought on by the air, the atmosphere, something intangible. The third group such a wild beasts, pestilence, and the slaying of the firstborn was brought on directly by G’d Himself. The remaining plague, the boils, was brought on jointly by both Moses and Aaron without the staff having been used at all. The three plagues brought on by Aaron alone were orchestrated by means of the staff, as were the three brought on by Moses alone. None of the other 4 plagues involved use of the staff.
      Rabbi Saadyah Gaon writes that between them the plagues made use of the 4 basic raw materials our physical universe is made of. Three plagues utilized the basic material עפר, dust, i.e. earth; they were: “boils,” which originated in the dust remaining after the furnace has burnt its course. The vermin and the wild beasts, the other two, also made use of that raw material as all bodies are made of earth and return to becoming earth when the life they supported terminates. Three further plagues were based on the second raw material our universe consists of, i.e. on water. They were: blood, frogs, and hail. Still another three plagues made use of the third of the four basic elements, i.e. air. They were 1) דבר, the pestilence which struck especially the livestock. We have a verse in Psalms 91,6 מדבר באפל יהלך, which is interpreted by <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 12 as describing disorders in the domain of air. [birds would not fall from the air, their habitat, unless someone had interfered with that habitat. Ed.] 2) the plague of locust, which had been brought on by unusual changes in the air, i.e. a wind blowing constantly from the same direction. 3) The darkness. The atmosphere was made opaque instead of transparent, so that people felt as if they were in a narrow prison and could not move at all.
      Finally, there was one plague, which employed the fourth basic element, fire; this was used in orchestrating the simultaneous killing of all the firstborn in Egypt. Separation of body and soul is the result of a subcategory of fire, i.e. heat, which disturbs the equilibrium needed for body and soul to live side by side in harmony.
      The plagues utilizing the staff as the instrument that resulted in the onset of each plague also show variations in the way the staff was employed on each occasion. Sometimes Moses is commanded: “take your staff and incline it, etc.” other times he is commanded: “take your staff and raise your hand in which you hold the staff, etc.” Sometimes he is commanded to first employ his hand followed by the staff, other times the sequence is reversed.
      Some commentators feel that the basic example is the plague of blood, and that the same procedure i.e. extending the hand which was holding the staff, was followed invariably in bringing on all these plagues, but that the Torah did not bother to repeat this each time. The Torah merely employs part of the procedure on different occasions, particularly when describing the execution of the command. These commentators are concerned to have us realize that Moses and Aaron carried out their instructions without deviating from them in the slightest.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויעשו כן, “they did so.” Even though the command was executed only by Aaron, the Torah includes the issuance of the command by Moses, and that is why it uses the plural mode when describing its execution. 
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ויעשו כן חרטומי מצרים, “the Egyptian sorcerers did likewise.” This does not refer to what they accomplished, but to their copying the manner in which Moses had produced the vermin. They struck the dust and chanted their incantations.
      Another way of understanding the words ויעשו כן, would be that they do not refer to the sorcerers trying to imitate Moses and Aaron, but to their using their own techniques, hoping to achieve a similar result. After all, on the previous two occasions they had succeeded at least in convincing Pharaoh that they too could produce the phenomena Moses and Aaron had produced.
      A third possibility of understanding our verse would be that far from wanting to increase the number of vermin, they endeavoured to get rid of them by using their standard methods. When they failed, they had to admit that Moses and Aaron were not mere sorcerers of a more advanced school, but that their art was inspired by Divine assistance. 
  
     ולא יכולו, “but they were unable.” Our sages find in this confirmation that the power of demons does not extend to creatures smaller than a grain of barley.
      Some commentators believe that the failure of the sorcerers lies in the fact that they are anchored in the habitat ”air, atmosphere,” are not part of the creatures who walk the surface of the earth, whereas the vermin are an integral part of earth itself, being generated inside the crust of the earth. Creatures that cannot walk the earth do not have dominion over creatures that originate within the earth.
  
     ותהי הכנם באדם ובבהמה, ”and the vermin kept afflicting man and beast.´ The sorcerers themselves were also afflicted by this plague.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויאמרו החרטומים אצבע אלוקים הוא, “The sorcerers said that it was manifestation of a ‘finger’ of G’d.”
      Ibn Ezra wrote that far from admitting that Moses and Aaron were superior to them, seeing that thus far they had been able to match Moses and Aaron plague for plague, they now attributed this plague directly to a natural phenomenon, i.e. part of nature and its cycles, and as not related even remotely to the situation of the Israelites. [the fact that Moses had not given any warning of this plague helped convince Pharaoh that his sorcerers were right. Ed.] Pharaoh had never denied the existence of <i>elokim</i> the Creator, he had only refused to acknowledge the existence of the attribute <i>Hashem,</i> and the special relationship of that attribute to the Israelites, as “HIS” people. Ibn Ezra cites the fact that the sorcerers did not say: אצבע ה' אלוקים הוא, “it is a manifestation of the finger of <i>Hashem elokim</i>, although even Pharaoh had begged Moses to entreat<i> Hashem</i> to remove the plague of frogs, as proof of their being far from acknowledging the phenomenon <i>Hashem.</i>
      Nachmanides writes that in his opinion Ibn Ezra is not correct, seeing that the Torah would not refer to a plague as אצבע אלוקים, unless such a plague was a clear indication that it occurred as a Divine punishment, not as a random event, part of astrologically predictable “normal” phenomena. Expressions such as “G’d’s finger, G’d’s hand, G’d’s arm,” are always reserved for manifestations of G’d’s direct intervention in the affairs of man, not natural phenomena which could have occurred at any time without reference to specific events known to man. He quotes such examples as Exodus 14,31, Samuel I 12,15, Samuel I 5,11 as support for this thesis. Furthermore, the very fact that the Torah reports that the sorcerers were themselves afflicted to the extent that they had to leave Pharaoh’s presence, would make any claim that this was not a Divine manifestation related to the Israelites’ continued enslavement quite unlikely. Seeing that the sorcerers ceased playing any role, as Pharaoh did not summon them to try and get rid of the plague of wild beasts, a plague that he had been forewarned about, shows that Pharaoh by then was isolated in his obstinacy, knowing that the sorcerers would be of no help to him at all. The sorcerers had referred to “a finger of G’d,” in order to minimize the awe in which G’d would be held on account of a minor plague such as the vermin. We do not find that Pharaoh and his advisors ever referred to G’d as <i>Hashem,</i> except when they were in the presence of Moses and Aaron. This was mere lip service, as they did not want to aggravate their relations with Moses who had proven capable of not only orchestrating a plague but also of causing it to stop. As to Ibn Ezra’s argument that Moses and Aaron had not given warning of this plague, this is only technically so, as no doubt they had struck the earth while being in the presence of Pharaoh, and this clearly was meant to bring forth the vermin. To attribute such a plague of vermin to “natural” atmospheric phenomena would hardly be believable to anyone. 
      If, in apparent contradiction to the above, we find that the Torah describes the sorcerers as so afflicted by the plague of boils, (#6) that “they were unable to remain in the presence of Moses,” (9,11) the Torah does not mention this because the sorcerers had come to duplicate the plague of boils, but because the Torah had stated that in spite of this very painful plague, something which should have given Pharaoh food for thought, the Torah wants to illustrate how painful this plague was by stating that even the sorcerers who had their reputation at stake, could not maintain a posture during that plague. If the sorcerers could not maintain a posture, how far less could any other Egyptian, excepting Pharaoh, of course. The Torah therefore explains that if Pharaoh remained steadfast this was only because G’d had given him the strength to do so. ויחזק ה' את לב פרעה. (9,12)
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   וגם האדמה אשר הם עליה “including the ground they are on.” This includes the areas that did not have houses on them.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   והפלאתי ביום ההוא, “I shall set apart on that day, etc.” There is no doubt that all the other plagues did not afflict the Israelites either. The reason why the Torah mentions that the land of Goshen would not be invaded by the wild beasts, is that once wild beasts are allowed to roam freely, it could have been expected that they would not know how to distinguish between areas inhabited by Egyptians and districts predominately populated by Israelites. The Torah had made a similar comment during the plague of pestilence (#5) stating that not a single Jew became afflicted with that disease. There too, we would have expected the microbes not to have known how to make a detour around the Israelites. In the case of the fourth plague, although there may have been a few Egyptians living in the province of Goshen, the fact that it was populated in the main by Israelites, appears to have protected the few Egyptians there. [this in turn might have stiffened Pharaoh’s attitude, as he was searching desperately for an excuse that these were natural disasters, not vengeance by the Jewish G’d. Ed.]
  
     כי אני ה' בקרב הארץ, “that I, the Lord, am also G’d in the midst of the land.” Ibn Ezra writes that it was customary in those days that the kings would make their residence in the centre of their land, so as to be equidistant from most of their subjects. They felt that just as man’s heart is located centrally within his body, so the place of a king has to be in the center of his realm.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ושמתי פדות בין עמי ובין עמך, “I will place a deliberate distinction between My people and between your people.” This means that even if an Israelite will find himself in an Egyptian neighbourhood at the time when the beasts invade urban areas, they will not harm a single Israelite. 
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   כי תועבת מצרים, “for it is an abomination in the eyes of the Egyptians;” some commentators claim that this line is a comment added to the Torah by Moses, seeing he wanted to take a swipe at idolatry. When confronting Pharaoh in person, Moses referred to their deities as אלוהי מצרים, and not as תועבה. The reason Moses was provoked to refer to the Egyptians’ deities by a derogatory term was that they worshipped the image of a lamb.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   העתירו בעדי, “entreat for me!” Ibn Ezra writes that the words העתירו בעדי should by rights, have been written at the beginning of this verse. Pharaoh’s intent was that as a result of Moses and Aaron entreating G’d on behalf of Pharaoh, G’d should remove the plague. Subsequent to this, he, Pharaoh, would release the Israelites from bondage and permit them to leave the country (temporarily). He stipulated only that the Israelites would not travel far (three days’ journey as per Moses’ original request) in order to perform their ritual in the desert.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   וסר הערוב מפרעה, מעבדיו, ומעמו, מחר, “the wild beasts will retreat from Pharaoh, his servants and his people tomorrow.” Seeing that during the plague of the frogs Pharaoh had requested that the removal of the frogs be arranged for the following day, Moses told him that this time too he would pray for the wild beasts to depart on the following day. However, they would not die, as had the frogs, as our sages explained; this was because their carcasses would have proved useful and welcome to the Egyptians, and they were not to benefit from the plague.
      According to the plain meaning of the text the difference in the disappearance of the frogs on the one hand and the wild beasts on the other, is rooted in the fact that the frogs and similar low life creatures which are always spawned in multiple births, have a tendency to increase in huge numbers constantly. To bring them all back to the river would overtax the river’s ability to sustain them. The wild beasts did not increase in numbers during the time they invaded the urban areas of the country, and making them return to their normal habitat did not strain that habitat’s ability to sustain them. G’d had not created a single extra animal (mammal) in order for it to plague the Egyptians.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   הנה יד ה' הויה, “behold, the hand of <i>Hashem</i> is about to afflict, etc.” Our sages have derived from the word יד ה' “the hand of <i>Hashem,”</i> as opposed to the previous mention of אצבע אלוקים, ”a finger of G’d,” that G’d orchestrated five times as many miracles while the Israelites and the Egyptians were at and in the sea of Reeds, as He had done in Egypt proper. Even though mention of G’d’s finger occurred only in connection with the plague of vermin, the meaning of that had been that whereas previously the Egyptians had related to the plagues as a variant of the magic performed by sorcerers, at that point they had realized that they were confronted with something Divine in origin, the “finger” of the Creator. 
      Although, now that the word יד, “hand of <i>Hashem’”</i> appears in connection with a plague that occurred in Egypt proper, this appears to invalidate the sages’ comment, this is not necessarily so, as the Torah here uses the word “hand” to describe the five categories of creatures which will become the victims of the pestilence about to occur, i.e. horses, donkeys, camels, cattle and sheep. The word יד is really extraneous in our verse as everyone can count that five species of creatures are mentioned. It is therefore reasonable to contrast the 10 plagues in Egypt with the 50 plagues which Rabbi Yossi Haglili told us occurred at the Sea of Reeds. Personally, I believe that the sages based themselves not so much on the word אצבע and יד respectively, when they extrapolated from its appearance, but from the addition of G’d’s name. Whenever the Torah uses the term יד or אצבע by itself, it is to be understood as such, and nothing additional needs to be read into it. When mention of the organ is followed by a reference to who is the owner of that ”hand” or “finger,” this is an invitation to the reader to investigate an additional message contained in the verse. 
      The author, (Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher) feels that the fact that the word יד ה' is followed by precise details of who will be the victim of this hand, means that nothing beyond what meets the eye is to be read into our text.
  
     במקנך אשר בשדה, “against your cattle that are exposed in the field.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the pestilence struck only the beasts left in the field in spite of the warning. This explains why there were beasts left that perished during the plague of hail. They were the beasts that had been sheltered by their owners during the plague of pestilence.
      Nachmanides writes that the Torah chose the present tense to narrate this plague and that the beasts which were indoors died also, and that this is why the Torah writes (verse 6) “all the livestock of the Egyptians died.” The word כל usually translated as “all,” is not to be understood literally, as whenever the majority of something died this is described as “all” of it dying. 
      Some commentators understand the line וימת כל מקנה מצרים, “all the livestock of the Egyptians died,” as meaning that all the dead beasts were found to have been owned by Egyptians, and not Israelites, the Torah adding this by writing that not a single beast owned by an Israelite died during that period, in order to emphasise it still further. The Israelites had kept their sheep well apart from the Egyptians, seeing that these considered sheep raising as an abominable occupation. It is possible that seeing that the microbes that infected the animals were carried through the air, the Torah had to write that G’d performed a miracle so that none of the animals owned by the Israelites would be victimized.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויאמר ה' אל משה ואהרן קחו לכם מלא חפניכם פיח הכבשן, “the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: ‘take for yourselves two handfuls of furnace soot;’” According to Ibn Ezra the reason that no demand was made to release the Israelites prior to decreeing that plague was that it did not last long.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   והיה לאבק, “it will turn into dust.” According to our sages this minute amount of furnace dust scattered over the entire land of Egypt and descended wherever there was a human being or beast that it could land on, and these would break out in painful boils on their skin. Perhaps the wind carried this dust even into the houses of the Egyptians. A similar phenomenon is well known as occurring during periods of drought when dust is brought even into the houses with the nightly dew. 
      Perhaps a straightforward explanation of the verse is that the words והיה לאבק, “it will turn into dust,” means that this soot from the furnace will immediately be turned into dust that in turn would turn into boils the moment Moses and Aaron threw it into the air. G’d decreed that this soot [normally the antithesis of anything septic. Ed.] will pollute the air and spread this painful series of boils. This was a heavenly decree not accounted for by any of the scientists.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ולא יכלו החרטומים לעמוד, “and the sorcerers could no longer stand before Moses, etc.” This is a description of the embarrassment of the sorcerers at their impotence, so that they withdrew to their private quarters so as not to have to face any hostile or disrespectful audience.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויחזק ה', “the Lord strengthened the heart of Pharaoh.” It is possible that during the preceding plagues the presence of and encouragement by the sorcerers had helped Pharaoh to maintain a defiant posture. Now G’d had to strengthen his heart so that he would not capitulate prematurely, and G’d could not complete the whole series of plagues He had planned.
      Ibn Ezra writes that Pharaoh did not ask Moses to pray to G’d on this occasion because the plague did not last long, and we should not assume that because the first plague had lasted for seven days, that all the subsequent plagues also lasted for a whole week. We should be guided by the text, so that the plague of pestilence lasted only for an hour, whereas the plague of darkness continued for three whole days. This being so, we have no way of calculating during which month of which year these plagues commenced. If what the sages have handed down to us is based on tradition, we are, of course, bound to accept this, if not, we may pursue our own speculations. 
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   השכם בבקר, “arise early in the morning!” Ibn Ezra draws our attention to the fact that the Torah did not command Moses this time to meet Pharaoh at the banks of the river Nile. Perhaps there was some other reason why Moses was commanded to arise early on that day.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   את כל מגפותי, “all My plagues.” The Torah describes the phenomenon of this hail as “G’d’s plagues,” (plural mode) although it is listed as only one of ten plagues. The reason is that it consisted of so many different components, i.e. thunder, rain, hail, and fire. This clearly was the plague that shook Pharaoh more than any other so far, as he reacted by admitting that the Lord was righteous and that he as well as his people were the wicked ones.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   עודך מסתולל בעמי, “seeing that you still continue to act as an obstacle against My people. etc.” According to Ibn Ezra the word מסתולל has its origin in סלסלה, a word describing something exalted, superior, etc. Pharaoh is accused as still considering himself and his people as superior to the Israelites. The root letters are repeated as originally it would have sufficed to write the word as in סולו לרוכב בערבות, “exalt the One Who rides the highest celestial regions.” (Psalms 68,5)
      Some commentators understand the word as describing reinforcement as inנשמו מסילות , “the paved (reinforced) highways have become desolate.”(Isaiah 33, 8)
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   אשר לא היה כמוהו בארץ מצרים, “the like of which never occurred in the land of Egypt.” The wording suggests that this phenomenon had never been experienced in Egypt, although it had occurred elsewhere. We have a verse in Joshua 10,11 where G’d is described as raining down large stones on the Canaanites. Seeing that rain does not normally fall in Egypt, this would be a frightening experience in that country. Seeing that hail consists of frozen rain particles, that experience was new in Egypt also. 
     למן היום הוסדה ועד עתה, “from the day it was founded until now.”
  
  Verse 19
  
   All the preceding comments were part of what G’d announced to Moses, as Moses would not have been in a position to make such statements not having lived that long in Egypt. There is no need to tell us that Moses would deliver every word to Pharaoh which G’d had told him to convey to him. There is therefore no need to repeat his telling this to Pharaoh in detail, and the Torah made do with reporting that there were people who took Moses’ warning at face value, whereas those who did not paid with their lives.     According to <i>Rashi</i> who claims that the pestilence only struck the beasts which had been left outside in the fields, why did Moses not warn the Egyptians at that time to take their beasts indoors to protect them, as he did here, to offer them protection against the hail? The answer, no doubt must be, that if the Egyptians had heeded Moses’ warning against leaving their livestock outside, the pestilence would not have a target to attack. In the case of the hail, the hail struck the earth, the orchards, etc, so that there were plenty of targets left even if the livestock had been salvaged. The livestock had only been considered a secondary target of the hail. 
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויט משה את מטהו על השמים, ”Moses stretched his staff heavenwards.” According to Ibn Ezra, the word שמים here is an alternate for the word “atmosphere.” We also find the expression רקיע השמים as referring to the atmosphere and not to celestial regions.
  
     ותהלך אש ארצה, “and the fire traveled earthward;” the reverse of the natural behaviour of fire which strives upwards.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   רק בארץ גשן אשר שם בני ישראל לא היה ברד “only in the land of Goshen, the area in which the Israelites lived, was there no hail.” Seeing that Moses raised his staff toward the atmosphere generally, not in any specific direction, we would have expected that the hail would strike indiscriminately. The Torah therefore reports the additional miracle that the district in which the Israelites lived was not struck by the hail or rain. 
  
  Verse 27
  
  ה' הצדיק, “the Lord is righteous;” a reference to the warning issued by G’d to Pharaoh. When human beings exact vengeance they do not, as a rule, first warn the victim and provide him with a means to escape the impact of the punishment. 
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   כצאתי את העיר, “when I will leave the city, etc.” According to Nachmanides, normally Moses prayed in his house when calling upon G’d to stop the plague. Seeing that on this occasion he wanted to spread out his hands in prayer towards heaven imploring G’d to stop the hail, the thunder and rain immediately, this kind of prayer could not have been offered inside the city which was so full of the abominations that the Egyptians worshipped.
      Our sages say that Moses always prayed outside the city, period. The only reason that the Torah mentions this specifically at this point was that Pharaoh demanded an immediate prayer with immediate consequences. The Torah therefore had to explain that all of this could not occur immediately, in the strict meaning of the term, as Moses first had to leave town in order to pray to G’d.
      Some commentators understand the words כצאתי את העיר as meaning: ”when I leave your presence in order to go back to the city, etc.”
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   ואתה ועבדיך ידעתי כי טרם תיראון, “I am well aware that both you and your servants do not yet relate with awe and reverence to <i>Hashem.”</i> According to Rabbi Saadyah gaon, this verse must be understood as part of the verse following, in which we are told tat the hail destroyed only the flax and barley crop. The wheat and spelt crops had not been harmed. He hinted to Pharaoh that as long as he had these crops to fall back on, he did not expect him to become a true penitent. He could promise that the hail would not again destroy any crop.
      Ibn Ezra directs our attention to the absence of any mention of what was supposed to happen before Moses would pray. Normally, after the word טרם, the Torah reports the event or activity which followed next. (compare Genesis 19,4, Isaiah 65,24, Samuel I 2,15) Here we may assume that Moses conditioned his prayer on the Egyptians first confessing their guilt and their willingness to make amends. The Torah wrote that Pharaoh continued to sin, and that this was because G’d had hardened his heart, i.e. his penitence was only from the lips outward.
      Nachmanides writes that there is no need to put words in the Torah’s text which are not there. Moses referred to his experience with Pharaoh, i.e. that as long as the plague had not been called off he maintained a posture of penitence, which vanished as suddenly as the plague itself.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   הפשתה והשעורה נוכתה, “the flax crop and the barley crop had been destroyed;” Nachmanides writes that he does not understand why these verses have been inserted here, at a point when Moses had not yet completed his prayer. 
      According to Rabbi Saadyah gaon these comments are not part of the Torah, but are a Torah recording of what Moses had thought at the time. Nonetheless he himself is unhappy with this interpretation, seeing that the Torah had stated that the hail struck all the grass in the field (verse 25), i.e. even underdeveloped grain seedlings. [we must remember that we do not possess an original manuscript of Rabbi Saadyah gaon on this, but only Ibn Ezra’s quote. Ed.] In light of this, how could the wheat and the spelt have escaped serious damage by the hail? We must therefore assume that the comments which we find disturbing were part of Moses telling Pharaoh that he knew that his posture of penitence while under the influence of the destruction all around him, may have been sincere, but it would not last as not all the crops have been destroyed, and that is why as soon as he would experience relief he would promptly forget about his having acknowledged that G’d was righteous and that he was the sinner. 
      [When one looks at the plagues with the benefit of hindsight as we do, Pharaoh’s continued obstinacy appears foolish and self-destructive in the extreme. When one tries to put oneself into the realities of his time, one can appreciate that he felt that any G’d who does not kill a rebellious creature, as does a mortal king with a rebellious subject, probably does not have the power to kill. The plagues were tools at his disposal, but sooner or later he must run out of such tools, and the survivor of God’s plagues would stand tall as a hero. Ed.]
      Moses explains that the reason that the wheat and spelt crop was undamaged had nothing to do with G’d’s inability to ruin them, but was an integral part of their developing later in the season, and remaining pliable even after lengthy exposure to hail and rain. Moses may have presented these words as an inspiration he had received from G’d, although he had not been told specifically to reveal this to Pharaoh. It is an implied warning not to renege on his penitence as G’d has other means at His disposal to also ruin these crops without which the Egyptians could not sustain any meaningful standard of living.
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   כי אפילות הנה. “for they ripen later in the season.” <i>Rashi,</i> offering also the view of the <i>Midrash Tanchuma 16,</i> writes that this was an exceptional miracle i.e. the word אפילות is a rearrangement of the word פליאות, ”miracles.” The <i>Midrash</i> quasi begs the question why we need to resort to miracles when the Torah itself had offered a rational explanation why these crops had not been destroyed by the hail. Perhaps, although these crops had not been ruined by the hail, they could have been ruined by some other natural disaster. The Torah therefore may have wanted to inform the reader that Pharaoh was aware that there had been no other reason to fear for that crop.
      Some people question that if we accept the view that the time frame of each plague, including the preceding warning, lasted for a month, and we count backwards from the plague of the dying of the firstborn which occurred in Nissan, that the plague of hail must have occurred in the month of Tevet, and how could any crop be sufficiently advanced at that time to suffer damage or even be ruined through hail? Even in the land of Israel only barley ripens by Nissan? In light of this calculation, most commentators came to the conclusion that each cycle involving any of the plagues could not have lasted longer than two weeks, including the preceding warning when such occurred. Accordingly, the hail would have occurred during the month of Adar. Possibly, seeing that Egypt’s crops never had to wait for irrigation, thanks to the river Nile and its canals, the grains ripen there at a time which for us is the deep of winter.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   וירא פרעה כי חדל המטר והברד והקולות, “when Pharaoh saw that the rain, the hail, and the thunder had ceased, etc.” Note that in the previous verse the Torah had described the cessation of the plague as occurring in a different sequence of steps, i.e. 1) thunder, 2) hail; 3) rain. The latter was described as being arrested in mid-air. The sound of Moses’ prayer resulted in the sound of thunder ceasing, the spreading out of his hands resulted in the hail and rain stopping to fall. Pharaoh’s perception of the sequence of these events was different, however. He first noticed that the rain and the hail had stopped. Only later did he realize that also the thunder had ceased. 
     ויוסף לחטוא, “he continued to sin.” All this in spite of the fact that he had publicly acknowledged that G’d was righteous and that he and his people were the wicked ones. 
     ויכבד לבו, “his heart became strong;” in spite of the fright that he had experienced during the progress of the plague of hail. 
     הוא ועבדיו, “as well as his servants.” The Torah mentions his servants as they had a tradition that Moses would impose 10 plagues, and hail had been the seventh plague. We had pointed out earlier that the plague of hail contained elements of four plagues (hail, fire, thunder and rain) so that the Egyptians clung to the illusion that they had weathered the last of the plagues. This was also the reason why, when Moses threatened an additional plague, the servants finally lost their cool, and challenged Pharaoh, asking rebelliously, for how long he would allow Moses to become the snare that would ruin them. They had realized that these plagues would continue endlessly until Pharaoh would release the people of Israel.     Alternatively, seeing that Moses had said that both Pharaoh and his servants had yet to humble themselves in true penitence, they reacted by making Moses’ statement a self-fulfilling prophecy and they stiffened their attitude.     
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   בא אל פרעה כי אני הכבדתי את לבו, “come to Pharaoh for I have hardened his heart.” G’d informed Moses that although, by natural processes, Pharaoh’s heart had already become softened, and he had even confessed his guilt, He, the Lord, had now hardened his heart again. 
     למען שיתי, “in order that I can demonstrate, etc.;” to give Me an opportunity to perform My miracles so that the Egyptians (and the Israelites) will become familiar with My power; Pharaoh will not, however, be subjected to additional punishment on account of My having hardened his heart. 
  
  Verse 2
  
   ולמען תספר, “and in order that you will tell, etc.” What G’d said to Moses here, He said on behalf of the whole Jewish people, i.e. for the people to tell their children and grandchildren all that had happened to the Egyptians just before the Exodus, how G’d had made a mockery of the Egyptians. He mentions the hardness, obstinacy, of the Egyptians who were the servants of Pharaoh, seeing that the Torah had reported that both Pharaoh and his servants had (on their own) stiffened their attitude (9,34). This audience with Pharaoh had as its purpose to warn him of the impending plague of locusts if he would persist in reneging on his promise to let the Israelites depart. There would have been no point in sending Moses to Pharaoh unless he was meant to deliver a message. The Torah abbreviates the narrative of the first audience involving this warning, describing Moses as not waiting for any response from Pharaoh. The Torah sometimes chooses to be more succinct in its narrative than on other occasions.
      <i>Midrash Shemot Rabbah 13,4</i> quotes G’d as having told Moses about the forthcoming plague by the hint that it would be something that would be talked about for many generations. The <i>Midrash</i> quotes Joel 1,3 which discusses another plague of locust, this time in Israel, as something that made an equally lasting impression. 
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויבא משה ואהרן, “Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that it was a known fact by now that whenever a plague was to be announced both Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh. Why then did the Torah see fit to single out this occasion by writing that both Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh? The reason may be that we hear later that Pharaoh dismissed both Moses and Aaron summarily. Had we not been told that they both had come to Pharaoh, this would have sounded strange. Pharaoh’s reaction to the warning on this occasion was out of character, seeing that he had clearly admitted being in the wrong. Had it not been for G’d stiffening his attitude to the point of being rude to Moses for the first time, his behaviour would be totally beyond comprehension.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   הנני מביא מחר ארבה, “behold I will bring on a plague of locusts,” Nachmanides writes that some commentators believe that many months separated the plague of hail from that of the locusts. These scholars base themselves on the line (verse 5) ואכל את כל העץ הצומח לכם מן השדה, “it will consume every tree that grows for you in the field.” [seeing that the Torah had described the hail as ruining all the trees, (9,25) until they had been replaced how could the locusts eat their foliage? Ed.] Nachmanides himself disagrees with this view, claiming that only a few days elapsed between the plague of hail and that of locusts, seeing that the judgments visited upon the Egyptians did not exceed a period of 12 months. Moreover, it is clear from the Torah that there had been some residue which had not been harmed by the hail (again verse 5,ואכל את יתר הפלטה הנשארת לכם מן הברד, “it will consume any remnants left intact for you by the hail.”) This clearly shows that both plagues occurred in the same calendar year. The hail could not have occurred before the month of Adar, as no crop would have had advanced enough to be ruined; the plague of locusts, obviously, must have occurred before the middle of the month of Nissan, the month of the Exodus. The trees that the hail struck were the branches which had not yet sprouted blossoms or fruit. The trees struck by the locusts had already produced leaves, etc.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויפן ויצא מעם פרעה, “he turned (without taking leave) and left the presence of Pharaoh.”
      Some commentators think that Moses turned to face the King and to retreat walking backwards, all the while facing the King.
      Other scholars, on the contrary, interpret our verse to mean that Moses turned his back on Pharaoh and marched out of the room. He indicated that he was angry and did not request permission to withdraw.
      The reason why Moses acted in this fashion was that he assumed that just as Pharaoh had once before demonstrated real fear during the plague of the hail, he would do so again now, and he would finally humble himself to prevent wholesale deaths from hunger of his subjects due to the locusts. By leaving at this moment, Moses wanted to afford Pharaoh and his advisors an opportunity to consult and agree on a course of action.
      Nachmanides writes that the correct interpretation of what the Torah narrates here is that this was Moses’ standard procedure after he had delivered a warning. The only reason why the Torah dwells on this detail here is that for the first time Moses and Aaron were recalled after they had left.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויצא....ויאמרו עבדי פרעה, “after Moses had left the servants of Pharaoh said, etc.” They waited until Moses had left, as they did not want to challenge their King in Moses’ presence, and they did not want to give Moses the satisfaction to know that they were afraid of him.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   מי ומי ההולכים?, “who are all those who are going?” Pharaoh wanted to know, that seeing the request of the Israelites had been for a leave of absence to offer sacrifices to their G’d, who would be the people involved in that other than adult males of superior rank, the ones normally performing such rites. Moses replied that seeing the occasion was happy one, a festival, the entire nation would participate in such celebrations.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ראו כי רעה נגד פניכם, “see here, your evil intent is staring you in the face.” The evil you plan to embark on, i.e. your attempt to flee from Egypt, is clear from the fact that you want to take even your small children with you.
      Another possible explanation for the above line is: you should face the fact that you will shortly be faced with retaliation by me, so that your illusion of freedom will be short-lived.
      Alternatively, the words ראו כי רעה נגד פניכם, could mean “the evil which you intend to do will boomerang and hit you in your faces.” I will forbid you to leave altogether, and you will be paid back tit for tat. 
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ורוח הקדים נשא את הארבה, “and this easterly wind carried the locusts.” Seeing that an east wind is a blast of hot air, as we know from Jonah 4,8, where the effect of this hot easterly wind on Jonah’s state of mind is described, and it is the custom of locusts always to make their appearance when it is hot, as we already know from the prophecy of Nachum 3,17 מנזריך כארבה וטפסריך כגוב גבי החונים בגדרות, ביום קרה שמש זרחה ונודד ולא נודע מקומו אים, “Your guards were like locusts, your marshals like piles of hoppers which settle on the stone fences on a chilly day; when the sun comes out, they fly away and nobody knows where they are.” When G’d would want the plague to disappear, all He had to do was to command a west wind to that region.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ואחריו לא יהיה כן, “and after it there will never be its equal.” The plague of locusts during the life of the prophet Joel could not be compared with the plague in Egypt, as the latter comprised a single species of locusts, whereas in Israel at the time of Joel there were a number of different species of locusts combining to make the experience so memorable. (compare <i>Rashi</i>)
      Nachmanides questions the above, quoting Psalms 78,46: “He gave their crops over to the grubs, their produce to the locusts.” He also quotes another verse in Psalms 105,34 “Locusts came at His command, grasshoppers without number.” According to both these verses there were more than one species of locusts that invaded Egypt during the plague described in our chapter. Perhaps, in order to reconcile the apparently conflicting statement by <i>Rashi</i> with the verses mentioned fro the Book of Psalms, <i>Rashi</i> meant to say that the species of locusts which invaded Egypt in our chapter was a much larger one than people had ever become familiar with, whereas the species that appeared in the time of Joel were larger than the several species which became manifest in the days of Moses. This attempt to resolve the problem is futile, as there is no question that when the Torah in our chapter discusses the uniqueness of this plague of locusts it means that neither prior to that time nor afterwards did such a plague ever again occur on such a scale.
      Rabbeinu Chananel, on this verse, writes first of all, that the Torah means that such a plague of locusts, which had been predicted by a prophet, never occurred again. The invasion of the land of Israel in the time of the prophet Joel had not been announced beforehand by a prophet. Furthermore, ever since the prayer of Moses to have the plague of locusts removed, Egypt was never again plagued by locusts. [My edition of Rabbeinu Chananel does not contain such a statement, Ed.] At any rate, Rabbeinu Chananel feels that just as Joshua requested the miracle of the sun and moon being arrested in their orbits until he had mopped up the opposing armies, Moses predicted the miracle of the plague of locusts, and he did not even have to request it.]
      It is possible to understand the plain meaning of our text differently. Just because a plague of locusts was something quite common in those regions in those times, and moreover, seeing that the one which occurred during the reign of Pharaoh, was orchestrated by a completely natural event, namely a strong east wind blowing, it was necessary for the Torah, i.e. in this instance Moses, to mention the fact that it would occur, to point out when and how it would occur, and that it would be disproportionately severe in the damage it would cause, so much so that it would be more severe than anything like it ever, before or after. This would bring home to the victims that this was not a natural disaster but a punitive act by the Creator.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   חטאנו לה' אלוקיכם ולכם, “we have sinned against the Lord your G’d and against you.” He apologized to Moses and Aaron for having insulted them and banished them from his presence.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   שא נא חטאתי, “please forgive my sin.” Pharaoh employed the singular mode when addressing Moses seeing he was the senior leader and was an <i>elokim,</i> Divine representative <i>vis a vis</i> Pharaoh. When appealing for their prayer on his behalf to G’d, he employed the plural mode, i.e. העתירו, not העתר. He did so as a form of courtesy, knowing full well that it was Moses who would pray for the cessation of the plague. We know this already from Moses’ offerלמתי אעתיר, “for when shall I pray,” during the plague of the frogs. He is also on record as having said: והעתרתי אל ה' “I shall entreat the Lord.”
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   לא נשאר ארבה בגבולך, “not a single locust remained behind within the boundaries of your country.” The locusts, as opposed to the frogs at the time, did not die, the reason being that they had not come into existence for the purpose of this plague. They had merely been transported across a great distance, away from their natural habitat [this is all based on the opinion that the wordsותעל הצפרדע in 8,2 appears in the singular mode as opposed to the other occasions when this word appears in the plural mode. According to this view, a single frog became converted into millions of frogs for the sake of the plague, but after it had already left the river Nile. The frogs would therefore not have been able to “return” to their habitat, not having had a habitat in the first place. Ed.] 
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   וימש חשך, “the darkness will be tangible.” This expression describing touching something, as when Yaakov expressed his concern to his mother Rivkah that his father, being blind, would subject him to the ”touch-test.” (Genesis 27,12) The darkness was so opaque that the people could feel it with their hands. The reason was that this “darkness” was not merely the absence of light of the sun, but it was caused by the descent of “thick” air into the lower atmosphere covering Egypt. This layer of “thick” air extinguished any candles or other artificial means of lighting the Egyptians would use at night to see by.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   צאנכם ובקרכם יוצג, “your flocks and herds will stay put.” Pharaoh, knowing that the Israelites’ original vocation was to be cattle herders, was convinced that if they meant to leave permanently, they would not leave their livestock behind. Even if he should have miscalculated, Pharaoh figured that the huge amounts of livestock left behind by the Israelites could be viewed as a compensation for the need to make do without their slave labour.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   גם אתה תתן בידינו זבחים ועולות, “you too will give to us (from your own herds) meat offerings and burnt offerings.” Moses did not intend to use Pharaoh’s animals as sacrifices by the Jewish people, seeing that such offerings belonging to idolators, would be an abomination in the eyes of <i>Hashem</i>. He made these remarks to show Pharaoh that not only would he not benefit financially by the departure of the Israelites, but on the contrary, he would be so anxious for them to leave when the time came that he would compensate them financially in order to get rid of them sooner. The Lord’s hand would be felt so severely that Pharaoh would be willing, if only able, to offer all kinds of sacrifices to assuage the Lord’s feelings which he had hurt by his obstinate posture during this whole period. All he would be concerned with at that time would be to save his own life.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   לא אוסיף עוד לראות פניך, “I shall never see your face again.” If, in apparent contradiction to this statement, the Torah described Pharaoh as calling Moses and Aaron (12,31), on that occasion Moses may have stopped short of entering Pharaoh’s palace, or, what he meant here was that instead of Moses coming to see Pharaoh, as had been the case lately, the next time Pharaoh would have to come to see Moses.    
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   עוד נגע אחד אביא על פרעה, “I shall bring one more plague upon Pharaoh.” Moses received this message from G’d while still standing in the presence of Pharaoh.     Ibn Ezra writes that Moses was given this instruction while in Midian, when G’d told him to tell Pharaoh that he would kill his firstborn son (Exodus) The meaning of the word ויאמר in our verse is simply that G’d had already told this to Moses some time ago. Here too the Torah engages in an abbreviation. The Torah relies on the details of this plague having been announced in verses 4-10. 
  
  Verse 2
  
   כלי כסף וכלי זהב, “vessels made of silver and vessels made of gold.” Why did Moses not include a reference to garments, as the Torah had done 3,22? This reference to garments surfaces again when the Torah describes that the Israelites “borrowed” these from their neighbours immediately prior to their departure (12,35). Some commentators say that the reason was that “shlepping” along all kinds of garments was more of a handicap for the people on their impending journey, so that G’d omitted reference to the garments, to indicate that this was entirely voluntary; they did not have to ask for clothing. The Israelites, when it came to the departure, decided to fulfill G’d’s commandment in its entirety, hence they also asked and received fancy garments.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויתן ה' את חן העם בעיני מצרים, “G’d granted the people favour in the eyes of the Egyptians.” In spite of the fact that the Egyptians experienced all these plagues orchestrated by the messenger of this Jewish G’d, they no longer related to the Israelites with hostility; on the contrary, they had belatedly realized that not the Israelites but they themselves had been the sinners all along by using brute force in their relations with them. It was therefore no more than fair that G’d recompensed them by endowing them. We must not translate the words ויתן ה' את חן העם בעיני במצרים, as a reference to the “borrowing” the Israelites were about to do, as, at the time when the Israelites had not yet received these items the expression ויתן would be premature when all they had as yet was a promise by G’d. Here G’d could only have said “I will give the people favour, etc.” In chapter 12,36 G’d is reported (in the past tense) of having given the people favour in the eyes of the Egyptians as the reason why they handed over all these valuables.
  
     גם האיש משה, “moreover, the man Moses,” he enjoyed such an image because he had orchestrated the plagues.
  
     גדול מאד בעיני עבדי פרעה, “enjoyed great stature in the eyes of Pharaoh’s servants.” This is a reference to the servants who had challenged Pharaoh’s policy.
  
     ובעיני העם, “and in the eyes of the people.” This refers to the Jewish people. Seeing that the people, after Moses’ failed intervention on their behalf, had challenged him to a דין תורה with G’d, protesting his mixing in their affairs (Exodus 5,21). The Torah now reports that the minds of the people had undergone a change of heart <i>vis a vis</i> Moses, even though they were still enslaved in Egypt.
      Other commentators understand the words ובעיני העם as referring to the Egyptian people. The reason that the Torah did not report Pharaoh and his pliant ministers as sharing this high regard for Moses, was because G’d had toughened his heart so that he spoke to Moses in a disparaging manner [something he had not done previously. Ed.]. G’d had created this scenario in order to eventually force Pharaoh to come to Moses and plead that the Israelites leave, the sooner the better. In this manner, Moses’ stature would be enhanced still further if the “mighty” Pharaoh came begging to him in the middle of the night.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the words ויתן ה' את חן העם בעיני מצרים are to be understood both as relating to the Egyptians lending their valuables to the Israelites, and to the esteem that they held Moses in by that time.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   כחצות הלילה, “around midnight.” <i>Rashi</i> says that the reason that Moses did not refer toבחצות הלילה , ”precisely at midnight,” as the Torah reports the slaying of the firstborn having occurred at, was because he did not want to take a chance of being called a liar in the event that the astronomers’ clocks in Egypt were not accurate. 
      Ibn Ezra writes that according to some experts in grammar, the word כחצות is a form of the verb when it becomes converted into a noun. The meaning is: “at the point of time known as midnight, etc.” In other words, the meaning is no different than if the Torah had written בחצי הלילה. 
      Personally, I do not think there is a need for all this, as the meaning of the words כחצי הלילה is “the moment the stroke of midnight is over, etc.” At that moment the second half of the night commences.
      Nachmanides writes that G’d had never said to Moses that this would take precisely at midnight of a certain date, but that the words reflect that Moses had been informed that on some midnight this plague would become effective. The precise date when this would occur was revealed to the Israelites only in the second paragraph dealing with it. (12,23) The third paragraph dealing with this plague reports on what happened and to whom. (12,29)
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   עד בכור השפחה אשר אחר הרחיים, ‘to the firstborn of the maidservant who is behind the millstone.” When the Torah reports about the actual plague happening, it uses a different example when describing the woman at the lowest rung of the social order, namely “the firstborn of the prisoner in jail.” Actually, the Torah refers to the same person each time. When the warning was issued it was daylight, so that the prisoner was at work moving millstones. When the plague occurred it was midnight, a time when all the prisoners are in their cells to prevent them from escaping.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ולכל בני ישראל לא יחרץ כלב לשונו, “but against all the Children of Israel not a dog will whet its tongue.” (in preparation to giving the alarm) even though the city was full of corpses and it is the custom of the dogs to howl in the presence of corpses, as well as when they hear people walking at night; in fact there is a popular proverb according to which howling of dogs without visible reason, signifies that the angel of death is about. In spite of all this, on this night in Egypt the dogs kept mum.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   וירדו כל עבדיך אלה אלי, “and all these servants of yours will be coming down to me, etc.” According to <i>Rashi,</i> this is a form of courtesy to Pharaoh, as the King. Moses had in mind that Pharaoh would come down to where he lived, but he used a euphemism in order not to sound as if he meant to insult him. Although the Torah had described Moses’ as leaving Pharaoh for the last time in a state of “burning fury”, meaning that he had slapped Pharaoh so that at that point Moses certainly did not treat Pharaoh deferentially, we may accept the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish who says that instead of replying to Pharaoh’s insolent refusal, he slapped Pharaoh. [there are numerous explanations as to what Resh Lakish meant with his statement. Ed.] Others say that Pharaoh had slapped Moses prior to his leaving. [the basic problem is that the Talmud feels that every expression of anger must have a tangible symbol, and here none such has been spelled out. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   למען רבות מופתי, “in order to increase the number of My miracles.” Seeing that there was only one plague left to be performed in Egypt, <i>Rashi</i> understands the plural mode <i>moftay”</i> as applying to both the killing of the firstborn and the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, and the Egyptians being poured into that sea and drowning.
      Nachmanides claims that this could not be the meaning here, seeing the Torah concludes by “and he did not release the Israelites from his land.” He explains the meaning of מופתי as meaning that although the plague of the killing of the firstborn was the plague most feared by Pharaoh, and we would have expected him to humiliate himself rather than to maintain his posture, G’d explains that Pharaoh’s attitude was only due to His having strengthened his heart, giving him this unbelievable fortitude. G’d explains to Moses that this will provide Him with the justification to orchestrate more miracles. The plural mode is justified because the plague of killing the firstborn also resulted in the Egyptian deities being destroyed and their livestock similarly experiencing the death of the firstborn.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ומשה ואהרן עשו את כל המופתים האלה, “and Moses and Aaron performed all these miracles. This verse refers to the miracles which have already been described in detail. The reason this is mentioned here is because Moses and Aaron had completed the task of warning the Egyptians of what would befall them if they did not heed the warnings.
      Ibn Ezra writes that in light of the fact that G’d had told Moses at the outset that Pharaoh would not respond to warnings or plagues until the last one, and this stage had now been reached, seeing that he had received all the warnings he would ever receive, the Torah reports that Moses and Aaron had carried out all the instructions they had received. If not for the need to write the Passover legislation prior to the Israelites performing those rites, the Torah would have continued with reporting the killing of the firstborn and the departure of the Israelites immediately.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וידבר ה' אל משה ואל אהרן בארץ מצרים, “<i>Hashem</i> spoke to Moses and to Aaron in the land of Egypt, etc.” The emphasis here is on the word ארץ, in open country, outside the city limits, as our sages have explained. We must distinguish between such utterances of G’d to Moses as the instruction to warn Pharaoh of the plague of the dying of the firstborn, a communication Moses received while in Pharaoh’s palace, not outside the city limits. Prayers, commandments, etc., G’d had not revealed within the urban area to Moses, nor did Moses offer his prayers, there, as the urban centers were the centers which abounded with idolatrous symbols, symbols which were despicable in the eyes of G’d. In fact, Moses had already been informed about the plague but it had not been a commandment in the sense that he had to deliver the warning at a certain time. This occurred only now, and seeing that there was nothing new in it this warning this could be delivered within the urban area. The legislation about a new calendar and the Passover had to be revealed outside the urban areas of Egypt
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   החודש הזה לכם, “this month shall be for you.” Seeing that this was the first commandment relayed to the Jewish people, the Torah mentions that it was revealed to him in the land of Egypt, seeing that all (most) other laws were given to him at Mount Sinai. Alternatively, the words בארץ מצרים mean that the law was given in the rural area of Egypt not while Moses was in the urban areas.
      It would have been appropriate for the Torah to continue immediately with: “speak to the community of Israel that this month will be the first, etc.” However, Moses and Aaron are here considered as representing the entire people, and G’d first wanted to legislate matters that would remain valid throughout the generations before dealing with how the Passover by the present generation of Israelites who stood poised for the Exodus was to be observed.
      Once the Torah reports Moses and Aaron being told דברו אל כל עדת ישראל (verse 3), this is the commandment to tell the people now how to observe their Passover. Verse 14 commences with details about the observance of the day of the Exodus to be observed in subsequent years and by subsequent generations. 
      According to the <i>Midrash</i> the wording of the Torah gives only the Jewish Supreme Court the latitude to proclaim the new moon so that the Torah could not first address the entire people.
      The meaning of the words: “this month shall be for you the first of the months,” is first and foremost that from now on this is the first month in the year for you, and all subsequent months are going to be named in relation to this month, i.e. “the second month”, “the third month”, etc. This will serve to keep the month of the redemption and the miracles associated with it alive in our daily lives throughout the year. We follow the same pattern as we follow with the days of the week, (in our daily psalms) by making the Sabbath the focal point of the week and the days following it all being related to it by being called “second day,” “third day,” etc. We remind ourselves of the day of our rest on every single day of the week by means of this stratagem Similarly, we remind ourselves of the miracle of the redemption by the Torah mentioning months only in that fashion. 
      [after the Babylonian exile, the Jewish people adopted proper names for the months, even reflected in the manner we announce the new moon on the Sabbath preceding it. This was not the Torah’s intention, obviously, and this writer wonders if the sages who permitted use of the secular names of the months wanted to remind us that the redemption from the Babylonian exile did not completely eliminate the traces of exile for a variety of reasons which are not my task to elaborate on here. Ed.] These names of the months current in Persia did find their way into the Bible in the writings of Ezra, Daniel, and the story of Esther, as well as in the prophecies of Chagai and Zecharyah. These prophecies were all revealed while the prophets and the people were already in exile. The Jews who returned to the land of Israel after the Babylonian exile, may have intended to remind themselves of their being redeemed from that exile in a manner parallel to the Jews who were redeemed from Pharaoh’s exile.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   שה תמים, ”an unblemished lamb.” It was appropriate to select a lamb for that sacrifice as the horoscope of the lamb is in its ascendancy during the month of “<i>Nissan</i>.” Consuming the lamb was a reminder to every Israelite that this Egyptian deity had been completely powerless to protect its worshippers. By doing this we testify that our departure from Egypt was not due to our own efforts or ability, but exclusively to the power of <i>Hashem</i>.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   בין הערבים, “in the afternoon.” According to <i>Rashi,</i> this means any time from noon on, as this is called בין הערבים. Ibn Ezra disagrees, citing as his reason that when it come to lighting the <i>Menorah</i> in the Temple, the Torah describes that time as בין הערבים in Exodus 30,8 and this refers to a period close to sunset, as we know from the Torah’s own elaboration with the words יערוך אותו מערב עד בקר, Exodus 27,21, “that the time for the Menorah to be arranged to burn is from evening to morning.”
      Nachmanides writes that he believes that the night is referred to as ערב, seeing that the Torah has commanded us to eat the <i>matzoh</i> on the night of the 14th to the 15th of Nissan with the words בערב תאכלו מצה, seeing that the <i>matzah</i> had to be eaten with the meat of the Passover and the Passover is described as being eaten during the לילה, “night, roasted on the fire etc.” (12,8). He agrees that the end of the day is also called ערב, even if it is clearly still daylight, as we know from Genesis 19,1 ויבואו שני המלכים סדומה בערב ולוט יושב בשער סדם, “The two angels arrived in Sodom in the evening, while Lot was still sitting holding court in the public square of Sodom.” [the evening being a time when they were still clearly visible. Ed.] Furthermore, we have a verse in Psalms 55,18 ערב ובקר וצהרים אשיחה ואהמה, “evening, morning and noon I complain and moan.” Clearly, the psalmist, by mentioning these three parts of the day, means to describe the entire day as being divided into three parts. It follows that any part of the day which follows noon and is not yet evening must be called בין הערבים, “afternoon.” The period following dawn while the sun is still in the east is called בקר, morning, comprising a total of six hours. The period known as צהרים, “noon” comprises 2 hours, i.e. one hour before astronomical noon and one hour after astronomical noon. The term צהרים is taken from the word צהר, a bright light, as we find it in the top of Noah’s ark (Genesis 6,15) “a window for light, צהר, you are to make in the ark.” These two hours are the brightest part of the day. As soon as the shadows lengthen after the sun has passed its zenith and the sun has left the eastern part of the sky, we come to the period known as בין הערבים. This period until nightfall is known as ערב. The real meaning of the term בין הערבים is not that it is something that separates two time periods from one another, but it is similar to the meaning in מבין השרפה, Numbers 17,2 where it describes Eleazar’s fire-pan being picked up right in the midst of the fire. Similarly,בין הערבים describes a time period within which slaughtering of the Passover lamb is to take place. This time frame is bounded at the beginning from immediately after noon and at the end immediately before sunset. This is also the meaning of בין הערבים תאכלו, in Exodus 19,12 where G’d tells the Israelites that they are to eat the quail during that time frame. Seeing that we have no reason to believe that the quail could not be eaten also later, and there is no restriction applicable to it such as when eating the meat of animals whose blood was sprinkled on the altar, <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation that the plural mode of ערבים refers to two evenings is very plausible. He refers to the ערב בקר and the ערב יום, the end of the period known as morning and the end of the period known as day. The time in between is the time during which the Passover lamb is to be slaughtered. We find support for this interpretation by <i>Rashi</i> in Kings II 3,20 ויהי בבוקר כעלות המנחה, “and in the morning when it was time to present the meal offering, etc.” We also encounter the other time frame known as בין הערבים, as מנחת ערב, the meal offering of the evening, in Ezra 9,5 ובמנחת הערב קמתי, “at the time of the evening offering I concluded my fast, etc.” The term מנחה in both instances is not confined to the “meal offering,” but on the contrary, it is derived from the word מנוחה, i.e. when the sun prepares to take a rest from its daily activity in the sky. This meaning is reflected in the translation of Onkelos on the word ערב in Genesis Similarly, this is the time frame allocated to lighting the <i>menorah</i> and the offering of the second part of the daily incense offering, (in conjunction with the daily burnt offering) which are also described as בין הערבים in Exodus 30,8 and 29,39 respectively. We can explain the words:שם תזבח את הפסח בערב, (instead of בין הערבים) in Deuteronomy 16,6 as referring to a period previously described as ערב in conjunction with the setting of the sun. Onkelos understands the term בין הערבים as בין שמשיא, “between the sun in the east and the sun in the west,” as in ויהי כבא השמש בערב, “it was when the sun was about to set, in the evening, etc.” Deuteronomy 16,6 clearly defines ערב as the period when the sun sets: שם תזבח את הפסח בבוא השמש, normally translated as “there you will slaughter the Passover, in the evening, when the sun sets.” This translation would clearly conflict with what the Torah has written here. Therefore, in my opinion, the word תזבח in that verse does not refer to the slaughtering but to the whole procedure of offering and consuming the Passover which reflects the preparation the Israelites had made on that date for an immediate departure from Egypt. The verse in Deuteronomy therefore concludes withמועד צאתך ממצרים, “the appointed time at which you departed from Egypt.” After all, the Torah had referred elsewhere to the fact that G’d had taken the Israelites out from Egypt at night,כי.... הוציאך ה' אלוקיך ממצרים לילה. (Deut. 16,1) We must not forget that the actual Passover sacrifice was called by the Torah זבח פסח, so that there is nothing strange in the word תזבח not meaning: ”you will slaughter,” in the verse quoted. Similarly, it appears that we can also understand Deut 16,4 ולא ילין מן הבשר אשר תזבח בערב ביום הראשון לבוקר, as referring to the sacrifice you have performed on the evening of the first day (of the Passover). There is no need to translate the word תזבח as “you slaughter.” The verse tells us that the sacrificial meat of last night’s זבח, also known as the Passover, must not be allowed to be left over uneaten until daybreak.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   צלי אש ומצות על מרורים יאכלוהו, “roasted on the fire together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it.” The meaning of the word על in the phrase על מרורים, is “with,” just as in the construction ראשו על כרעיו ועל קרבו, “its head together with its legs and its innards.” The reason why the Torah employed the word על here in preference to the more common word עם for “with,” was to indicate that it is not mandatory to make a “sandwich” of all thee three ingredients and to eat them all simultaneously. As long as all three ingredients are eaten during the same meal that is satisfactory. The verse also teaches that the bitter herbs do not need to be eaten with the unleavened bread, as long as they are eaten in conjunction with the meat of the sacrifice. Concerning the eating of the unleavened bread the Torah repeats (verse 18) that it is to be eaten during the course of that evening, i.e. the repetition meaning that this is mandatory even if for one reason or another –such as the absence of the Temple- we cannot eat the Passover lamb.
      I believe it is more correct to explain the word ומצות in our verse as belonging to what has been written immediately prior to it, i.e. ואכלו את הבשר בלילה הזה צלי אש ומצות, so that the eating of the bitter herbs is not part of the Biblical commandment, but is a Rabbinic injunction. In practice this means that when there is no Passover meat the commandment to eat bitter herbs is no longer Biblical. Not only that, if for some reason no bitter herbs are at hand, this does not invalidate the commandment to consume the sacrificial meat. Anyone who has consumed the meat of the Passover even without the bitter herbs, has fulfilled his Biblical duty. Eating unleavened bread on that evening and eating the meat of the Passover are two separate and independent Biblical commandments.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   כי אם צלי אש, “but only when roasted on the fire.” Seeing the meat had to be consumed in a hurry, and boiling meat takes longer than roasting it.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ובכל אלוה' מצרים אעשה שפטים, “and I will execute judgments on all the deities of Egypt.” <i>Rashi,</i> in illustrating how these judgments of the idols of the Egyptians were carried out, says that if the deities had been made of wood, the wood would rot, whereas if they had been made of metal, the metal would melt.
      Nachmanides points out that <i>Rashi</i> had failed to explain that the reason why the Torah had not given us these details may be understood in light of Jeremiah 10,8 ומוסר הבלים עץ הוא, “(according to Malb’im) seeing that in our imperfect world the instruments of enforcing discipline are usually made of wood, sticks to beat with, etc., although foolish people also make deities out of wood, destroying everything made of wood would hardly teach man a lesson. This is also why when the plague of the killing of the firstborn is carried out, the Torah does not mention precisely which of the Egyptian deities were destroyed, as the word כל is noticeably absent there. Moreover, destroying their idols at night would not worry the Egyptians, who, 1) worried first of all about their own lives, 2) did not become aware until daylight that something had happened to their personal idols. It would therefore not have had the desired effect at the appropriate time.
      Nachmanides therefore proposes the following: mention of the deities of the Egyptians refers to the respective representatives at the heavenly throne of the people of Egypt, their <i>mazzal.</i>
      The fact that the Torah writes (Numbers 33,4) that the Egyptians were busy burying their dead and that G’d had killed their deities lends support to Nachmanides’ interpretation.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויקרא משה לכל זקני ישראל, “Moses called to all the elders of Israel.” This paragraph is a summary, similar to when G’d commanded Moses earlier, saying only כאשר צוה ה' את משה כן עשו, ”the Israelites did in conformity with all that G’d commanded to Moses.” The method that Moses followed in relaying these commands to the people was by telling them details of the legislation before summing it up in general terms. The Torah, reverting to the general terms, כלל, describes Moses calling together the elders who in turn assembled the people at large, telling them משכו וקחו לכם צאן , “draw forth or buy for yourselves a sheep, etc.” It is quite possible that the formulation used was due to the fact that the livestock of the Israelites was quite a distance away from them in the province of Goshen. They were forced to leave their livestock there as sheep, being something repulsive, abominable to the Egyptians, they would not want to antagonize the Egyptians by having their sheep where the Egyptians would see them. The whole paragraph was read to the people, and additional details about what to do with these animals’ blood were added, including the brush to use with which to smear the blood on the doorposts and lintels of their dwellings. They were also warned not to leave their houses during the time that this killing of the firstborn would take place, so as to avoid becoming victims themselves.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ואתם לא תצאו, “as far as your yourselves are concerned, do not set foot outside the threshold of your houses.” <i>Rashi</i> points out that this warning became necessary after G’d had given permission to the forces normally active as destructive elements, such as the angel of death, to be about on that night and to perform their duties. These forces are not equipped to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty, and the night is the period during which they perform most of their work. He quotes Psalms 104,20 בו תרמוש כל חיתו יער, “that is when all the beasts of the forest stir,” as his source.
      Nachmanides writes that he does not understand <i>Rashi’s</i> remark that the night is the period during which all destructive forces enjoy free reign. If that were so, he argues, why is it not forbidden to go out every night in order to protect oneself against these forces, based on the warning in the verse we have just read?
       <i>Rashi</i> should have written that on this particular night the destructive forces in the world had been given a free hand to carry out their work. The reason that the Torah, i.e. <i>Rashi,</i> did not want to present the matter in this light, is that seeing that G’d personally, orchestrated the killing of the firstborn a wrong impression would have been created.
      What happened was as follows: G’d warned the Israelites not to leave their houses during that night because during that night G’d Himself was traversing all parts of Egypt, similar to a king who patrols his realm. Just as a king does not do so without an entourage which precedes him to herald his coming, and which ensures that no assassins lie in wait for the king, so it is with G’d, as we know from Zecharyah 14,5 ובא ה' אלוקי כל קדושים עמך, “and the Lord my G’d will arrive and all the holy angels will be with You.” Seeing that we find that at a time when the destructive forces have been given free reign they do not distinguish between the guilty and the innocent, the only way the Israelites would all be immune on that night was if they stayed indoors. Normal people do not go out at night even if they have not been told not to do so, because they are aware that it is not as safe as to go out by day. If, on that night, an Israelite would change his habit of staying at home, he would expose himself more than he would on other nights. How do we deal with the words: ולא יתן המשחית לבא אל בתיכם לנגוף, “and He will not allow the destroyer to enter your homes to inflict him?” The meaning is that the destructive forces which abound every night anyways, will be restricted to the outside by G’d on this night, so that no Israelite who stays indoors will die on that night, [even if according to G’d’s timetable set for him before he was born, this was the date when normally he should have died. Ed.] On that night only G’d Himself killed Egyptians. 
      Some commentators simply say that the word המשחית in our context here is not an adjective but a noun describing the act of destruction, השחתה. 
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ושמרתם את הדבר הזה, “You shall observe this matter.” This verse does not refer to the instruction to smear the blood of the Passover lamb on the lintel and doorposts, seeing that this was a commandment that applied only on the night of the Exodus, but it refers to the basic Passover legislation and its ritual. 
  
  Verse 25
  
    והיה כי תבואו אל הארץ, “it will be after you will come to the land, etc” This spells out that the Israelites during their journey to the holy Land, were not required to observe the Passover rites and the festival as such, on the anniversary of their departure from Egypt. The Torah insists that the legislation will become effective immediately the people will cross the Jordan into the Holy Land, even if they have not yet conquered part of the land and settled there. This raises the question that the Torah reports in the Book of Numbers that on the first anniversary of the Exodus the Israelites did observe the Passover rites? (Numbers 9,1-8)     The answer is simple. The observance of that Passover had to be especially legislated by G’d by special instruction to Moses. If it had been mandatory based, on what we have read here, why did G’d have to give instructions on that occasion that it be observed? Although <i>Rashi</i> says that the fact that the Israelites’ having observed the Passover rites in the second year when they were still encamped around Mount Sinai is detailed in the Torah was an implied rebuke, i.e. that only in that year did they offer the Passover, what rebuke was there for something they had not been asked to do in the first place? We may have to answer that what <i>Rashi</i> meant was that the Israelites had not been deemed fit to offer the Passover after the sin of the spies, a testimony to their having rejected the whole liberation from Egypt, and they had even wanted to appoint a leader to take them back there. [I elaborated somewhat. Ed.] Had the people not committed that sin, they would have been settled in their homeland already before another year had passed, so that no more than one Passover in the desert had ever been envisaged. 
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   זבח פסח הוא, “it is a Passover feast offering.” The term פסח expresses the concept of המלטה, escaping from something, being rescued, similar to the word פסוח. 
      The term is used seeing that G’d, out of a feeling of pity, allowed the firstborn Israelites to survive this judgment of the idolaters. They qualified for this pity because they had demonstrated loyalty to G’d by offering the lamb. This is why the lamb itself is now referred to as פסח. 
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   וילכו ויעשו בני ישראל, ”The Children of Israel proceeded and carried out, etc.” They left the assembly and went to get the sheep and slaughtered it etc., as prescribed. 
  
     כן עשו, “so they did.” It is not unusual for the Torah to repeat something like this when the message is that the instructions were carried out in every detail. Our sages, added that the mention of the Israelites “going,” וילכו, means that they did not only receive a reward for performing the commandment but also for the time and effort spent in the preparatory stages/
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   כי אין בית אשר אין שם מת, “for there was not a single house without at least a single human corpse.” This was because not only the firstborn of the father died but also the firstborn of the mother, and in the absence of a firstborn in the true sense of the word, the senior member of the household died. You might therefore have expected that the Torah, when legislating the sanctification of the Jewish firstborn would include the firstborn of the father. The reason this was not done is because the firstborn of the mother is far better known, his birth having been witnessed. [to determine paternity we would need DNA tests, etc., not available at the time. Ed.] 
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   ויקרא פרעה למשה ולאהרן לילה, “Pharaoh called on Moses and Aaron during the night.” Moses made a point of sleeping in the capital that night, in order that his prediction that Pharaoh’s servants would come down to him and humble themselves could come true. When Pharaoh arrived at his abode they sent messengers to Goshen giving permission for the Israelites to leave, whereupon they assembled in Ramses <i>en masse</i>. It was still fully light at the time when they assembled there. From there they proceeded with pomp and ceremony (not as escapees) as described in Numbers As to the apparent contradiction in the verse (Deut. 16,1) הוציאך ה' אלוקיך ממצרים לילה, “that the Lord your G’d took you out of Egypt at night,” this refers to the night when they became free to go, having obtained Pharaoh’s permission.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the Israelites who were residing in Egypt proper left the same night, whereas they did not cross the border, i.e. the city of Ramses, until the morning following. At that point, they were joined by all the other Israelites who had come to meet with them, having traveled from Goshen.
      This commentary does not sound plausible, for how could anyone have traveled at night after having been told not to leave their homes until morning as they would expose themselves to danger if they did?
      Onkelos explains what happens as follows: the miracles which were performed for the Israelites on that night are called by the Torah “G’d took you out of Egypt.” The wording is justified seeing that the departure of the Israelites from Egypt was due to these miracles.
  
     קומו, צאו!, “get up and get going!” He meant that they should depart without delay seeing that the King had commanded that the people would depart immediately and had refused them the right to perform any more slave labour. He added that they should engage in the worship of their G’d as they had demanded all this time, as an additional reason for them to hurry to do as commanded. It is as if the servants said to Moses and Aaron: “do what he says seeing this is what you waited for all this time!” [this commentary presupposes that the words ויקרא למשה ולאהרן לילה, ”he called upon Moses and upon Aaron at night, did not describe Pharaoh, personally, going to see Moses, but his servants did. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   וברכתם גם אותי, “bless me also!” according to the plain meaning of the text, Pharaoh wished to be included in a complimentary fashion in Moses’ prayer for the dying to stop. After all, as we explained earlier, Moses had assured Pharaoh that there would be no further plagues in Egypt. Alternately, he meant that Moses should pray that G’d should not continue to penalize him in any form.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   משארותם צרורות בשמלותם על שכמם, “their leftovers bundled up in their garments, flung over their shoulders.” 
      Ibn Ezra understands the word משארותם as referring to wooden bowls used to knead dough in. The word appears in this context in Deuteronomy 28,17 טנאך ומשארתך, “your fruit basket and your kneading bowl.” They flung this over their shoulders as their donkeys were fully loaded with all the fancy garments they had taken from the Egyptians. I find this illogical, for would it not have been simpler for them to place the heavy wooden bowls on the donkeys and to carry the lighter garments on their shoulders?
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  ויאפו את הבצק אשר הוציאו ממצרים עגות מצות, “(as a result) they baked the dough they had brought out of Egypt into flat cakes of unleavened bread.” This was done deliberately, in order to fulfill the negative commandment that anyone eating leavened goods on that day will be subject to the <i>karet</i> penalty. If, judging by the words כי גורשו ממצרים, the impression was created that the dough was baked by the heat of the sun on the basis that the Israelites had flung the dough over their shoulders, this is not meant to give the impression that if the Israelites had remained in Egypt any longer that this dough would have risen, become leavened, but it explains why it was baked while they were <i>en route</i>, and not in their homes before their departure.
      Alternately, the plain meaning may be that the reason why it turned into unleavened cakes was because they did not have time to bake it in the regular way prior to their departure as they were literally being expelled. Had they been allowed sufficient time, these cakes would have been leavened.
  
  
  Verse 40
  
   ומושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו במצרים שלשים שנה וארבע מאות שנה, “ According to <i>Rashi</i> we have to divide up these years into the thirty years between the promise to Avraham of his children inheriting the land of Canaan after a period of being strangers or slaves or both, and the birth of Avraham’s son Yitzchok who would be the carrier of his name, and the 400 years commencing with that time, Yitzchok himself being a stranger in the land of Canaan, moving about and not owning any land. <i>Rashi</i> bases himself on an ancient <i>Midrash</i>. (<i>Mechilta, also Bereshit Rabbah</i> 44,21) according to which the last 210 of these years commenced with the arrival of Yaakov in Egypt.
      Nachmanides writes that this appears incorrect, seeing that as long as Avraham was alive we cannot perceive any of his children as having been in exile. The meaning of the promise in Genesis 15 is simply that G’d told him that his descendants, before this promise would be fulfilled, would experience many years of exile and even slavery, the period in question extending over 400 years. G’d, at the time did not bother to inform Avraham about the extra 30 years we read about here, seeing that He had already told him that taking over the land of Canaan had to await the time when the accumulated sins of the Emorite would spill over the allotted measure, so that G’d could legally dispossess them. Accordingly, the period that the Children of Israel dwelled in Egypt, (starting with the descent of Yaakov, or with the arrival of Joseph 22 years earlier) are 430. The 30 years are a hint that the extra years, just as the years spent in the desert, were not a period during which the measure of the Emorites’ sin had not yet been complete, but this delay was solely due to the sins of the Israelites themselves. The verse before us simply informs us that the duration of the stay of the Israelites in the land of Egypt until the allocated time was up was 430 years. The last 30 years had nothing to do with the promise/decree announced by G’d to Avraham in Genesis chapter 15. 
      We find a similar construction in Deuteronomy 2,14 והימים אשר הלכנו מקדש ברנע עד אשר עברנו את נחל זרד שלשים ושמונה שנה עד תם כל הדור אנשי המלחמה וגו, “The number of years which we walked from Kadesh Barnea until we crossed the river Zered were 38 years, until the entire generation of men of military age had died, etc.” The Israelites who had been encamped for 19 years at Kadesh Barnea (according to all our sources) certainly did not wander another 38 years in the desert. Moses describes simply that the entire period beginning with the decree that the men of military age at the time of the sin of the spies would die in the desert, until the last of these men had died, took 38 years. 
      We must learn from all this that when someone sinned and a penalty such as exile is decreed for him during which he is not free to live his life according to his own agenda, this does not automatically mean that at the end of the exile he will be free to do as he pleases during the remainder of his life. If he becomes guilty of any additional offence, he will, of course, be punished for such an offence separately. The promise to Avraham by G’d that his descendants would eventually inherit the land of Canaan and that it would take 400 years for that promise to be fulfilled, simply meant that it would not be less than 400 years. It did not mean that at the end of those 400 years possession would become automatic. If the Torah therefore speaks of 430 years having elapsed during which the Israelites had dwelled in the land of Egypt, this means that the extra years had been added on by G’d on account of serious sins committed by Avraham’s descendants. The promise to Avraham was, that as compensation for the 400 years of waiting for the redemption, these people would leave the land of their oppression (remember that no specific country had been named) with great material possessions. The word אחרי, “after,” mentioned in chapter 15 of Genesis, hardly ever means “immediately after.”
      Furthermore, there are no promises by G’d which are so ironclad that they could not become null and void if the recipient became guilty of a major sin prior to the time the promise was due. [the exceptions are promises worded as an oath.] It is common knowledge that the Israelites, while in Egypt, were guilty of numerous and serious sins, including the cardinal sin of not circumcising their male babies. Ezekiel chapter 20 recounts a list of such sins by the Israelites committed both in Egypt and subsequently in the desert. It is therefore easy to understand why G’d added 30 years to the number of years originally decreed. In fact they should have stayed still longer, had it not been for the communal prayer in which for the first time in over 80 years the Israelites pleaded with G’d, as described in Exodus 2,23, and G’d’s responding in The Jewish farmer, when offering the first fruit of his respective crops recites a prayer/blessing during which he refers to G’d’s response to the people on that occasion. (compare Deuteronomy chapter 26. In verse 6 the farmer confesses that while in Egypt the Egyptians made sinners out of our people, i.e. וירעו אותנו המצרים. We all know that even after the Exodus, G’d was forced to delay arrival in the Holy Land and taking possession of it by another 40 years to give Him time for the Jewish people to replenish themselves as the generation who left Egypt had forfeited seeing G’d’s promise fulfilled in their lifetime. As a result, the fourth generation which should have returned to the land of Canaan did not do so, except for Calev and Joshua, and children who had been under 20 at the Exodus
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
   ליל שמורים, “a night of fulfillment of anticipations.” According to Ibn Ezra, G’d stood watch during that night and did not allow the destructive force to enter the homes of the Jews. This is why He commanded that in future the beneficiaries of His standing watch, i.e. His people, should observe that night by observing a special watch. This is the appropriate manner of thanking the Lord and praising Him for what He did for us.
      Nachmanides queries, saying that the language, i.e. שמורים הוא לה' להוציאם מארץ מצרים, “it is a night of special watch in order to take them out from the land of Egypt,” is not compatible with an interpretation that restricts the verse to saving the lives of the Jews from the destructive forces that abounded on that night. He therefore interprets the word שמורים as a reference to the conclusion of a watch over the fate of the Jewish people from the time when the covenant between the pieces was concluded with Avraham 430 years earlier.
      It is also possible to understand the word ליל שמורים as summing up all the strenuous efforts G’d had had to make in order to ensure that by that night the Jewish people would be on a spiritual level that would justify their redemption for all time.
  
     הוא הלילה הזה לה' שמורים לכל בני ישראל לדורותם, “this was the night for <i>Hashem</i> of protection for all the Children of Israel throughout their generations.” This night which <i>Hashem</i> had kept His eye on during all these many years, had become sanctified now as associated forever with His name as <i>Hashem</i>.
  
  
  Verse 43
  
   זאת חוקת הפסח, “this is the decree of the Passover offering.” Ibn Ezra says that the whole paragraph deals with the observance of the Passover in future generations, claiming that the words ויעשו בני ישראל את הפסח (verse 50) refers to the observance of the Passover in the year following, in the desert, as described in Numbers The matter is not surprising as the Torah also commanded Aaron to save the manna in a bottle, almost 40 years before this was done, although it is reported already in Exodus How could Aaron be reported, in the past tense, as having deposited this bottle next to the Holy Ark, when there had not yet been a Holy Ark at that time, in fact the legislation of building a Tabernacle had not yet been given?
      Nachmanides disagrees, claiming that in none of the paragraphs other than in Numbers were the Israelites commanded how to observe these rites in the desert. He points out that prior to the performance of the circumcision of all the males, the Torah had to record the legislation about all uncircumcised males not being allowed to partake of the meat of that sacrifice. Actually, this paragraph should have been written prior to the paragraph describing the killing of the firstborn, however, seeing that paragraph about the new moon, etc., was written (announced) on that very day. Moses told the people immediately and he commanded them regarding all the laws of the Passover. He added numerous other commandments, such as the prohibition of idolaters eating from the meat of that sacrifice, he added what had occurred in the middle of that night, assuring the people that on that night they would be redeemed. He told them that the Exodus that would occur on that night would change their status for all future generations. When completing this interlude, the Torah reverts back to details such as not breaking a bone of the Passover lamb (in order to suck out the marrow), not to take any part of the meat out of the house, as well as details about how a proselyte will be able to observe these rites. These latter regulations apply for the generations after the Exodus.
  
     כל בן נכר לא יאכל בו, “no person alienated from his faith is allowed to partake in it.” According to <i>Rashi</i> what are meant are people alienated from their father in heaven, The law applies both to gentiles, as well as to Jews who act like gentiles.
      Nachmanides writes that there was no need to exclude gentiles specifically, and this also agrees with the translation by Onkelos who speaks of a Jewish “stranger.” A heretic is known either as a משומד, “someone who has destroyed himself,” in the spiritual sense, or a מנוכר, from the word נכר,alien, i.e. someone who has estranged himself to his Creator.
  
  
  Verse 44
  
   ועצם לא תשברו בו, ”you are not to break a bone of it.” Seeing that the Passover lamb is to be eaten על השובע, as the final part of the meal, so that it satiates the person consuming part of it, breaking bones of it would create the impression in the viewer that the person doing it was left hungry after eating its meat. Alternately, the meaning could be that on that occasion, when the meal was being consumed hurriedly, while standing up, the Israelites would try and stuff themselves as much as they could in anticipation of a long march. Such behaviour would contradict the festive nature of the meal.
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
   ויהי בעצם היום הזה, “it was on that very day, etc.” Ibn Ezra explains that this verse is inseparable from the one following it, [although the Christians start a new chapter with the next verse. Ed.] seeing that G’d spoke to Moses and gave him the instructions regarding sanctifying the first born of man and certain beasts.
      Nachmanides justifies the use of the line: “on that very day,” by referring to the ליל שמורים discussed previously. The verse describing the nature of that night could have given the impression that the Israelites actually moved out of Egypt during the same night. The line in our verse is meant to correct any such impression, and to emphasise that the Exodus took place on the morning of the 15th of Nissan. The significance of the previous night, the ליל שמורים, lay in the Israelites having obtained permission to leave by the Egyptians.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   קדש לי כל בכור, “sanctify for Me every firstborn, etc.” In practice these animals (as well as the males of the people) were to be treated as special immediately the Israelites reached the desert.
      Ibn Ezra, commenting on the singular mode קדש לי, instead of קדשו לי, says that in the interest of brevity Moses is here presented as if he embodied all the people.
      Some sages believe that the commandment for Moses to “sanctify” is equivalent to “to purify,” The firstborns, at this stage, represent the priests, until after the sin of the golden calf, when they were replaced by the Levites and the direct descendants of Aaron. At any rate, the major function of the priests is to purify the people, the opposite of “defiling them.” Unless the priest is instructed by the Torah to defile himself, such as burying his next of kin, he is to refrain from contact with anything that confers ritual impurity.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   היום אתם יוצאים, “this is the day on which you are leaving.” The reason why the Torah had introduced the prohibition of eating leavened food is as a hint for all future generations that the anniversary of the Exodus is to be a day when anything leavened is out of bounds to the Jewish people. Seeing that on the original date of the Exodus it was springtime, the Torah adds that we must make sure that Passover will always occur in the spring season, [not before the spring equinox. Ed.] The Hebrew word אביב for spring is rooted in the term אב, the first, the leader; the barley from which the first בכורים, one <i>omer</i> of it is offered on the second day of Passover, is always the first ripe grain during the spring in locations such as the land of Israel, or countries even closer to the equator.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   והיה כי יביאך ה' אל ארץ הכנעני, “It will be when the Lord will bring you to the land of the Canaanite,” according to <i>Rashi</i> all the land inhabited by the seven Canaanite tribes is included in this 
      Nachmanides opines that this is self-evident, seeing no other tribes have ever been resident there. If anything is not clear, it is why only some (5) of the 10 tribes making up the Canaanite nation have been listed here? The view of our sages is that the lands occupied by the five tribes mentioned here is the area in the land of Israel which the Torah repeatedly describes as “the land flowing with milk and honey.” The other 2 tribes whose land was conquered by the Israelites under Joshua [not including 3 more tribes mentioned in the promise to Avraham in Genesis 15, 19-21. Ed.] was not as fruitful. Generally speaking, only six of the tribes are mentioned, as the 7th, גרגשי, according to tradition, preferred to emigrate rather than to confront Joshua militarily.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   בעבור זה עשה ה' לי בצאתי ממצרים, “on account of this the Lord has done for me when I left Egypt.” The verse is Israel’s justification to future generations for performing the rites of gratitude on the annual celebration of Passover, and why all generations are duty bound to continue this tradition. We have a similar verse in the same vein in 13,15 על כן אני זובח לה' כל פטר רחם הזכרים וכל בני אפדה, “this is why I continue to offer as a sacrifice every first born male sheep to the Lord, whereas I redeem every first born male son of his respective mother.” The reason why the Torah uses the pronoun זה, “this,” is that you are to tell these experiences of yours to your children now. In other words, you who have experienced “this,” have to tell your children what happened on “that” day when they had not yet been born.
      Ibn Ezra understands the words בעבור זה וגו', to mean that G’d performed all these miracles in order for me to annually commemorate them by the performance of the rites legislated here.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   והיה לך לאות על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך, “and it shall be for you a sign on your arm and a reminder between your eyes.” This means that the passages of the Torah written here shall be worn regularly on your arm and be placed between your eyes, so that you will remember all this. The reason such a parchment is also to be placed on your arm is to symbolize the חוזק יד, “the strong hand,” G’d employed in order to orchestrate your redemption from Egypt. It is a reminder of all the miracles.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   והיה כי יביאך ה', “it will be when the Lord will bring you, etc.” The commandment to redeem the first born sons, and to sacrifice the first born male sheep, etc., do not become operative until you get to the Holy Land.
      Nachmanides writes that the instruction “sanctify for Me all the firstborn, etc.,” refers to all the ones fitting this definition who are now part of the Jewish community and their flocks. One of the reasons why the commandment may not have been practiced in the desert is that the boys in question had not even been circumcised. At any rate, the commandment, while in existence, remained in limbo, in common with many other commandments, until the people reached their destiny in their own land. The firstborn donkey was to be redeemed There is a dispute in the tractate Zevachim if the commandment did apply in the desert, but seeing that we cannot resolve it, it is not worth pursuing.
  
     כאשר נשבע לך ולאבותיך, “as He has sworn both to you and to your forefathers.” The meaning of this phrase is: “He has sworn to your forefathers to give it to you, the present generation.” Alternately, the Torah means that any word of G’d is equivalent to an oath, seeing that He has repeated the promise twice. He had said: (Exodus 3,8) “I will go down to save them from Egypt and to bring them up from there”, as well as: “I shall bring you to the land I swore to give to your forefathers.” Furthermore: “I will bring you to the land I swore to your forefathers.”
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   והעברת כל פטר רחם, “you shall set apart every first born issue of the womb, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> says that the verse speaks of human firstborns, seeing that there is a break in the verse before it continues mentioning first born animals.
      Nachmanides writes that the word והעברת refers to the setting apart of these animals from the flock as something sacred for G’d. Having made that point, the Torah goes into further detail, commencing with the words וכל פטר שגר בהמה, detailing three categories of firstborns.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   כי בחוזק יד הוציאנו ממצרים, “for with a strong hand did He take us out of Egypt.” Having said this as a kind of “headline,” the Torah now continues to describe how this “hand” of G’d manifested itself. It was primarily the simultaneous killing of the firstborn that resulted immediately in the release of the Israelites. The contrast with the earlier plagues, which did not result in the release of the Israelites, is clear to anyone. This is why I perform sacrificial rites on every anniversary of that event.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ולטוטפות בין עיניך, “and as an ornament between your eyes.” The word טוטפות describes the part of the head on which the phylacteries are worn. The expression appears in tractate <i>Shabbat,</i> 57B as the area where the straps of the phylacteries surround the forehead.
      Alternately, it describes the part of the head which faces the ground, as per the proverb in <i>Megillah</i> 14 that ducks have a tendency to appear to look at the ground while at the same time seeing far into the distance with their eyes. The word used to describe this kind of vision is מטיפין. 
      The reason the Torah uses the word לטוטפות in the plural mode is because, according to an ancient tradition, the phylacteries of the head are divided into 4 separate compartments, each containing one of the relevant four paragraphs of the Torah referring to the subject.
      Nachmanides writes that the origin of the custom to wear the phylacteries of the hand on the upper left arm, and the phylacteries of the head on one’s forehead, is that Judaism if taken seriously, requires input by both the heart and the brain, the upper left arm being close to man’s heart, whereas the forehead is immediately outside the seat of the brain. This is the reason why the Torah says that the Exodus and all that it implies should be symbolized “between your eyes,” i.e. the phylacteries with the relevant paragraphs from the Torah should be positioned on the part of body closest to the seat of our memory banks. Brain functions properly only because man has a faculty that enables him to store sensations called memory. The knot with which the straps of the phylacteries of the head is tied, is placed at the rear end of the head, the area near which our memory banks are located in the brain.
      References to the phylacteries appear in the paragraph dealing with sanctification of the firstborn, as well as in the paragraph detailing observance of that commandment once the Israelites would take possession of the Holy Land, seeing this particular commandment is tied directly to the Exodus from Egypt, as something which must remain as a kind of visual image. The other commandment, also contained in one of these paragraphs, commits to our memory the fact that our G’d is unique and has demonstrated unique powers. The obligation to perform the commandments of the Torah is anchored in these two fundamental considerations. [Moses sums this up in Deut. 4,35 אתה הראת לדעת: “you (the Jewish people as the only one) have been granted visual evidence of the existence and manifestation of power of the Lord your G’d.” Ed.] 
      I will now proceed to explain some general rules applicable to many of the commandments of the Torah. [this is still Nachmanides. Ed.] Ever since idolatry exists in our world, starting with the generation of Enosh, [a grandson of Adam! Ed.] mankind’s knowledge about G’d the Creator has become confused. Some people claimed that the universe preceded ”G’d,” whereas others deny only that G’d the Creator has any knowledge of any specific individual; still others do believe that G’d has such knowledge but they dispute that G’d supervises and directly or indirectly intervenes in the fate of individual people. By doing this, they reduce mankind to the level of the fish in the ocean over whom G’d does indeed not exercise individual supervision. As a result of this lack of G’d’s supervision of man’s individual fate, the concept of reward and punishment does not apply to man either.
      Once G’d intervenes in the world by performing acts involving the community or an individual, this discredits all those who deny that the Creator still has an interest in the well being or otherwise of His subjects on earth. If such intervention by G’d in people’s lives, or the performance of super-natural miracles have been announced in advance and with specific dates and places, this still better authenticates our belief that the Creator does indeed continue to take a supervisory interest in His creatures. It demonstrates that G’d communicates with chosen individuals and reveals His secrets to them. By doing such things on occasion, the truth of the Torah is perpetuated, and this is why the Torah wrote in connection with such advertised miracles:למען תדע כי אני ה' בקרב הארץ “in order that you will realize that I the Lord am active on earth.” (Exodus 8,18) This disabuses people who believe that historical and other events on earth are the result of pure chance. In Exodus 9,29 למען תדע כי לה' הארץ, the Torah tells us that the miracles that are about to occur will demonstrate ownership of the earth by G’d, rebutting those who claim that the universe preceded the existence of G’d. G’d created the universe out of “nothing,” i.e. He provided matter, without which there could not be a material universe. Finally, the Torah quotes G’d saying: למען תדע כי אין כמוני, “in order that you should know that there is No One like I.” (Exodus 9,14) These were the three theological principles which Pharaoh had denied, and it took all the plagues to convince him that not only had he been wrong, but that he had been a terrible sinner.
      Having established that even such a pagan as Pharaoh had finally become convinced of the error of his ways, surely, no one in his right mind expects a private revelation by G’d of His powers every time he entertains some doubt about something! In view of the unreasonable nature of such a request, G’d provided us with some commandments, the performance of which is designed to keep alive within us the memory of the lessons learned not only by Pharaoh but also by the Jewish people at the time. Affixing the relevant passages of the Torah to the doorposts of our homes and gates, placing the phylacteries containing these passages on our heads and arms daily, are all part of this training in remembering that what our forefathers transmitted to us as experiences they lived through had indeed occurred, and we have reason to be eternally grateful for G’d’s intervention in the lives of our forefathers at that time. The story of the Exodus and what preceded it is not only a lesson in the kindness G’d extended to a people who had become assimilated and was outwardly, and mostly inwardly, indistinguishable from its host nation, but is a basic lesson in what constitutes our perception of what we are about, and what ultimately, the universe is about, i.e. the greatness of the Creator. Our sages taught us to relate to so-called מצוות קלות, commandments which because they appear easy to fulfill are not presumed to confer much reward for those observing them, as if they were of the same weightiness as מצוות חמורות, commandments which either are difficult to fulfill, or which carry death penalties as an indication that G’d appears to be more concerned about them than about the other kind. It is not up to us to evaluate the relative merit of G’d’s commandments. What is important for us to remember is that just because G’d does watch over what we are doing, none of us can afford not to be engaged in some manner of service of the Lord, even if such service is indirect, such as earning a living in order to honour the Sabbath by eating better quality food, and wearing better quality clothes. etc. We must at all times retain the awareness that we are G’d’s creatures, and as such we must be guided in our behaviour by the desire to please our Creator. We cannot lay claim to even part of the rewards of observing the Torah until we have embraced it by believing fully what our sages have taught us. We must be convinced that unless we, the Jewish people, collectively will observe the Torah, we cannot for long survive successfully. Our continued existence is bound up with remaining loyal to the covenant G’d made with Avraham, our first patriarch. Our mode of conduct must be living testimony to the ongoing existence and benevolent interest of G’d in His people and mankind at large.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויהי בשלח פרעה....כי קרוב הוא, “It happened when Pharaoh had dismissed the people,… for it was near;” according to <i>Rashi,</i> the meaning of the words “for it was near,” is that it would afford too easy an opportunity for the people to return to Egypt. They would be tempted to do this if they had to face armed conflict.
      Nachmanides comments that if that were the meaning of the words כי קרוב הוא, the Torah should first have written the words כי אמר אלוקים , ”for G’d had said, etc.” The whole verse should then have read as follows:ולא נחם אלוקים דרך ארץ פלשתים כי אמר אלוקים כי קרוב הוא, לכן , “and G’d had not led them the route via the land of the Philistines, for He had said that even though it is nearer it is too easy to turn back from, therefore, etc.” It was better therefore to lead them on a more circuitous route as they would not then have the temptation to return to Egypt rather than face immediate armed conflict. [“the land of the Philistines” is a synonym for crossing any inhabited region which would be opposed by such inhabitants. Ed.] We find a similar construction in Psalms 41,5, רפאה נפשי כי חטאתי לך, “heal me for I have sinned against You.” Clearly, the meaning of the word כי could not be “for I have sinned against You,” but must be: “although I have sinned against You.” 
      Some commentators understand the words כי קרוב הוא as not describing something spatial, but as referring to timing. G’d meant that an immediate arrival at the borders of the land of Canaan would then occur before the fourth generation of Canaanites had forfeited the patience of G’d, so that He could legally deprive them of their land and give it to the Israelites. [the word קרוב בימינו, “soon in our days,” and many other such uses of the word קרוב for relating to something that would occur soon are too numerous to need to be quoted. Ed.]
      Yet another interpretation of the words כי קרוב הוא understands it as describing the political common interests of the Philistines and the Egyptians that would cause the former to help the Egyptians recapture their slaves.
      Still another approach to the words כי קרוב הוא, sees in them a reference to the devastating defeat suffered by 200,000 members of the tribe of Ephrayim, who thirty years earlier had decided that the 400 years that G’d had spoken about to Avraham were at an end, and who had decided on their own, to escape from Egypt and when approaching the land of the Philistines were annihilated by them. G’d did not want to risk re-awakening such memories by making the people travel that route. The very word כי with its numerical value of 30 is a veiled reminder to the reader what it is all about. Moreover, G’d feared that if the Israelites would get involved in war before the three days travel into the desert that they had been given permission for were up, and on account of their fear they would return to Egypt, the Egyptians would be willing to let them return, whereas once the three days had passed, even if for some reason other than war, they would decide to return to Egypt, the Egyptians would not welcome them, but treat them as traitors who had broken their word. Therefore, G’d wanted a situation to develop which would make a return to Egypt even more dangerous an undertaking for the people than facing uncertain dangers by moving ahead.
  
     בראותם מלחמה, “when they would face armed conflict.” <i>Rashi</i> understands this as a veiled reference to the war against Amalek and the Canaanites.
      Nachmanides writes that neither the war against the Amalekites nor that against the Canaanites would trigger a desire by the people to return to Egypt. The Amalekites had attacked the Israelites not because the Israelites threatened them, but because they represented a spiritual threat to their way of life. They would also have attacked the Israelites if they had decided to remain in the desert without looking for a homeland. G’d simply wanted any war to be delayed until the Israelites were so far away from Egypt, that returning to Egypt simply would not be a viable option. Facing war, or rather, avoiding war against the Philistines, would leave open the option of return to Egypt.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   וחמושים עלו בני ישראל, “and the Israelites were armed when they went up.” The Torah records that although G’d led the Israelites in the direction of the uninhabited desert, where normally no encounter with sizable hostile forces need to be anticipated, they were armed, enabling them to cope with such unforeseen eventualities. They were still afraid that the Philistines or neigbouring tribes might fight a war of aggression against them, as opposed to defending their territory’s sovereignty. Alternately, the phrase is meant to depict the Israelites as marching with full confidence, not as people with a slave mentality.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ויקח משה את עצמות יוסף עמו, “Moses took the earthly remains of Joseph with him.” Actually, the Torah should have written this verse already when reporting the very first move of the Israelites out of Ramses. (12,37) Why did the Torah report it as if belonging to the second day of the Israelites’ journeys? We may have to answer that whereas on the first day the Israelites took the remains of all the sons of Yaakov collectively, whereas only on the second day did they get around to separating Joseph’s coffin from those containing the remains of the other brothers.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   וה' הולך לפניהם, “and the Lord would walk in front of them, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that this verse is an example of the Torah using syntax man is familiar with, and the meaning is that the Divine power in the form of His messenger traveled with the Israelites.
      Nachmanides writes that he has mentioned on previous occasions that whenever we encounter the formulation וה', this always refers to <i>Hashem</i> together with the celestial court of Justice. The Torah narrates that G’d’s glory was enveloped in the cloud above the Israelites which would move continuously a short distance ahead of the main body. At night, the celestial court would be enveloped in the pillar of fire.
  
     להאיר להם, “in order to provide light for them.” These two clouds were needed to provide artificial light for them, as the Israelites being enveloped in these clouds, could not tell whether it was day or night beyond the clouds they saw.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   וחזקתי את לב פרעה, “I shall stiffen the heart of Pharaoh;” seeing that Pharaoh lately had become so humiliated, unless G’d would give him back some self-confidence, he would not dare to pursue the Israelites whom he himself had not only chased out, but had begged to offer prayers on his behalf. Without such Divine intervention, even if Pharaoh should have reached the conclusion that the Israelites had fled, he would not, in his present state of mind, have the audacity to mount a pursuit.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויוגד למלך מצרים כי ברח העם, “The King of Egypt was informed that the people had fled, etc.” He was told that wherever the Israelites went they left a trail of destruction; this convinced the King that they had no intention of returning.
      Alternately, the King was told that the people marched in a disorderly fashion, did not have a definitive objective; this persuaded the King that they had fled rather than set out on a prearranged goal where to observe the ritual they had spoken of
      Still another possibility is that the King was told that the people marched proudly, like victors, had made flags for themselves as a symbol of their independence, and behaved generally like a well organized body of people, not like a bunch of undisciplined slaves who would be coming back to their former masters.
      According to the <i>Midrash,</i> the King had dispatched messengers (spies) at the time the Israelites left, whose task it was to monitor their movements. <i>Rashi</i> quotes that <i>Midrash.</i> As soon as the three days of which Moses had spoken were up, these messengers reported back to Pharaoh that the people had not turned around, but kept moving further away from Egypt. The difficulty with this explanation is that the Israelites did turn back on the third day, so how did these messengers know that they did not intend to come back to Egypt? This would presuppose that they had gone in one direction only for two days, and if so how could the messengers know that they had no intention of returning to Egypt? They were not far enough away from their starting point to allow such a conclusion to be drawn at the end of the second day! Moreover, the same <i>Midrash</i> claims that Pharaoh and his chariots covered a distance of six days’ march in a single day’s pursuit and that they then caught up with the rear of the Israelites, seeing that the splitting of the sea occurred on the seventh day (21st Nissan)? However, the <i>Midrash</i> adds that on the first day the Israelites miraculously covered a distance of approximately 120 kilometers. This represents the distance a people normally travel in three days. Accordingly, Pharaoh did not receive the report until the evening of the fifth day, spent the 6th day chasing after the people. He caught up with them on the evening between the 20th and the 21st of Nissan. This is when the Israelites descended into the bottom of the sea that split for them.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויקח שש מאות רכב, “He took 600 chariots.” <i>Rashi,</i> basing himself on the <i>Mechilta,</i> in answering the question where Pharaoh took the horses from which pulled these chariots, seeing that all the livestock supposedly had been killed by the fifth plague of pestilence, points out that the Torah had reported that the livestock of the farmers who had heeded Moses’ warning, took their animals indoors, so that they survived that plague. This prompted Rabbi Shimon in <i>Tanchuma Beshalach 8</i> to coin the phrase that טוב שבגויים הרוג, “that the only good gentile is a dead one.” The Jerusalem Talmud limits the applicability of this proverb to periods when the gentiles are at war with us. The version there is that “the gentiles are considered as irrelevant.”
      According to this approach, when <i>Rashi</i> commented on our verse (9,20) that “the people who heeded G’d’s warning took their animals indoors,” this is not an appropriate comment, as any animals which at the time had not been outdoors for any reason were also saved, without their owners being rewarded for heeding G’d’s warning. Horses and mules, which are used for transporting humans, are generally kept in stables indoors so as to be at hand when their owners need them, so that the whole question of whence these animals came from appears superfluous.
  
     כל סוס רכב פרעה, “all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh.” Ibn Ezra says that the point made by the verse is that all these chariots traveled as a unit, not each one separately.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   וייראו מאד, “they were very much afraid.” Ibn Ezra expresses surprise that a body of 600,000 armed men such as the Israelites, should have displayed fear because an army of only 600 chariots pursued them. Why were these people not prepared to defend their lives and the lives of their children against this miniscule force of Egyptians?
      The answer is strictly psychological. All the Israelites had been raised from infancy to see in the Egyptians their natural masters, and to willingly bear the burden of being slaves to these masters. They had absolutely no knowledge of how to conduct a self defense. We have evidence from the encounter with Amalek, a small people. The Israelites who far outnumbered them, would have been lost if not for the support offered by the knowledge that Moses prayed for their victory. Eventually, this slave mentality caused the death of the whole generation who had left Egypt as adults, and only their children, who had not been slaves, could be relied upon to face the Canaanites in battle and not to run scared.
      If Ibn Ezra would have taken a look at the <i>Midrash, which</i> deals with the meaning of the words שלישים על כולם, he would have seen that the Israelites, at least according to that <i>Midrash,</i> were outnumbered by three Egyptians to each one of them. Some sages challenge Ibn Ezra, saying: “who told him that the Amalekites attacked with only a small army?”
  
     ויצעקו בני ישראל אל ה', “The Children of Israel cried out in supplication to <i>Hashem.”</i>
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ויאמרו אל משה המבלי אין קברים, “They said to Moses: ‘are there not enough burial places in Egypt, etc.?’” Nachmanides explains that it is clear that after the Israelites had pleaded for help to G’d, they would not immediately hereafter insult Him by the aforementioned cynical question, and by adding: ”what did You do to us by taking us out of Egypt?” We therefore must understand the verses here as reflecting the manner in which different groups of Israelites reacted to the imminent threat of annihilation which they faced. One group of Israelites resorted to prayer, another resorted to ridiculing the chance of a miracle being performed for them. Seeing that they did not believe in miraculous salvation they made peace with their impending death, but not before accusing Moses of instead of having been their redeemer having become their angel of death. It is this division among the people at that point in time to which the psalmist refers in Psalms 106,7 וימרו על ים בים סוף, “they rebelled at the sea, at the Sea of Reeds.” This is also why once the people are described as העם, “the people,” and once they are described as בני ישראל. The latter were the elite, few in number, who turned to G’d for help, the former were the masses whose attitudes were still not much different from what they had been while they were slaves and cynicism was the only weapon at their command. The people who were desperately afraid were therefore the “העם,” whom Moses told in verse 13 to stop acting so scared. This עם were the ones who are described after the event in verse 31 as “being in awe of <i>Hashem,</i> seeing that previously they had only made sarcastic remarks. The elite, i.e. the בני ישראל, did not need this education.
      In the <i>Mechilta</i> the sages explain that as a first step the people had prayed to G’d that Pharaoh should have a change of heart and should desist from pursuing them. When they noted that their prayer had not helped, they became heretical in their attitude, making above-mentioned sarcastic comments to Moses, blaming him for their present predicament.
  
     לקחתנו למות במדבר, “have you taken us to die in the desert?” Remarkably, they did not accuse Moses of letting them become victims of a losing battle against the Egyptians, but of dying a meaningless death. This pattern repeated itself in verse 12, i.e. ממותנו במדבר. They recalled that they had always been afraid of dying in the desert even if they would not come under attack by hostile armies.
      Nachmanides explains that the people made it plain that even if there were no danger of war, etc. they were dead set against going into the desert. They were simply afraid that in the desert they would perish from the results of thirst and hunger. It is perfectly possible that they had already voiced their misgivings as soon as Moses did not lead them the route which was well traveled and which would have taken them via the land of the Philistines. They may even have told Moses that the route via the land of the Philistines presented unacceptable, risks, as did the route which led straight to the sea of Reeds, and that any route requiring them to travel trough the desert was perhaps the greatest risk of all. [they were understandably of the opinion that having neutralized their former masters, it was their turn to be the rulers in Egypt. Ed.] They may have preferred death followed by burial, to death in the desert where no trace of their bodies and graves would ever remain.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   לא תוסיפו לראותם עוד, ”you will not ever again see the Egyptians in a threatening posture.” Nachmanides writes that according to our tradition it is a negative commandment applicable throughout the generations not to return to Egypt. Our verse must be understood as follows: “present yourself in an upright posture exuding confidence, and do not fear or appear to be afraid, for you will never again have reason to fear the Egyptians.”
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   מה תצעק אלי?, “what is the good of your crying out to Me?” Ibn Ezra points out that Moses had not been crying out, seeing G’d had already told him that He would bring severe judgments on Pharaoh and all those with him (verse 4). G’d meant: “what is the point of the Israelites crying out to Me?” Moses, in this instance, is addressed as the representative of the whole people who had been crying out.
      Nachmanides points out that if Ibn Ezra were correct, the people, not having been given the assurance that Moses had been given, would have been entitled to cry out. Why does G’d then criticize them? 
      Our sages comment that Moses was indeed crying out, i.e. offering an urgent prayer, something that was the appropriate thing to do under the circumstances. He prayed for guidance. As to the meaning of the line: מה תצעק אלי, G’d simply criticized the nature of the prayer Moses had offered. He told Moses that instead of uttering a sort of complaint, he should simply have asked G’d how to act in this new set of circumstances, a situation for which he had not been prepared. Seeing that I had given you an assurance that I would deal with Pharaoh, all you had to do was to ask for guidance how to act in this situation.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   הרם את מטך, “raise your rod!” Some commen-tators understand the word הרם as meaning the same as הסר, to remove, so that it would parallel the meaning of Ezekiel 21,31 הסיר המצנפת והרם העטרה, “remove the turban and lift off the crown!” G’d, according to this, told Moses to divest himself of his staff and to use his bare hand instead. i.e. to make it appear as hanging inactive by his side. This would also explain that in response (verse 21) Moses is described as ויט משה את ידו, “Moses inclined his hand.” Seeing that I have explained earlier that in most of the miracles Moses deviated somewhat from the literal meaning of the instruction he had received, unless the Torah writes ויעש כן, i.e. he did exactly as instructed, here too the line “he did as instructed” is missing. (compare Exodus 17, 6 and Numbers 8,3, the only time the Torah reports instructions as having been carried out precisely as given.) The Torah does not criticize Moses for departing slightly from the instructions received, [presumably because unless someone else had heard the instructions he had received, this would not be a desecration of the word of G’d. Ed]
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ויסע מלאך האלוקים ההולך לפני מחנה ישראל, “the angel of G’d who had been traveling in front of the camp of the Israelites, moved, etc.” Some commentators believe that the angel mentioned here was the one that manifested itself as the pillar of fire by night, in order to provide for the Israelites at night. The reason this pillar of fire is called “angel,” is that it descended from the celestial regions just as angels are in the habit of doing.
      During that night the angel took up position behind the Israelites, in order to protect them against the pursuing Egyptians who were closing in on them. As soon as the pillar of fire that had traveled ahead of them had changed position, the pillar of cloud also changed position on their account, taking up position behind them in order that the Egyptians would not be able to see exactly where the Israelites ahead of them were located. Instead of the pillar of cloud departing at night as it had been doing so far, on this occasion it remained “on duty,” but instead of in front of the people, behind them. It darkened the atmosphere making it harder for the Egyptians to see.
      Ibn Ezra describes the angel in question as the שר הגדול, the commander in chief of the celestial armies. He was usually accompanying the Israelites by “marching” in front of them. It is this angel that the Torah had had in mind when writing: “and the Lord was walking ahead of them by day, etc.” (verse 21)
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   וישקף ה' אל מחנה מצרים בעמוד אש וענן, “The Lord looked down at the camp of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and the cloud, etc.” The verse describes the removal of the pillar of fire that manifested itself daily at night in front of the Israelites, and, instead, positioned itself as an ”observer” over the camp of the Israelites, and the cloud was positioned in a manner that served the needs of the Israelites during the day.
  
     ויהם את מחנה מצרים, “He caused confusion in the camp of the Egyptians.” They did not know how to cope with the heat radiated from the pillar of fire.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויסר את אופן, “He removed the wheel, etc.” The reason why G’d removed only one wheel, i.e. אופן of each two-wheeled chariot, is that had He removed both wheels the chariot would have retained a balance though it could not have rolled. By removing only one of the wheels G’d created an imbalance that the riders found impossible to compensate for. 
      Ibn Ezra writes that the meaning of the words ויסר אופן, is that G’d loosened the wheel from the crossbar it was attached to and the link between the chariot and the horses pulling it. This would enable the horses to flee more easily. G’d’s having created confusion in the minds of both riders and horses worked against the efforts of both to escape to the relative safety of the shore. Every motion required the overcoming of obstacles, i.e. בכבדות.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   ויט משה את ידו על הים, “Moses stretched out his hand over the sea.”
      Nachmanides writes that it had been G’d’s will to split the sea by means of a strong easterly wind which would create the impression that the wind’s heat had dried out the sea. The result would be to deceive the Egyptians into thinking that they were facing a natural rather than a supernatural phenomenon, i.e. that the wind had dried out the sea.
      Rabbi Joseph Kimchi writes that these two verses appear to contradict one another, seeing that one verse makes it appear that the splitting of the sea was G’d’s doing, whereas the other verse makes it appear as if it had been a natural phenomenon. One can reconcile these two verses by positing that initially Moses split the sea by means of a miracle when he stretched out his staff, whereas the hot easterly wind blowing, dried out the bottom of the sea to make it passable. If that natural phenomenon, i.e. the wind, had not aided in the matter, the Israelites would likely have drowned in the bottom of the sea, as it was too muddy after so short a period to have dried out sufficiently. The correct interpretation of the verse therefore is as follows: “G’d made a powerful easterly wind blow across the sea all night long in order to dry out the mud at the bottom of the sea, seeing that the waters themselves had already been split by Moses.”
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   לכל חיל פרעה, “of Pharaoh’s entire army;” according to <i>Rashi</i> these words are superfluous, however, this is not an uncommon occurrence in our Scriptures.
      Nachmanides writes that in this instance these words are not superfluous, but that the meaning of the words לכל חיל פרעה is that part of the army described thus was the infantry, as opposed to the cavalry who were riding in chariots. The latter Pharaoh had taken with him immediately he heard about the Israelites having made a U turn at <i>Baal Tzefon</i>, whereas the infantry took longer to catch up with the cavalry. 
  
     לא נשאר בהם עד אחד, “not a single one of them survived.” Ibn Ezra explains this verse as he had explained in 9,7, i.e. “not even a single one.”
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ובני ישראל הלכו ביבשה בתוך הים, “and the Children of Israel walked in the midst of the sea on dry land.” Ibn Ezra writes that the Torah writes this a second time in order to inform us that while some Israelites were still in the dried out sea, at a location quite nearby, Pharaoh was already drowning in that same sea. This is a great miracle in itself, seeing that the easterly wind was still blowing on the part of the sea the Israelites were in the process of walking across on the dried out bed of the sea. At the same time, another wind was blowing melting the frozen waters so that they collapsed on top of the Egyptian army which was struggling, and the waters reversed their course and drowned them. Some of these events are reflected in the song of thanks by Moses and the Israelites in the chapter following.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   ויושע ה' ביום ההוא, “on that day the Lord saved Israel, etc.” until that point in time they had not really been saved, seeing that they were still in awe of Pharaoh.
  
     וירא ישראל את מצרים מת על שפת הים, “Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the shores of the sea.” The Torah does not speak here of the individual Egyptians whose bodies had not been swept back to shore by the waves of the sea. The word תבלעמו ארץ (15,12) means that the earth beneath the waves had swallowed those Egyptians once and for all. Rather the Torah refers to the Israelites standing on the shore of the sea witnessing the death of the Egyptians by drowning. While this is the plain meaning of the text, it does not conform with the interpretations offered by our sages.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   את היד הגדולה, “the great hand, etc.” Ibn Ezra understands the words as meaning “the great plague,” and refers us to Exodus 9,3 where the plague of pestilence is introduced as being יד ה'. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   אז ישיר, “Then Moses sang, etc.” According to <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> the Torah introduced the subject of man committing idolatry (Enosh) with the word אז (Genesis 4,26) and according to tradition G’d reacted with flooding one third of the surface of the earth. Moses, as an act of restoring G’d’s glory therefore commenced his song with the word אז, seeing this time the drowning of part of mankind had worked for the benefit of the Jewish people. 
      Another reason why he may have commenced his song with the word אז is because he himself had challenged G’d’s masterminding the history of His people by claiming thatמאז באתי אל פרעה, “ever since I came to Pharaoh (in Your name to lighten the burden of the Jewish people) he has made their burden harsher, etc”. (Exodus 5,23) It was Moses’ way of apologizing for having been too rash in criticizing G’d’s ways.
  
     כי גאה גאה, “for He is exalted above the arrogant.” He is higher than the horse which deems itself to be above all those around it as well as its rider, who has a feeling of superiority, arrogance.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   עזי וזמרת י-ה, “My might and His cutting down.” Ibn Ezra says that the word עזי is part of what precedes it, as well as part of what follows it, as if the Torah had written עזי וזמרת עזי י-ה וגו', so that its meaning would be “my power, and my glory with which I sing a song of praise to Him is directed exclusively in His praise. It is only He Who has been my salvation.”
  
     זה א-לי ואנוהו, “this is my G’d and I will erect a residence for Him (on earth).” He is my strength and I will enthrone Him in an appropriate residence.” This has also been the G’d of my father and I will aggrandize Him by telling of His exploits. Our sages say that the visions revealed to a simple kitchen maid at the crossing of the sea of Reeds exceeded by far the revelations that the prophet Ezekiel and other prophets were granted. [our author adds of his own that the visions granted to these other prophets compared to what the kitchen maid saw, compare to someone seeing the finger of a person as opposed to someone who sees the whole person. Ed.]
      According to the plain meaning of the text it is perfectly in order to use the descriptive word זה for something inherently invisible, just as the people who demanded from Aaron that he make them a visible image for “this man Moses, etc.” when Moses was presumed to have died on Mount Sinai and was quite invisible. (Exodus 32,1)
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ימינך ה' נאדרי בכח, “Your right hand <i>Hashem</i> is glorified with strength.” According to <i>Rashi</i> [who offers three explanations of this phrase, the one he calls the plain meaning, Ed.] is that the same right hand that is exalted by beautiful strength, is also the very hand which smashes the enemy when the need arises.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   וברוב גאונך, “and in Your abundant grandeur, etc.” a grandeur superior to anything known on earth, You are able to destroy anyone and anything that might want to offer opposition to You.”
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   אמר אויב ארדוף אשיג, “the enemy had said: “I will pursue and catch up, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> says that Moses quoted the words used by Pharaoh to encourage his people to join him in pursuit of the Israelites. This is also the understanding of our verse by Onkelos who translates אשיג as סגאה, progressing, marching.     Nachmanides writes that it seems to him that the verse, basically, is a repetition of the theme of the beginning previous verse and does not refer to the decision made in Egypt to pursue the Israelites, but to the decision made at the sea to enter into the sea that had been split and stood like walls of ice. Pharaoh ignored or misinterpreted G’d’s having worked this miracle and that it was reversible and that these very waters would spell their doom. The end of verse 8 had explained that the whole phenomenon was an outgrowth and demonstration of G’d’s anger at the Egyptians.   
  
  Verse 10
  
   נשפת ברוחך, “You blew with Your wind.” Ibn Ezra, pointing out that the meaning of the root נשף is used to describe the evening, claims that G’d’s making the walls of frozen waters collapse was caused by a wind blowing in the evening.      My sainted father, the רא'ש, said that the reason that the Torah wrote the line וברוח אפיך נערמו מים before, while here the Torah writes נשפת ברוחך, [two phrases describing activities of רוח, Ed.] is intended to make the miracle appear as even greater than meets the eye at first glance. אף and רוח אף always suggests something hot. Anger is the result of a person becoming “heated.” When the result is that water turns to ice, as was the case here, this is an even greater anomaly. On the other hand, the רוח הפה, [the רוח associated with נשף without the word אף nose, is the exhaling which is an integral part of speech. Ed.] dissolved these ice-cubes. 
     צללו כעופרת, “they sank like lead.” They descended into the depths as if they had been lumps of lead. The reason Moses makes mention of this is to tell us that this was a deliberate act of G’d. Although many of the Egyptians did know how to swim, this did not help them at all. No doubt many of them were quite near the shore when all this happened, and yet, not a single one of them managed to escape. Most horsemen would normally be able to save themselves in such conditions, as horses float on the surface of the water, but on this occasion not a single one did. This is the meaning of the line וינער ה' את מצרים בתוך הים, “the Lord poured the Egyptians into the middle of the sea.” (14,28) 
  
  Verse 11
  
   מי כמוך באלים, “who is comparable to You among the celestial powers?” <i>Rashi</i> simply explains the word אלים as חזקים, powerful terrestrial forces.
      Nachmanides writes that while it is true that this is generally the meaning of the word חזקים, in this verse, seeing that the comparison has been made to the Lord, there would be no point if the Torah would only describe the Lord as mightier than terrestrial forces; ordinary celestial forces are known as אלים as opposed to the Lord Who is described as אל עליון, the supreme celestial force. Rather, Moses compares G’d as superior to the mightiest angels.
  
     מי כמוך נאדר בקודש, “who is comparable to You, mighty in holiness.” In the domain of holiness there is no one who can compare to You.
  
     נורא תהלות, “too awesome for praise.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that G’d is too awesome for us to begin praising him, lest we omit some praises and become guilty of belittling Him.
      Nachmanides explains that being awesome in praise means being praised for having performed awesome deeds. The reason why Moses chooses these comparisons is because this is the way Kings of flesh and blood are praised. We do not possess the yardsticks to praise G’d in terms of celestial norms, seeing we have no access to that region. What is described is that G’d is praised by people who observe how He pays back people who have oppressed others and treated them violently.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   נטית ימינך תבלעמו ארץ, “as soon as You stretched out Your right hand, the earth swallowed them.” Our sages deduce from this that all the people drowned in the sea did enjoy the privilege of being brought to burial.
      Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning the words “hand” and “right” being stretched, do not imply that these organs are necessarily being used in the execution of vengeance. Therefore, it appears that we need to understand what happened as the Egyptians first being drowned and their bodies then being tossed on to the shore as is customary in cases of bodies drowning in the sea. The earth of the dry land, not the bottom of the sea, then swallowed these corpses so that in the end “dust returned to dust.” Although no grave diggers were involved, the surface of the earth after the dissolution of the bodies of these drowned Egyptians could not be told apart from the way it had looked before this had occurred.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   נחית בחסדך עם זו גאלת, “In Your kindness You have guided this nation whom You have redeemed.” Ibn Ezra mentions that the past mode employed by Moses here about events that have not yet happened, is typical of the usage of future events that are being described by prophets, as they consider the future as real as the past.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   תפול עליהם אימתה ופחד, “fear and trembling gripped hold of them.” According to Ibn Ezra the words תפול עליהם do no refer to the Canaanites, even though they were relatively close to the Israelites, but they refer to the Edomites. Ibn Ezra’s argument is supported from the verse following where the leaders of the Kingdom of Edom are described as confused, frightened. Moses tells us this so that we should know that when the Israelites did not engage in battle with Edom when that kingdom refused the Israelites passage trough its territory, the reason was not that the Israelites were afraid, they knew well that the Edomites’. posture was only for show. The reason the Israelites detoured around the territory of Edom was that G’d had commanded them to. (Numbers Numbers 20,14-21) The Edomites had legitimate reason to fear the Israelites, as their land lay squarely on the route the Israelites now set out to travel. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ה' ימלוך לעולם ועד, “The Lord will rule forever more.” The meaning is that at this time <i>Hashem</i> had demonstrated that He is the true ruler in this universe. He can take care of all those that serve Him, and He can dispose of all those that oppose Him.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   כי בא סוס פרעה, “for when Pharaoh’s cavalry came, etc.” Ibn Ezra claims that this verse is still part of Moses’ victory song of praise to the Lord, and that the whole people sang this verse with him also. 
      Nachmanides claims that this is not correct, for it is not styled in the poetic manner the previous verses have been styled, and it does not contain any element of prophesy. He also claims that Moses had composed and sung the <i>Shirah</i> on the same day as the Israelites had emerged from the sea bed, and that he had not waited until the day following. [He seems to imply that according to Ibn Ezra the song was composed on the day after the miracle. Ed.]
      According to Nachmanides the words:אז ישיר משה לבני ישראל כי בא סוס פרעה וו' need to be understood as one sentence, the poem being inserted between these two halves of one verse. Alternatively, “after Pharaoh and all his army had drowned in the sea while the Israelites were still marching on the bed of the dried out sea, Moses already began this song.” Accordingly, upon hearing this, Miriam immediately took the drum, etc, and continued leading the women in song.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   אחות אהרן, “Aaron’s sister.” The reason Miriam is described thus is because both Moses and Miriam had already been mentioned in a “single breath,” as it were in connection with the song, the Torah looked for a way to also have Aaron mentioned in this context. It was a way of giving honour to Aaron, her older brother. After all, Aaron too possessed the rank of being a prophet. It is also possible that it is the norm of Torah verses to relate women to their brothers, as for instance in Genesis 36,22 ואחות לוטן תמנע, “Timna was Lotan’s sister.”
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויסע משה, “Moses caused Israel to journey, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that originally the cloud used to travel in front of the Israelites and the pillar of fire would travel behind them.
       After the Egyptians had been drowned, and the people no longer were in a state of fear from pursuers, and they no longer traveled at night also, the cloud departed and Moses instructed the people which way to move forward in accordance with directions he received directly from G’d. There were only 6 journeys all the way to Mount Sinai. The climate at that time of year was pleasant in that region, neither too cold nor too dry so that those that did not have tents of their own did not even need tents to sleep in at night. When they came to the region of Mount Sinai they made tents for themselves, as they expected to remain in the same location for a number of nights until the Tabernacle would be ready. [According to the Torah’s report they remained encamped at Mount Sinai for 11 months and 20 days. Ed.] Moses had informed them that they would remain there until the Tabernacle would be built. This was the reason why they had brought the <i>shittim</i> beams with them out of Egypt. In order to provide a visible symbol of these, Moses commanded them to construct the huts on the <i>Sukkot</i> festival, as the Torah says in Leviticus 23,43 כי בסוכות הושבתי את בני ישראל, “For I have house the Israelites in huts, etc.” They certainly could not very well have dwelled in the clouds for all this time. [a reference to the tradition that the Israelites “dwelled” in tents in the desert. Ed.] There is no comparison between “huts” and “clouds.” Once the Tabernacle had been constructed, G’d made a cloud take up position above that Tabernacle. (compare Exodus 40,38 “for the cloud of the Lord would be above the Tabernacle by day, and fire would be on it at night, before the eyes of all of the Children of Israel throughout their journeys.”)
      Whenever the cloud would move, this was the signal for the Israelites to commence journeying once they had left Mount Sinai, and this is why the Torah describes two pillars traveling with the Israelites, one by day and one by night. These two pillars would alternate with one another by day and by night respectively. If the report is based on historical tradition that these clouds were identical with the ones commonly known as the ענני הכבוד, the clouds proving the Presence of a Divine Presence, שכינה, we will abandon our rational approach to the subject and accept that tradition.
      Our sages explain the unusual wordויסע as proof that Moses had to make the Israelites travel in the direction of the desert against their will. One reason was that the loot they garnered at the sea was many times more than what they had taken with them from Egypt.
      Other commentators hold that this was not a criticism of the Israelites, but a compliment to them; they had been so enthralled by the spiritual uplift during their miraculous salvation that it had caused them to exclaim “this is My G’d, let me build Him an appropriate residence,” (15,2) that they could not entertain the thought of leaving a location where they had such a wonderful vision.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויורהו ה' עץ, “<i>Hashem</i> showed him a tree.” Nachmanides writes: seeing that I do not know of a single instance in which the root להורות means something other than “to teach, to instruct,” (as in Proverbs 4,4 and all other examples) I believe that according to the plain meaning of the text the tree the Torah speaks about here would convert bracken water into sweet water upon contact. This was a beneficial property of that kind of wood, a phenomenon found in nature. G’d taught Moses some lesson in botany.
      According to our sages we are dealing with a miracle, in fact a miracle within a miracle, as the instrument used to perform it was naturally bitter instead of sweet. G’d either told Moses where to find this marvelous tree, or He invented it for the purpose of the miracle.
  
     שם שם לו חוק ומשפט ושם נסהו, “there He established a decree and ordinance for His people, and there He subjected it to a test of faith.” According to <i>Rashi</i> [based on the Talmud <i>Sanhedrin</i> 56.Ed.] the Jewish people were given a partial list of the laws pertaining to the observance of the Sabbath, the commandment to honour father and mother, purification rites by means of the red heifer, and a number of laws governing inter-personal relations.
      Nachmanides wonders why the Torah would not have spelled out some specifics, introducing them by the time honoured introduction: “G’d said to Moses, ‘say to the Children of Israel, etc.?’” According to the wording in <i>Rashi</i> it appears that Moses taught the people laws that would later on be revealed to them as part of the Torah, and he did it in a manner similar to Avraham, who is reputed to have known all the laws of the Torah. What he did when he taught his converts was to teach them what he knew to be the wishes of G’d in his respect. Neither Avraham nor Moses had at that time been authorized to reveal these laws as already being operative, and in the case of Moses, having done so would have robbed the revelation at Mount Sinai of part of its momentum. The reason why the Torah adds that this was in the nature of a test of their faith, was that G’d/Moses tested the reaction of the people to such laws, and if they welcomed them with joy.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, upon entering the desert, Moses asked himself by which rules he should lead the Israelites pending their arrival in the promised land, at which time the entire Torah would become applicable. Rules of behaviour are generally known as חק, statute. One example of the use of that word in this context is found in Proverbs 30,8 הטריפני לחם חוקי, “feed me with the bread allotted to me.” משפט, on the other hand, is the term used to describe generally acceptable conduct, as in Samuel I
      Alternatively, the meaning of the expression ושם נסהו, refers to the all the tribulations which wandering in the desert involved, especially to test if the people were willing to put up with the discomforts and deprivations without complaining. In this context the word משפט would mean that the people would understand and willingly submit to the need to love their neighbours, honour the aged, be modest and undemanding in their general behaviour, and be welcoming to people who came to the camp to offer their wares to the Israelites. 
  
     ושם נסהו, the Torah recorded that G’d deliberately led the people into regions which lacked basic survival needs, and when He brought them to a place that had water, the water turned out to be unfit to drink. All this is part of “being tested.” Moses referred to this at the end of forty years, when he said: ויענך וירעיבך, “He subjected you to oppressive conditions and He starved you.” (Deut. 8,3) G’d did so in order that the people should better appreciate how He responded to their complaints, and provided constant comforts for them.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ויאמר אם שמוע תשמע, “He said: ‘if you will surely listen, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra this formulation means: “if you will endeavour to understand the rationale underlying the legislation, etc.”
  
     והישר בעיניו תעשה, “and you will do what is right in His eyes, etc.” A reference to the positive commandments.
  
     והאזנת למצוויו, “and you will give ear to His commandments;” a reference to the negative command-ments.
      In the <i>Mechilta</i> the words והישר בעיניו תעשה, are understood as a reference to “your business ethics,” the reason being that anyone who practices fair business ethics will be beloved both by his peers as well as by his G’d. He is perceived as having observed the entire Torah.
  
     כי אני ה' רופאך, “for I the Lord, am your healer.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the previous lines can be summed up as if a person would introduce himself to his patient as a doctor, and would tell him that as long as he would obey his warnings not to eat certain foods, etc., he would not need to be concerned about contracting certain illnesses.
      Nachmanides disagrees, saying that this is not the straightforward meaning of these verses at all. The reason why he disagrees is that it is not the nature of a master to assure his servants that if they perform their duties he would not strike them with a fatal disease. There cannot be found a single parallel in the entire Torah which substantiates that this is the type of assurance G’d hands out to His subjects. What our verse does portray is the assurance that if the Jewish people, as opposed to the Egyptians, will hearken to the instructions of G’d, they will not be struck down as had the Egyptians who had maintained a consistently rebellious posture against G’d. G’d confirms this with the words: “for I am the Lord your healer,” making the point that all the diseases which struck the Egyptians were not due to the caprice of natural forces, but to the active intervention of G’d against people who refused to obey His instructions. G’d goes beyond this, promising that in response to the people’s obedience He would even heal those afflictions which would be the result of the caprice of natural forces in the universe.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the first miracle confirming what G’d had just said was the changing of bitter water to drinkable sweet water, which was the exact reversal of the first of the ten plagues that had changed life-sustaining drinking water to blood. It is G’d’s ability to be effective both by doing one thing and by doing its opposite, which makes Him so unique. This is why you are well advised to always be in awe of Him, not rebel against Him so that He will not quarrel with you. Moreover, you have every reason to love Him, for He will prove benevolent to you, just as He did when He cured the bitter waters.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   ושם שתים עשרה עינות מים ושבעים תמרים, “and there were 12 wells of water there as well as 70 date palms.” 
      Nachmanides holds that this was not something so special, as there are may oases in the desert where sweet water wells are found, wells that are surrounded by fruit-bearing palm trees. 
      <i>Rashi</i> writes that the number 12 is allegorically significant, as it represents a separate well of water for each of the 12 tribes. The number 70, i.e. seventy palm trees, is a hint at the 70 elders.
      I do not know whether <i>Rashi</i> meant to imply that the wells, their number, and the palm trees, as well as their number were phenomena that came into being miraculously for that occasion. There is even a commentary on our verse in the <i>Mechilta</i> that both phenomena had been created during the six days of creation and that they had awaited being able to serve a useful purpose until that time.
      Ibn Ezra is of the opinion that our verse simply tells us that after having encountered an oasis that had first been disappointing, the waters having been bracken, now they found an oasis that offered all the advantages commonly associated with such places in the midst of a desert. When they saw the date palms they knew immediately that the wells provided drinking water, as otherwise the date palms could not have grown there successfully.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויסעו מאלים ויבואו...מדבר סין,”they journeyed from Eylim….and they arrived in the desert of Sin.” Nachmanides writes that the Torah in this instance uses a form of abbreviation, seeing that when they departed from Eylim they had been at a location on the shores of the Sea of Reeds, and they now moved inland to the desert of Sin. The desert of Sin is a large desert extending from the sea until the edge of the desert of Sinai. There were several stations where the Israelites made camp on the way, which, however, were not mentioned at this point. [only in Numbers Ed.] According to a tradition mentioned by our sages, the manna fist descended when the Israelites were encamped at <i>Alush</i>, the second stop in the desert of Sin. The need for the manna was triggered by the fact that at <i>Alush</i> they encamped already for a second time without making any noticeable progress toward their ultimate objective. As a result, the people expressed their dissatisfaction. By describing the people’s complaint as occurring במדבר, the Torah hints that they did not complain on arrival at the first station in the desert, but at a later stage.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   וילונו כל עדת בני ישראל, “The entire community of the Children of Israel complained, etc.”
      Ibn Ezra writes that at <i>Marah</i> only a small section of the people the people had complained, the Torah writing:וילונו העם על משה, ”the people” as opposed to כל עדת בני ישראל, “the whole community of the Children of Israel,” i.e. including the elite of the people. At that point they also complained to Aaron.
      Nachmanides writes that actually the Torah should have written the reason for the people’s complaint, such as that there was no meat to eat, and that there was not enough bread to satisfy their needs, as the Torah had done both when they complained at <i>Refidim</i> and when they complained at <i>Marah</i>.
      <i>Rashi</i> writes that when the Torah mentions that this station occurred on the 15th day of the second month, i.e. exactly a month after their departure from <i>Ramses</i>, this was the day that the dough that they had brought with them from Egypt that had been baked on the way into unleavened bread, ran out. This made it superfluous for the Torah to spell out the nature of their complaint.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why the Torah mentions the date is to inform us that already a whole month had passed since the people had left Egypt. During that entire period they had subsisted on the bread they had with them and on the meat of the large herds of cattle and sheep they had brought with them. Now they faced real deprivations.
      Personally, I think that the complaints were sparked by the realization of the Israelites now that they would not be marching along well-traveled routes, encountering towns and villages along the way, but they were headed deeper and deeper into an arid unpopulated desert. The word במדבר in our verse does not so much describe a specific location as the cause for their complaints. The very fact that they kept moving further and further into the desert led them to accuse Moses and Aaron that they had been brought there to die in the desert. If they had to die, they would have preferred to die in a place where they could have been buried with dignity. They spelled all this out when they said: “you have taken us out into this desert to kill this whole community by letting them starve to death.” G’d immediately listened to their complaint and set about to prepare food for them for the duration of their stay in the desert.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   הנני ממטיר לכם, “I am ready to make it rain down for you, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra the reason why the Torah uses the word ממטיר, a word associated with rainfall, not with solids, was that seeing that the manna originated in the celestial regions it had that much in common with rainfall. At first glance, the people thought that what was descending was rain. [This seems strange, as it descended during the night when the people were asleep, and they only found it in the morning, unsuspecting. Ed.]
      Nachmanides writes that we find the expression ממטיר associated with the wicked people, such as the wicked people of Sodom, for instance, upon whom G’d rained down fire and brimstone. Perhaps we must assume that there the expression המטיר was used as the harmful substances described were accompanied by normal rainfall.
      Onkelos is of the opinion that the word המטיר describes anything in the process of falling, regardless if the substance is welcome or unwelcome. He translates the words הנני ממטיר as הא אנא מחית, “I make descend.”
  
     לחם, “bread.” It is described as “bread” seeing that this is what the people tried to make it substitute for. Every kind of פת is called לחם, not only baked goods made from wheat or barley. We also encounter the term עוגות as describing bread, as in Genesis 18,6, and Numbers The term ממטיר is justified, as the Torah describes ingredients which rained down which would subsequently be converted into bread. Our benediction over bread is המוציא לחם מן הארץ, which also does not mean that G’d produces ready-made bread as emerging from the earth, but we thank Him for having the earth produce ingredients fit to convert into bread, i. e .the staff of life.
      Some commentators claim that the word לחם does not refer specifically to bread, but to food in general, and G’d was saying to Moses that the people’s food would rain down from the heaven. The meat G’d was going to provide was also included in the line הנני ממטיר לכם לחם מן השמים. We encounter the expression לחם אשה, “food being burned up on the altar,” many times, and it never refers to bread, but to sacrificial meat. (compare Leviticus 3,11; 3,16; Numbers 28,2) Both the <i>selav</i> and the <i>manna</i> materialized for the people as if dropped literally from “heaven.” For some reason, G’d enlarged on the gift of the manna, which was a necessity, whereas He did not elaborate on the <i>selav,</i> which was a luxury.
  
     למען אנסנו, “so that I may test it,” (the people) According to <i>Rashi</i> the test would consist of seeing if the people would indeed observe the rules laid down by G’d in connection with this food.
      According to Nachmanides the test consisted of the fact that the people would be left without food that could be stored against future shortages, so that they would be dependent on G’d’s largesse literally from hour to hour. Except for Fridays, they would never receive more than a day’s ration, and anyone trying to put some aside would find that it simply rotted. Anyone would be heard asking “what am I going to eat tomorrow?” would be considered as lacking in faith.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ובוקר וראיתם את כבוד ה', “and in the morning you will see the glory of <i>Hashem.”</i> This verse does not refer to the manifestation of G’d’s glory in the shape of the ענני הכבוד the clouds of glory, something that accompanied them on a regular and daily basis. Aaron’s addressing the people advising them of all this (verse 10) occurred on the very same day, and suddenly an additional aspect of G’d’s glory appeared, framed by the cloud. G’d’s benevolence was visible in that the people received the first day’s <i>manna</i> portion during the day when there was still time to prepare it into food before evening. [according to <i>Rashi,</i> based on the <i>Mechilta</i> we need to understand the word בוקר here as an expression of visible goodwill, as opposed to the <i>selav</i> which was supplied in the “evening,” i.e. reluctantly, seeing that it was a luxury, not a necessity, and the people should not have demanded it. Ed.]
      Nachmanides writes that <i>Rashi’s</i> explanation cannot be correct as the Torah specifically wrote that the manifestation of G’d’s glory would take place in the morning, בבוקר. Seeing the <i>manna</i> was not a manifestation of G’d’s glory, but the fact that G’d had created a special food for His special people was such a manifestation.
      According to Ibn Ezra the words ובוקר וראיתם do not belong to what follows, but to what had been written previously, i.e. seeing that the people had accused Moses and Aaron of having led them out of Egypt to die in the desert, G’d was going to prove to them how wrong they had been in making such an accusation against Moses and Aaron. They would see evidence, both in the evening and on the following morning, that not Moses and Aaron but <i>Hashem</i> had taken them out of Egypt. The <i>manna,</i> something new in the world, was appropriately revealed in the morning, when a “new” day breaks forth. The word ובוקר is quite separate from the word וראיתם. The fact that G’d’s glory became visible in full daylight was something extraordinary, also.
      Nachmanides writes that the <i>manna</i> was indeed a great miracle, as opposed to the <i>selav,</i> whose appearance in such quantities was remarkable indeed, but it materialized by natural means, i.e. it was the wind that brought the birds. Moreover, the birds had existed and were part of nature, as opposed to the <i>manna</i> which had neither existed nor been sent by natural means, for <i>manna</i> dropping from heaven is not the same as rain falling from the sky. According to our sages in the 5th chapter of <i>Avot,</i> Manna was one of the items created during the dusk of the sixth day of creation, and preserved in a state of suspended animation up until the Jewish people were in need of it during their wanderings in the desert. No wonder that Moses used quite different language in describing the <i>selav</i> that would arrive toward evening, and the <i>manna</i> that the people would experience on the following morning. Experiencing the latter for the first time, was indeed an overwhelming manifestation of the glory of <i>Hashem</i> becoming visible to man. 
      Our sages, in referring to the <i>manna</i> as לחם אבירים, hinted that this was the food that the ministering angels in the celestial spheres depend on for their sustenance. They did not mean this in a literal sense, but they drew a comparison between the angels and the Israelites during those years, saying that just as the sustenance of the angels is their proximity to the radiation of the waves of <i>Hashem’s</i> presence, so the Israelites in the desert were kept alive in body and spirit by this visible manifestation that <i>Hashem</i> was close to each one of them.
  
     ונחנו מה, “and what are we (worth)?” Ibn Ezra comments on this rhetorical question that Moses and Aaron referred to their total impotence in influencing events, indicating that they were merely tools in the hands of <i>Hashem.</i> These words reflect the psalmist saying: מה אדם כי תדעהו, “what is the value of man that You should bother to become intimately familiar with him?” (Psalms 144,3)
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויאמר משה בתת ה' לכם בערב בשר, “Moses said: ‘when the Lord gives you meat in the evening, etc’.” the Torah reverts back to explaining more details about the line “in the evening you will know that <i>Hashem</i> took you out of Egypt by His giving you meat in the evening and bread in the morning, etc.”
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   דבר אל בני ישראל לאמור בין הערבים תאכלו בשר, “speak to the Children of Israel, saying that ‘in the evening you will eat meat, etc.’” Nachmanides writes that what Moses is instructed to say here has already been recorded previously. The reason why it has been repeated here once more is because G’d had stated (verse 4) that He would rain bread from the heavens as if this would be the first item of the agenda and as if He would perform an act of kindness for the people, something not related at all to the people’s complaints. Now, the Torah relates that the people’s conduct in complaining was considered sinful, and that <i>Hashem</i> would do what He was going to do only in response to their complaint. He would do so in order to demonstrate how unjustified their complaint against Moses and Aaron had been. 
      It is possible that originally, G’d had not promised that the supply of <i>manna</i> would be for the duration of their journey through the desert, and that the people had believed that this would be a short-term solution of their problems, lasting possibly only for a few days, and that the miracle involved was somehow tied only to that particular location. Now, we hear more details, including the announcement of the meat they would eat in the evening, i.e. as a regular diet every evening, and that in the morning they would receive heavenly bread on a regular basis. It is the opinion of our sages that just as the people had <i>manna</i> every morning so they had the <i>selav</i> every evening. The reason why the Torah gives many more details about the <i>manna</i> than about the <i>selav,</i> is that the former was supernatural, incomparable to phenomena that exist on earth. 
      This leaves us with the question that if the Israelites actually had a meat diet on a daily basis, what brought on the demand for meat in Numbers 11 and the supply of <i>selav</i> there as a result of which thousands of Israelites died due to overindulging, and the location was named קברות התאוה, ”the burial sites due to craving?”
      Very possibly, the supply of s<i>elav</i> prior to what is described as a surfeit in Numbers chapters 11 and 12, was meager, not nearly enough to satisfy large numbers of the people. By mentioning that the supply of bread in the morning would be לשובע, sufficient to satiate, and failing to make a similar comment regarding the s<i>elav</i>, the Torah indicated that there would be a quantitative difference between the supply of bread and the supply of meat. Perhaps only the pious Israelites collected <i>selav</i> on a regular basis. It is also noteworthy that when Israelites in Numbers are described as weeping over the absence of meat, the Torah never mentioned that the people at large indulged in weeping over the absence of meat, only some did, i.e. some בני ישראל of the elite, and all of the rabble were the most dissatisfied. (Numbers 11,4) On that occasion, and presumably on that occasion only, G’d supplied meat in such quantities that the whole people were literally swamped by meat. 
      According to the plain meaning of the text, supply of meat on both occasions was on a strictly temporary basis, whereas the supply of heavenly bread became a daily norm. The people’s principal complaint had been that Moses and Aaron had taken them into the desert to die by hunger.
      It is also possible that Moses had told the people originally that they would be provided for, but that they had not believed him. The reason they did not believe him then was that he had not referred to G’d doing the providing. Only after Moses and Aaron had made it plain by saying נחנו מה that they had not meant to imply that they would do the providing, and had promised the people that they would see the glory of G’d in action, as it were, did the people become convinced that their problems would be solved.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ותעל שכבת הטל, “a layer of dew ascended;” Ibn Ezra explains that the word means (here) that the dew while dissolving into the atmosphere, revealed what was below it, i.e. a layer of <i>manna.</i> The word תעלני appears in a similar context when David asks not to die before his time, i.e. Psalms 102,25, אל תעלני בחצי ימי, “do not let me ascend to the celestial regions prematurely.”
  
     דק מחוספס, “something thin, exposed;” some commen-tators explain the word מחוספס as something globular, however there is no similar word in Scriptures to which we could compare this expression. Onkelos translates it as something visible through exposure. It would be similar to Genesis 30,37 מחשף הלבן, “exposing the white beneath.”
  
     דק ככפור על הארץ, “thin as the frost on the ground.” Onkelos translates it as above.
      <i>Rashi</i> claims that when Onkelos adds the word גיר this is not a translation of a word that appears in the text, but a word used to illustrate the meaning of כפור. In Isaiah 27,9 we find the expression אבני גיר, the prophet describing the black colour of those stones
      Nachmanides writes that גיר, “chalk,” in Hebrew, is not black but white, and that the Torah describes this white colour as sticking to the white limestone, the ones use to grind into what is used in whitewash, but that this exterior is even whiter than the whiteness of the chalk stones themselves. This thin layer appeared to stick to the <i>manna</i> in the manner of a layer of frost. He goes on to draw a comparison between the word כפור, hoary frost, and the word כופר, the insulating, waterproofing material G’d told Noach to employ both on the outside and the inside of the ark. (Genesis 6,14) The common denominator between both words would be that they describe material that is pasted on to seal something off and protect it against harmful substances penetrating it. The word כפור is also understood as being analogous to כאפר, “like ash,” i.e. extremely small particles such as the particles of ash. [the smaller each particle, the more easy it is to create a waterproof and even airproof protective layer made from that substance. Ed.] Hoary frost found on the ground in the early mornings is such an impenetrable substance until it melts.
      There are some other versions where the word דק does not appear but the word is כעדק דגיר, when the connection to the word גלידא as חמרים, small little heaps of frozen water or snow is so much more obvious. This is probably a truer version of Onkelos. 
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויאמרו איש אל אחיו מן הוא?, they said to one another: ”what is it?” some commentators believe that the word מן is derived from the root מנה as in Daniel 1,10 מנה את מאכלכם, “he has provided your food,” although here the word appears in the text before Moses had told the people that this was to serve as their bread.
      Other commentators link the word to the expression מנה אחת אפים, “a gift of SPECIAL value.” (Samuel I 1,5) The final letter ה is missing in the word מן, according to that interpretation.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   עומר לגלגולת, “one <i>omer</i> (measure) per head.” According to Ibn Ezra this was the amount intended for an adult, whereas there would be a commensurably smaller amount for each child, an amount that would correspond to the nutritional needs of each child.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויעשו כן, “they did accordingly.” According to the plain meaning of the text, each collector gathered in accordance with the quantity appropriate for the number of people that were part of his household. Our sages say that something miraculous happened, i.e. that even people who had misjudged the quantity they thought they needed, found out when they returned to their respective tents or huts that they had collected exactly the amount appropriate for their respective families.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   אל יותר ממנו, “do not leave any leftovers from it.” Moses meant that no one should deliberately leave over from his portion meaning to eat the leftover on the day following. He did not mean that it was compulsory to eat up his whole portion. Anyone who found it impossible to eat up his entire portion was supposed to throw the leftover into the garbage.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   וירם תולעים ויבאש, “it became infested with worms and stank.” <i>Rashi</i> claims that the Torah reports matters in inverted order, i.e. that it began to stink before worms infested it. He bases himself on the following sequence (16,24) ולא הבאיש ורמה לא היתה בו “it did not cause a stink, and had not produced worms.” 
      Nachmanides writes that <i>Rashi</i> would be correct if matters had occurred in a natural sequence. Seeing that nothing connected to the <i>manna</i> could be judged by phenomena we are familiar with in our world, there is nothing strange in the Torah also reporting the process of <i>manna</i> going to rot as not conforming to natural phenomena. The reason why G’d arranged for the sequence of decomposition followed by stench, followed by worms, to be reversed, was that had the usual sequence been followed the stench during the night would already have alerted the Israelites and they would have discarded all the leftover <i>manna</i> immediately. In such an event Moses would not have any chance to vent his anger on those people who had disobeyed his instructions. By writing the inverted sequence on one occasion and the normal sequence on the other occasion, the Torah refers to this very point that we are dealing with another supernatural phenomenon and makes this quite clear.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויהי ביום הששי לקטו לחם משנה, “when it came to Friday, they found that they had collected a double measure of bread.” Our sages interpret the wording of this verse as proving that only after the people collecting <i>manna</i> had returned to their respective tents, did they become aware that they had gathered twice the normal quantity. At that point Moses had not yet informed them of this. 
      Ibn Ezra claims that according to the plain meaning of the text Moses had instructed them to collect double the usual amount; he uses the words לקטו ממנו, “they collected of it, etc.” to prove his point. Had the matter been a miracle, the Torah would have described their activity on that day as something they had ”found,” as opposed to something that they had expected to be there. As it was, the princes told Moses that the people had done what Moses had told them to do, i.e. collected double the usual amount. They then asked Moses what to do with the surplus, seeing that in their experience any surplus would rot and become worm-eaten.
      Moses replied that G’d had already commanded him and Aaron concerning the work stoppage to be observed on the Sabbath, and that as a result all the food needed for the Sabbath had to be prepared on Friday. He told them to conserve the second <i>omer</i> until the morning of the Sabbath, at which time he told them to go ahead and to eat it, as there would not be any new <i>manna</i> on that day.
      <i>Rashi</i> writes that the words את אשר תבשלו וגו' applied to both days, in other words they were told to prepare food for two days instead of for one. The reason why the people came to Moses on the Sabbath in the morning was that they were not willing to eat stale food, food that had been prepared on the previous day. Moses then explained that this food was not stale food, and that the reason he had asked the people to prepare all of it on Friday was precisely so that it would not be stale food on the Sabbath. The honour of the Sabbath demanded that no new <i>manna</i> descend on that holy day. It is possible that Moses told the people that they could eat as much of the total as they wanted on the Friday, and that any leftover, however small, proved to be adequate for their needs on the Sabbath.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   עד אנה מאנתם, “how long will you still refuse?” <i>Rashi</i> explains that in the Talmud <i>Baba Kamma</i> 92, the sage <i>Rava</i> is reported to have asked <i>Rabbah bar Meri</i> for the origin of the popular proverb that it happens that in order to remove a thorn one has to extract the plant around it also. He was told that the source is a verse in Jeremiah [the application to our verse is that G’d addresses the entire nation, instead of the few who had not obeyed the instructions of Moses not to go looking for <i>manna</i> on the Sabbath. Ed.] Actually, G’d blamed Moses for not having instructed the people about the laws of the Sabbath already on the day G’d had revealed them to him.
      Ibn Ezra writes that G’d addressed Moses in verse 29 as if he were the representative of the whole nation. The message was that Moses should tell all the people to stay at home on the Sabbath, i.e. not to go out to collect <i>manna</i> that fell outside the perimeter of the camp. The apparently very restrictive language was the result of some of the people having disregarded the instructions not to look for <i>manna</i> on that day.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   עד בואם אל ארץ נושבת, “until they arrived in the land they would inhabit.” 
      The part of the desert the Israelites were walking through had not been home to anyone, ever. They ate <i>manna</i> until they crossed the river Jordan when they found part of the new barley harvest and could make bread from it. Actually, the last portion of <i>manna</i> lasted the Israelites until they made camp at Gilgal, at the border of the land of Canaan.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויסעו כל עדת בני ישראל...למסעיהם, “The entire community of the Children of Israel journeyed …on their respective journeys.” The Torah sums up in a few words that Israel made many separate journeys in the desert of <i>Sin</i> culminating in their arrival at <i>Refidim</i>, and this is why the text refers to the word למסעיהם, “according to their journeys.” En route, the people had encamped successively at <i>Dofkah</i> and <i>Alush</i> before reaching <i>Refidim</i>. The purpose of these verses is primarily to serve as background of what happened at <i>Refidim</i>. The journeys through this desert were earmarked by quarrels about lack of bread and subsequently, about lack of water.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   וירב העם, “the people quarreled.” Ibn Ezra points out that the Torah writes “the people,” as opposed to “all the people” in contrast to the previous occasion when they did not have any more food. (16,2) At that time there were two groups of people, one which did not have any more water to drink, and one which had taken along water from <i>Alush</i> The group that had no drinking water quarreled with Moses, whereas the second group, although they did have water in their vessels, wanted to test G’d to see if He could and would supply water for the people. This is why the Torah, instead of using the familiar term וילונו, “they complained,” (with a measure of justification) now uses the term וירב, “they quarreled,” i.e. without justification. Moses therefore answered them by saying: “why do you pick a quarrel with me, and why do you put the Lord to a test?”
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויצמא שם העם למים, “The people thirsted for water there.” When their thirst became intolerable, the people ganged up on Moses, wanting to know why, seeing that things were worse for them than in Egypt, he had bothered to take them out of there?
      Nachmanides describes what happened somewhat differently. As soon as the people arrived at <i>Refidim</i> and found that there were no wells of drinking water there, they immediately started a quarrel with Moses, and this is the reason why the Torah reports that the people quarreled with Moses without giving any specific reason. Their demand for water is self-explanatory. This time, as opposed to previous occasions, they demanded water from him, claiming that it was his responsibility to provide this for them. Moses answered them that they had addressed their complaint to the wrong party, seeing that it had not been he who had led them out of Egypt, but that they were in fact putting G’d to the test, seeing that it was He Who had taken them out of Egypt. He suggested that if they would stop pestering him and instead would pray to the Lord, their needs would soon be taken care of. We know that Moses was correct in accusing them of putting G’d’s ability to provide water for them to the test, as it is written in verse 7 ועל נסותם את ה' לאמור היש ה' בקרבנו אם אין, “because of the people putting G’d to the test, wanting to know if the Lord is among us or not.”
      When Moses realized how thirsty the people were, he himself brought their prayer to G’d, and he told G’d how the people had quarreled with him and had accused him of being responsible for their sorry condition.
  
     אותי ואת בני, “me and my children.” On this occasion the people did not speak in general terms as previously, saying להמיתנו, “to cause our deaths,” or “to kill the whole community,” but they added their children as additional victims, all in order to make their complaint appear more urgent. When children have to die in the presence of their parents this is a more tragic situation.
  
     את בני ואת מקני, “my children and my herds.” The reason why they mentioned the herds, separately, was to remind Moses that a great deal of water was needed, seeing that the animals consumed a lot of water. This is why the Torah makes a point that after Moses struck the rock lots of water gushed forth, enough for both the people and their herds. (Numbers 20,11)
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   עוד מעט וסקלוני, “if this continues a little longer they are liable to stone me.” Moses did not mean this literally. What he meant was that the people were so embittered that if they had been able to, they would have stoned him.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   עבור לפני העם, “pass before the people, etc.” Nachmanides understands the word עבור here as an instruction to walk ahead of the people, as in Samuel II 18,23 ויעבור את הכושי, “he overtook the Kushi.” We have to remember that the people were encamped at <i>Refidim,</i> whereas the rock from which the water would gush forth was located at Mount <i>Chorev</i>, also known as Mount <i>Sinai</i>, or that <i>Refidim</i> was a small town near the bottom of that mountain. I will still have occasion to describe the topography in detail. At any rate, it was a distance of approx. 4 kilometers from the camp to where that rock was located, and Moses at the head of the elders would walk there in full view of the people. Moses would have the vision of an angel on top of that rock, indicating that he had arrived at the correct spot.
      In our verse here, as opposed to a similar phenomenon almost 40 years later, the Torah, though reporting that the rock produced water, did not mention that this water was adequate for the people’s herds. (verse 6) Nonetheless, it is quite clear that there must have been enough water, not only this, but the people did not have to trouble themselves to march to Mount <i>Chorev</i> in order to be able to drink that water. Otherwise, why would the Torah have to tell us in chapter 19 that the people reached the edge of that desert on the first day of the third month and apparently encamped near the foot of Mount <i>Chorev</i> on the third day of that month. It seems pretty clear that the waters from Mount <i>Chorev</i> flowed to <i>Refidim</i> and arrived there in pristine condition for the people and their herds to be able to drink from. The other rock, at <i>Kadesh (</i>Numbers 27,14) apparently produced a cleft in the rock, which resulted in the rock being like a natural spring, people streaming to it to drink from it directly, as from a fountain. It was this well which the people immortalized in their song in Numbers Here the waters flowed directly past the people’s huts or tents so as to make it most convenient for them. Even though both sources of water are part of the concept of בארה של מרים, “the well granted the people through the merit of Miriam,” it is likely that right up until the fortieth year they benefited from the water which originated at Mount <i>Chorev,</i> whereas in Numbers, the people’s conducted merited a certain measure of punitive action, so that the continued accessibility of their water was less convenient than previously. The expression באר חפרוה שרים, “a well which had been excavated by nobles,” may reflect that subtle distinction.
  
     ומטך אשר הכית בו את היאור, “and your staff, the one with which you smote the river Nile, etc.” Even though it had not been Moses personally who had smitten the river with his staff, but Aaron, (Exodus 7,19) seeing that Moses had instructed Aaron to do this, he is the one considered as having initiated it. The reason the staff is described in its relation to having converted water to blood, and nothing is said about any of the other miracles in which Moses’ staff had been featured, is that G’d wanted to show that this very staff which had been the source of harm, would now be playing the role of being an instrument that orchestrated something beneficial.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   הנני עומד לפניך, “behold, I shall stand before you, etc.” seeing that the miracle which was about to occur was one that would be part of their daily experience for the length of time they would be in the desert, similar to the miracle of the <i>manna,</i> it was appropriate that just as the miracle of the descent of the <i>manna</i> was introduced with a visible manifestation of G’d’s glory, so this miracle too should be introduced by a similar visible manifestation of G’d’s glory.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויאמר משה אל יהושע, “Moses said to Joshua, etc.” According to Nachmanides it is clear that from this day on when he came to the special attention of Moses, Joshua bore the name Joshua instead of Hoseah. We find him referred to by this name again in Exodus 32,17 when he commented on the sound of the shouting going on in connection with the golden calf. So what do we do with the Torah telling us that prior to dispatching this man as one of the 12 spies, Moses called Hoseah Joshua? (Numbers 13,16) We must assume that the Torah uses that instance to tell us that the man now called Joshua had already experienced this name change in our portion here, as a result of having become Moses’ personal valet.
      As to the comment by our sages that the additional letters symbolise that his name from now mean ק-ה יושעיך, “may G’d help you!” i.e. that Moses was afraid he might otherwise be influenced by the evil advice of the ten spies, could mean that already at that early stage of the Israelites’ wanderings Moses had feared such a development. It is also possible that as of the time when Joshua became one of the twelve men chosen to spy out the land of Canaan, Moses decreed publicly that he was henceforth to be referred to exclusively as Joshua. 
      The reason why Moses himself did not lead the people in this battle was 1) to enable him to offer the prayers for success on the hilltop, and 2) there was a longstanding tradition that Esau or his descendants would ultimately be vanquished only by a descendant of Rachel. History has born this out, as Amalek was defeated by King Sha-ul, a descendant of Binyamin (son of Rachel). The remnant of Amalek, i.e.. Haman, eventually fell into the hands of Mordechai, also a descendant of Kish, King Sha-ul’s father.
      Moses relying largely on prayer, was due to the fact that the Israelites were completely ignorant of the art of conducting warfare. He felt that as long as he was a visible symbol for the people they would make up in faith and dedication what they lacked in skill.
      It is also possible that Moses was deeply concerned that Yitzchok’s blessing that Esau and his descendants would live by the sword would now weigh heavily against the Jewish people. This was the first time that internecine war between the descendants of Yitzchok had broken out, and it would continue at intervals until when the Messiah will come and the remnants of Esau will be resoundingly defeated for the last time. The destruction of the second Temple, the exile we find ourselves in still, are all due to the descendants of Amalek/Esau, and Moses was most aware of the historical implications. [this is why we daily add the relevant verses from the Book of Ovadiah, predicting the defeat of Esau at the end of reciting the victory song by Moses over the Egyptians. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   וכאשר יניח ידו, “and whenever he allowed his hand to rest,” according to the plain meaning of the text it was simply physically impossible for Moses to maintain a posture with raised hands all day long. Whenever he was too tired to maintain his posture, the battle tended to favour the Amalekites. This is why he commanded Aaron and Chur to assist him in maintaining the posture with his hands raised in support of his prayer.
      According to the <i>Midrash,</i> where the question is asked rhetorically whether Moses’ hands determined the outcome of the battle, the answer given is that Moses was not suffering from physical fatigue, but that it is forbidden for any man to keep his hands outstretched in prayer for three hours or more without a break. [It is an aspect of עיון תפילה, praying “insistently,” something most unbecoming for man in his relation to his Creator. Ed.]
      Rabbi Joseph Kimchi explains that the words וכאשר יניח ידו do not describe something that Moses actually did, but these words describe that Moses knew that he could not afford to allow his hands to rest, else Amalek would prove victor, and that in order to forestall such an eventuality, he took Aaron and Chur with him from the start to help him support his hands. 
      Some commentators understand Moses’ raising his hands as referring to the hands with which he was holding his staff as a sign of encouragement to the people. Moses’ staff meant for the people what the flag means to gentile troops. Generally, the purpose of the flag is to serve as a point around which the troops position themselves, to prevent being scattered by opposing forces. The description of Moses being placed in an elevated position even while seated, is to signify that Moses performed the function that a flag normally performs in a battle. This explains why Moses called the altar he built after the battle ה' ניסי. He did not want the people to think that their victory had been due to the visibility of Moses’ staff during the battle, but that it was exclusively due to the help of <i>Hashem,</i> without which the staff would not have proven effective at all. Israel’s “flag” is its faith in <i>Hashem</i>.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויהי ידיו אמונה, “His hands ‘was’ steadfast.” Ibn Ezra explains the singular mode of ויהי instead of ויהיו as referring to each of Moses’ individual hands separately.
      Other commentators justify the singular mode by saying that Moses’ hands appeared to the onlookers as if they had been fused to be one single hand.
      Yet other commentators claim that the word אמונה refers to the faith displayed by the people. Still another commentator compares the expression to what we read in Meggilat Esther about Mordechai’s relationship to Esther, his niece. The text there is: ויהי אומן, “he had adopted her,” as if we were to say that someone supported someone else by carrying them on his hands.
  
     אמונה, ”steadfast.” As in Nechemyah 10,1 אנחנו כרתים אמונה, “we make this pledge, etc.” This matter will endure. Some commentators view the word אמונה here as a promise to Israel that they would emerge victorious.
      Others view the words as derived from אומן in the sense of the artist who possesses special skills, able to perform tasks others are unable to perform as they are not as gifted with skill and imagination. Moses excelled in both spheres.
      According to the <i>Midrash</i>, the word refers to Moses invoking the merit of the patriarchs who, thanks to their abiding faith in G’d, had left us a heritage of merits that we can call on when the situation demands it. The term והאמין בה'appears first in connection with Avraham in Genesis 15, “He had abiding faith in the G’d Who promised that his children would inherit the land of Canaan at a time when Avraham did not even have any children yet.”
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויחלוש יהושע, “Joshua succeeded in weakening, etc.” He did not kill the Amalekites. Some commentators claim that the soldiers that the Amalekites had dispatched against Israel were demons, sorcerers, whom it was impossible to kill by normal means as they employed all kinds of sorcery.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   כתוב זאת זכרון בספר, “record this in a book for remembrance in the future.” Ibn Ezra writes that the book referred to is the one also known as מלחמות ה', “the Lord’s wars,” a book which has disappeared in the course of time.
      Nachmanides writes that what Ibn Ezra writes here is pure speculation, and that the book referred to is the Torah itself. [he bases himself on the vowel <i>patach</i> under the letter ב in the word בספר, which describes a well known book. Ed.] Compare Deut. 31,26 לקוח את ספר התורה הזה, “to take this Book of the Torah.” G’d commanded Moses to incorporate this historical item in the holy Torah so that the Israelites would forever remember the totally unprovoked attack by Amalek that they had had to endure. This is just another aspect of the commandment at the end of <i>Parshat Ki Tetze,</i> to wipe out the memory of the people of Amalek totally and irreversibly, once the time had come when we were at peace and genocide could not longer be considered an act of revenge motivated by personal motives. (Deut.25,17-19)
      When the Torah here instructs Moses ושים באזני יהושע, “make sure that Joshua hears it well,” this is because the commandment would not become operative until after the Jewish people were settled in their own land, so that Moses, who was not going to take them into that land, would not have a share in performing this commandment. [if not for the sin of the golden calf and that of the spies, carrying out the commandment might not have had to wait until the Jewish people had appointed a king for themselves, well over 300 years after Joshua’s death. Ed.] Seeing that Joshua left much of the land of Canaan unconquered at the time of his death, the commandment in accordance with Deut.25 could not yet have become operative.
  
     כי מחה אמחה, “for I will surely erase, etc.” The reason why Amalek’s deed evoked such a violent response from G’d was that as a result of the drowning of the Egyptians in the sea the whole of mankind including the leaders of Edom, the descendants of Esau, had suddenly been in awe of the power of <i>Hashem.</i> The fact that Amalek had broken this spell by attacking G’d’s people, set back the timetable of the kingdom of G’d on earth to such an extent that the people responsible for this could not be allowed to remain part of mankind’s history.
      We need to understand why here G’d is portrayed as wiping out the memory of Amalek, whereas in Deut. 25,19 this task is one assigned to the Jewish people. Why is this? Some commentators understand this as follows. As long as the Romans had not destroyed the Temple, the task of wiping out Amalek was that of G’d’s people. After G’d’s people had become weakened by loss of the Temple and their independence, it was left to G’d Himself to complete the destruction of Amalek.
      The <i>Midrash</i> explains the apparent anomaly differently; G’d says to the Jewish people that if they will do their best to eradicate the influence of Amalek in the terrestrial world, He on His part, will eradicate any trace of him in the celestial spheres.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   כי יד על כס ק-ה, “for as long as a hand had been raised against the throne of G’d, etc.” according to <i>Rashi</i> this is in the nature of an oath by G’d.     Some commentators view it as a prediction, i.e. as long as a “hand” is raised against the throne of G’d disputing His right to rule the world, G’d is forced to wage war against Amalek. This will continue in this manner until, eventually, Israel will utterly destroy Amalek and wipe his memory from the slate of history. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  וישמע יתרו, “Yitro heard, etc.” Our sages are of two minds as to when Yitro arrived at the camp of the Israelites. Some believe that he arrived before the revelation on Mount Sinai, whereas others hold that he arrived only afterwards. The second view is based on the description of the Mountain as “the Mountain of the Lord.” It had not had that name until after G’d had revealed Himself on that Mountain and had given the Torah. The first view is simply based on the sequence in which the Torah relates these events. The fact that Moses told his father-in-law immediately he met him about the fact that he was communicating G’d’s statutes to the people makes it sound as if he had already received all these statutes from G’d first hand.
      Ibn Ezra supports the second view by stating that seeing the Torah had just concluded with the call to the Israelites to blot out the memory of our adversary Amalek, it saw fit to contrast Amalek’s behaviour with that of Yitro who gave the Jewish people not only good advice, but who also converted to Judaism and offered sacrifices to <i>Hashem.</i> Moreover, the Kenites, descendants of Yitro, who lived among the Amalekites were advised by King Sha-ul to evacuate the town so as to save their lives when the Amalekites were all killed. (Samuel I 15)
      Nachmanides questions against all this that if that were really so, why does the Torah mention that Yitro had heard about the Exodus, the splitting of the sea, etc., without adding that he had heard about the revelation at Mount Sinai. Seeing that this had been perhaps the greatest miracle of all, the fact that Yitro did not mention it means that it had not yet occurred. It is possible, of course, that as soon as Yitro had heard about the Israelites leaving Egypt, he had set out to join them, and no other news had reached him on the way. No doubt, upon his arrival, Moses first told him about the most recent events, i.e. the revelation, before filling him in on events which had occurred some time ago.
      Nachmanides, feels that the most likely sequence of events was that Yitro joined the people before the revelation, having set out on his journey shortly after having heard about the defeat of Amalek near <i>Refidim</i>. This was an area not far removed from either Mount Sinai or the border with Midian, seeing we know that Moses had led his father-in-law’s sheep into the vicinity of Mount Sinai, where he had experienced the burning bush, and a vision of G’d. The area immediately below Mount Sinai was known as the desert of Sinai. Having reached that area, Yitro sent a message to his son-in-law advising him of his imminent arrival.
      Furthemore, it seems to Nachmanides that when the Torah reports about Moses bidding farewell to Yitro for the first time, this was in the first year of the Israelites’ wanderings, and that Yitro’s purpose at that time was to convert as many members of his family as he could. 
      The second time when we read about Yitro’s having declined to journey to the Holy Land with the Israelites occurred in the second year, shortly before, after a stay around Mount Sinai for almost a full year, when he had declined Moses’ offer to become an integral part of the Jewish nation with full rights. At that time, as the Torah reports, (Numbers 10,29-32) Moses had pleaded with him to remain with the Jewish people not only as a coreligionist but as a fully fledged member of the nation. The fact that the Torah, at that point does not report that Yitro replied to Moses’ entreaty, lends support to the belief that he did indeed join the people, although hundreds of years later his descendants are known to have lived interspersed with the Amalekites in the southern part of the Sinai peninsula. On the other hand, in the days of Yonadav ben Rechev, his descendants, or some of them, appear to have lived in Jerusalem (Jeremiah, 35 compare also <i>Mechilat Shemot 18,28</i>) Possibly, the Kenite who lived among the Amalekites, though related to Yitro’s family, were not direct descendants of his.
  
     למשה ולישראל, “for Moses and for Israel,” he had heard about the miracles G’d had performed for Moses, seeing that he had faced Pharaoh repeatedly, threatened him with all kinds of plagues, etc., and no harm had been done to him. The same G’d had performed even greater miracles for the people of Israel who had proven to be immune to all these plagues.
      Ibn Ezra understands the letter ל before the words משה and ישראל, as “on behalf of.” He refers to the plagues and the drowning of the Egyptians. No doubt. G’d had orchestrated all these miracles for the benefit of Moses and the people of Israel.
  
     כי הוציא ה', “that the Lord had taken out, etc.” This is a new subject, not connected to what has been written previously, i.e. what Yitro had heard.
      There is a dispute among the sages in the last chapter of <i>Massechet Zevachim</i> about what rumours precisely Yitro had heard. According to one opinion (<i>Zevachim 116)</i> Yitro had heard that the Israelites had successfully defended themselves against the Amalekites, whereas according to the second opinion he had heard about G’d revealing Himself to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. There is also an opinion that he had heard about the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, etc. If the words כי הוציא וגו' were to refer to what Yitro had heard specifically, i.e. the Exodus, why would the Torah repeat something which it had already stated explicitly as something that Yitro had heard about?
      Clearly, the discussion as to what the Torah referred to when it wrote that “Yitro heard all that G’d had done, etc.,” without going into details, cannot refer to the Exodus itself. The Torah only reverts to the point of departure being that G’d had taken the people out of Egypt. Up until that point Yitro’s knowledge of the Jewish G’d had been limited to His name being <i>elohim.</i> After everything Moses now told him, he learned of an additional dimension of this G’d, i.e. His name<i> Hashem</i>. Hence the Torah refers to this attribute when writing כי הוציא השם וגו', not as at the beginning of the verse כל אשר עשה אלוקים.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   אחר שילוחיה, “after she had been sent away.” Seeing that the Torah had told us earlier that Moses took his wife and his children, and started out on the way to Egypt, (Exodus 4,20) the Torah had to inform us that at some point Moses had sent his family back to Midian, to the home of Yitro, his father-in-law. Yitro clearly did not consider Moses having sent his wife and children “home” as proof of a divorce, but considered this as an act of prudence by Moses, something no longer necessary seeing the Israelites were no longer in danger.
      Other commentators understand the words אחר שילוחיה, as a reference to gifts which Tzipporah had sent to her husband ahead of her, to advise him of her impending arrival.
      Yet other commentators understand the words as referring to secret code messages that Yitro had sent ahead to inform Moses that he was on the way to him with Tzipporah and her children.
      Yet another interpretation sees in the plural mode of the word שילוחיה, a reference to two occasions on which Tzipporah had been sent away, once when Moses had left her behind at the inn on the way to Egypt, when he continued on to Egypt without her and the children, and the second time when he had instructed her to return to her father’s home from that inn. (presumably after he had become aware that the liberation of the Israelites would require more time than he had thought at first)
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   כי אמר גר הייתי, “for he had said (at that time) ‘I have been a stranger, etc.” Even though this is hardly the place where we would expect to hear about the genealogy of Moses’ children, the Torah introduces the subject now as there had not been an opportunity to inform us that Moses had called his second son Eliezer, seeing that he had not circumcised him prior to his departure from Midian. First he had been too preoccupied with journeying to Egypt, second, because he had that unfortunate encounter with the angel who had threatened to kill him. He had also not been able to give him the name Eliezer as long as he was under the impression that there was still a price on his head, and he was still a fugitive from Egyptian justice, being wanted for murder. The Torah informs us now that when Moses had become aware that there no longer was a price on his head, he named his son in a manner which expressed his thanks to G’d for having saved him from that worry as well as for the other promotions G’d had bestowed upon him.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויאמר אל משה, “Yitro said to Moses:” According to Ibn Ezra, by means of a messenger. According to Ibn Ezra, the Torah quotes a letter Yitro had sent ahead of his arrival at the encampment of the Israelites in which he announced his forthcoming arrival together with Tzipporah and her children. If the Torah were reporting the words of Yitro at arrival, it should have said הנני בא אליך, “here I have come to you.”
      In the <i>Midrash</i> the view is expressed that Yitro shot an arrow with the above message attached, and that although normally, the surrounding heavenly clouds would make the camp of the Israelites secure against any intrusion, in this instance, due the nature of the message, G’d allowed the arrow to travel through the cloud cover.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויצא משה לקראת חותנו, “Moses went forth to welcome his father-in-law, etc.” He meant to honour his father-in-law, as this is not the way one honours one’s wife.
  
     וישתחו, וישק לו, וישאלו איש לרעהו לשלום, “he bowed low, kissed him, and they enquired after each other’s well being.” <i>Rashi</i> wonders who bowed to whom, and concludes that most likely Moses bowed to Yitro, seeing he is the one who is called איש in our verse. While it is true that in another context Yitro is also called איש by the Torah, (Exodus 2,21) (although the איש in that verse applied to someone called רעואל), that was just another name for Yitro.
      Some commentators point out that seeing we find the description of Moses as והאיש משה on occasion, this means that the word ה)איש) was applied to Moses as an alternate name, this proves that whereas Moses on occasion was simply called איש, Yitro was never called האיש without further identification, i.e. the prefix ו. Personally, I do not think that we need to look for proof as to who bowed to him, as usually the one who comes out to welcome someone is the one who bows to the visitor. 
  
     ויבואו האוהלה ויספר, “they entered the tent, and Moses told, etc.” This teaches that one does not carry on these kinds of conversations while en route to a destination.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   את כל התלאה, “and about all the travail, etc.” Ibn Ezra says that the word תלאה is closely related to the word ונלאו in Exodus 7,18 where the futile search for water by the Egyptians is described as ונלאו מצרים. The letter ת is an additional letter. The whole word describes the frustration experienced when after many efforts one does not succeed in attaining one’s objective.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויחד יתרו, “Yitro rejoiced;” Our sages explain the word as describing that when hearing all that Moses told him, Yitro’s flesh broke out in goose pimples, [from the word חד, sharp, prickly, Ed.] It refers to a popular proverb according to which a proselyte, even a tenth generation proselyte, still experiences some kind of pain when hearing about tragedies that befall his former people.
      Some commentators reject this, saying that not only are we daily witnesses to proselytes and their offspring who are pious Jews in every respect, but Yitro was a first generation proselyte, so where is the comparison to that proverb? The sages who made that comment did not mean to refer to generations, literally, but merely to past associations, the impossibility to rid oneself completely of one’s past, so much so that one no longer feels a shred of sympathy for what has befallen the friends of one’s youth.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   אשר הציל אתכם מיד מצרים, “Who has saved you from the power of Egypt.” Yitro first praised the Lord Who performed the miracles for Moses personally, who was not brought before Pharaoh’s tribunal for murder or manslaughter, nor for having orchestrated the plagues; secondly, he praised G’d for having saved the entire Jewish nation from such a despotic regime as that of Pharaoh. He considered the latter as perhaps the greatest of the miracles.
      Ibn Ezra is of the opinion that Yitro first blessed the Lord for having rescued the people as a whole, before directing his attention to personal miracles which G’d performed on behalf of Moses.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם, “for He retaliated in the manner which corresponded to their deliberate sins.” Yitro explains that what had convinced him of the superiority of the G’d of Israel, was not that He punished the Egyptians for their unspeakable crimes, but for the manner in which G’d made the punishment fit the crime.
      Nachmanides writes that G’d only punished the Egyptians for the excess cruelty with which they drowned innocent infants, and that they made the work imposed on the adults intolerably and unnecessarily onerous. The fact that the Egyptians enslaved the Israelites and demanded that they perform hard labour was not a culpable offense.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויקח יתרו חותן משה עולה וזבחים, “Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law purchased burnt offerings and meat offerings.” According to Nachmanides all this occurred before the people had come to Mount Sinai. It is also possible that what is reported here occurred long after the revelation, i.e. after Yitro had undergone a formal conversion and Moses had been on the Mountain several times.
  
     ויבוא אהרן וכל זקני ישראל לאכול לחם, “Aaron and all the elders of Israel came to have a meal, etc.” This was a meal in honour of Yitro’s conversion and circumcision. We know from Tzipporah (Exodus 4,26), that she considered the circumcision as an allegorical marriage between the newly circumcised Jew and his Creator.
  
     לפני האלוקים, “before G’d.” Nachmanides explains the word לפני in terms of location, i.e. that Moses’ personal tent was situated to the east of the Tabernacle.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויהי ממחרת, “It came to pass on the morrow, etc.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the “morrow” was the day after the Day of Atonement, the day when the building of the Tabernacle was authorized. <i>Rashi</i> took his cue from the <i>Mechilta.</i> 
      Nachmanides does not believe that the author of the <i>Mechilta</i> referred to the Day of Atonement, seeing that we had not been told about the existence of a “Day of Atonement,” how could the Torah have referred to this day as the day after a date which did not yet have a significant meaning in the Jewish calendar? Even if that day had already existed as a Fast Day, how could the Torah refer to the day after this meal as the day after <i>Yom Kippur,</i> seeing that the meal we have been told about surely was not consumed on <i>Yom Kippur?</i> Furthermore, according to tradition, Moses brought the Jewish people the second set of tablets on that day. It also could not refer to the day after <i>Yom Kippur</i> of the second year, as by then Yitro had already gone home to his people. The people had moved away from Mount Sinai on the 20th day of <i>Iyar</i> in the second year and Yitro had declined Moses’ invitation to journey with the people (Numbers 10,11, and 10,29). Furthermore, assuming we are speaking about the very day after Moses had come down with the second set of tablets, when had he had a chance to establish the pattern of judging the people which Yitro objected to, seeing that ever since the giving of the Torah up until then, when he had ascended the Mountain for 3 times 40 days, there would not have been a single day available for him to teach the people the laws of the Torah, as he told his father-in-law that he was doing on a regular basis?
      We must assume that the <i>Mechilta</i> does not refer literally to the day after the first <i>Yom Kippur,</i> but to some time thereafter, as distinct to this having occurred prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai over 4 months earlier.
      If we assume that Yitro had arrived at the encampment of the people before the giving of the Torah, what the <i>Mechilta</i> had in mind was the day on which Yitro personally obtained atonement, i.e when he converted to Judaism, offered his sacrifices, etc, he was forgiven for the heathen practices he had been guilty of up until that day. 
      [the wording of the author of the <i>Mechilta</i> (Rabbi Yishmael) suggests that he neither wants to decide in favour either of the opinion of Rabbi Yoshua that Yitro arrived as a result of hearing about the defeat of Amalek, nor does he want to come out in favour of the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar Hamoda-i that Yitro arrived at the camp after the giving of the Torah.. Ed.]
      As to Moses having told his father-in-law that he informs the people about G’d’s statutes, etc., (18,15-16), we must assume that he had referred to the laws revealed by G’d while the people had been encamped at <i>Marah.</i>
      If we accept<i> Rashi’s</i> commentary then this whole portion [as several others. Ed.] was not written as a chronological account of what happened in the desert, seeing that according to his view the words ויהי ממחרת cannot be applied to the first year of the Israelites’ being in the desert. I have not understood what he means when he says that the time was the day after the first <i>Yom Kippur</i>. Perhaps what he meant was that the verse describing Moses as bidding good bye to his father-in-law (verse 27) must have occurred in the second year. By contrast then, he meant to emphasize that when the Torah spoke about ויהי ממחרת, that this referred to events during the first year.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   כי יבוא אלי העם לדרוש אלוקים, “for the people are in the habit of coming to me to seek out G’d’s judgment.” Moses answered Yitro that the people, by the nature of things, need to stand in line before me for a considerable period of time as many of them need to have many different problems to be resolved.
  This included appeals to Moses to pray on behalf of sick family members, to see if Moses could help them, something also known as דרישת אלוקים, a service frequently performed for the people by prophets, as we know from prophets being asked if sick members of one would recover from one’s sickness. (Kings I 8,8, 8,9) 
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ויהי ה' עמך, “and may the Lord be with you.” According to <i>Rashi</i> this was an advice to govern the people with fortitude, with confidence in his ability to judge them fairly. 
      Ibn Ezra feels that the meaning of Yitro’s words שמע בקולי ויהי אלוקים עמך, were a prayer that Moses would succeed in carrying out his advice. At the tail end of his remarks Yitro suggested that Moses obtain G’d’s consent for adopting his suggestions. This is what he meant when he said וצוך אלוקים ויכלת לעמוד, “when G’d will give you the requisite instructions you will be able to be equal to the task.” He entertained no doubt that Moses would carry out the suggestions and govern the people with determination.
  
     היה אתה לעם מול האלוקים, “you be a representative of the people <i>vis-à-vis</i> G’d.” Nachmanides explains concerning Yitro’s initial reaction to Moses telling him that the people come to him in their search for G’d, that Yitro completely agreed that this was Moses’ function, i.e. to be the intermediary between the people and G’d. He realized that no one else could take Moses’ place in this respect. He also agreed that not only was it Moses’ duty to submit the people’s requests to G’d, but also to communicate G’d’s answer to them. He further agreed that it was Moses’ task to instruct the people initially in all these matters. He did not agree however, that it was necessary for Moses, personally, to get involved in every little judicial dispute between individuals, i.e. in what Moses had referred to as ושפטתי בין איש לרעהו , “I have to render judgment between man and his fellow.” These matters, Yitro told him he must learn to delegate, else he would undo more than he had set out to accomplish.
      It is also possible that even in matters which did need clarification by G’d directly, Yitro told Moses that this did not need to take place in full view of the people, etc, but that Moses should sit inside the Tabernacle, able to give his full attention to G’d’s answer, etc., instead of being surrounded by a mob of people all the time. He did urge him to exercise extreme caution when handing down decisions so that it would never appear as if he arrived at such decisions arbitrarily. All of this is part of the meaning of והזהרתה, והודעת, etc. You will note that in this connection Yitro did not mention the need to employ judges and law enforcers. He was fully aware that Moses had many officials at his service who would see to it that judgment once pronounced, would be carried out. He allowed that matters beyond the competence of the judges should be submitted to Moses personally for adjudication.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   אנשי חיל, “competent people,” people capable of dealing with the masses, i.e. people who have been endowed with numerous qualities, otherwise they would not be equal to the task. Having summed up the nature of such people, Yitro proceeds to list the specific qualities such people must possess in order to carry out their duties satisfactorily. Before referring to such people’s common sense, he mentions that their motivations must be above board, such as their being G’d-fearing, not greedy for money, truthful, etc., but all this is not enough unless they have been endowed with common sense, such as being נבונים. The latter quality need not be spelled out, as it is self-evident. [both Isaiah 5,21, and Jeremiah 4,22, refer to the basic requirement of this “common sense.” It is also the first attribute mentioned by Joseph in his advice to Pharaoh to appoint people who would administer the surplus during the seven bountiful years to come. Genesis Ed.] When reviewing these events in Deuteronomy 1,12, Moses does mention that he had asked the people to furnish him men endowed with common sense in addition to the other attributes as his assistants. [certain details which Moses saw fit to spell out to the common people, Yitro did not have to spell out to his brilliant son-in-law. Ed.]     It is also possible that when we read in verse 25 that Moses selected men מכל ישראל, this term already includes that he had narrowed down the selection to the elite of the people, so that he did not need to repeat more than the term אנשי חיל to show that he had taken Yitro’s advice to heart. 
     שונאי בצע, “men who despise money acquired by unfair means.” According to the plain meaning of the text, what Yitro had in mind were people who could not be bribed.     Some commentators see in this term a reference to people who despise amassing financial wealth as an investment in the future, people who demonstrate their lack of faith in G’d the provider, by building a “nest-egg.” [after all the idea of G’d providing <i>manna</i> for only a day at time was meant to instill in the people this very trust in G’d as their Provider. Ed.]     <i>Rashi</i> [according to some views. Ed.] understood the term literally, people who hated the very idea that money would be obtained though legally, only through the intervention of a tribunal which had to assess one’s legal claim to it. A שונא בצע would be a person who pays up rather than allows the claim against him to be decided in court, even when he thinks he does not owe the money demanded. [we may each have our own views about the unworldly nature of such people and their use in judging the people. This editor cannot imagine that Yitro was so naive as to think that such men could be found in large numbers. Ed.]     Still other commentators understand the term שונאי בצע as referring to judges who resist being intimidated by litigants who threaten them if they do not rule in their favour. [this would be equivalent to Moses warning the judges (Deut. 1,17) לא תגורו מפני איש, “do not tremble before any man.”] 
     שרי אלפים ושרי מאות, “leaders of thousands, and leaders of hundreds.” This verse answers the problem raised by Ibn Ezra, who could not understand why fully one eighth of the people (78600) were “chiefs” of one kind or another. (compare Deut. 1,15) Here there was no need to spell out how many of these people were appointed as judges, how many law enforcers, seeing that the appointment of judges without law enforcers is something quite futile. Clearly, the people described as ראשי שופטיכם, “your chief justices,” must have been drawn from the group described here as שרי אלפים “leaders of thousands.”     
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   בחודש השלישי, “in the third month;” actually we would have expected the chapter to begin with the words: “they journeyed from <i>Refidim</i> and came to the desert of Sinai, where they encamped on the first day of the third month after having departed from the land of Egypt.” The reason why the syntax of the Torah was changed in this instance is the fact that arrival at the desert of Sinai, where the Torah was to be given, was a joyous occasion for the people. The manner of reporting this arrival reflects that it was something the people had been looking forward to. 
     ביום הזה, “on this day, etc.” The day referred to was the first of the month.     Ibn Ezra suggests that possibly the distance between Mount Sinai and <i>Refidim</i> was greater than the distance covered in all their combined journeys up to that time, so that there was a need to report precisely when the people arrived at this otherwise unremarkable spot. 
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויסעו מרפידים ויבואו מדבר סיני, “they journeyed from <i>Refidim,</i> and they arrived at the desert of Sinai.” According to the Torah’s syntax which we have grown accustomed to, the Torah should have written: “they journeyed from <i>Refidim</i> and they encamped at the desert of Sinai.” The reason why the Torah chose to write ויבואו instead of ויחנו, is to convey to the reader that as soon as the people saw Mount Sinai they were so happy that they decided to encamp forthwith instead of scouting around for what they considered a suitable area for putting up their camp. This is why the Torah adds the words ויחנו במדבר, ”they made camp in the desert, normally not an appropriate site for making camp.
  
     ויחן שם ישראל נגד ההר, “Israel encamped there facing the Mountain.” The people are here referred to as “Israel,” (in the singular mode) instead of as plain “the people,” to tell us that when the riffraff and the fellow travelers, the ערב רב, had chosen to locate some short distance away, the elite, the main body of Israelites, chose to encamp facing the Mountain. [we need to remember that until the building of the Tabernacle, the signal for breaking camp and making camp was not the overhead cloud of G’d’s glory that the Torah describes in Numbers Ed.] It is possible that not the entire people positioned their tents facing the Mountain but only the elders and most distinguished members of the people. This may be the reason why the Torah wrote ויחן, singular mode, instead of ויחנו, in the plural mode.
      Nachmanides questions what <i>Rashi</i> wrote as the reason for the Torah having written ויסעו מרפידים, i.e. we needed to know from where the Israelites arrived at the desert of Sinai. He draws our attention to the fact that the Torah normally reports the Israelites’ departure from a certain location prior to reporting their arrival at a new location; so what is so special here? (compare: the pattern of ויסעו מ...ויחנו ב... in dozens of examples in Numbers chapter 33)
      In answering his query, Nachmanides suggests that what <i>Rashi</i> had in mind was, that seeing that all the other journeys mentioned here have been repeated in the list in Numbers 33, something new occurred at each location, whereas both here and in <i>Massey</i> this journey is described with identical words, without any change in nuance even, <i>Rashi</i> felt impelled make the comment he did, i.e. that just as the people were in a mood of penitence when they departed from <i>Refidim</i>, they were still in that mood when they arrived at the desert of Sinai.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ומשה עלה אל האלוקים, “and Moses had ascended to G’d,” this means he had proceeded to the edge of the Mountain. Clearly, there had been evidence that G’d’s presence was resting above the top of that Mountain ever since the day that the Israelites had arrived at that location. Moses’ purpose was to keep in readiness to enter the ערפל, the thick cloud, behind which a manifestation of G’d could be found. (compare 20,18)
  
     ויקרא אליו ה' מן ההר לאמור, “<i>Hashem</i> called out to him from the Mountain, saying:” 
      According to Ibn Ezra G’d had called to Moses already before he ascended, but had not given him any specific instructions. 
      Nachmanides writes that Moses did not receive any call until after he had ascended, at which time G’d told him:כה תאמר לבית יעקב,”you shall say to the house of Yaakov, using precisely these words, etc.”
  
     לבית יעקב, “to the house of Yaakov.” This was a reference to the Jewish women.
  
     ולבני ישראל, “and to the Children of Israel.” This was a reference to the men. The reason why the women, in this case, have been mentioned first, is that at the dawn of history, Chavah, the first woman, who had not personally been warned by G’d not to eat from the tree of knowledge, not only ate from it but also gave her husband to eat from it. By telling Moses now to address the legislation to the women first, G’d wanted to ensure that the communication failure in <i>Gan Eden</i> would not be repeated. Seeing that the women had been honored to receive their share of the information before their husbands, this would make them more fiercely loyal to observe the commandments in every detail. The fact that this psychology worked was demonstrated about 43 days later when the women refused to hand over their gold jewelry to help in making the golden calf.
      Another possible way of explaining the difference in meaning between the expression בית יעקב and בני ישראל is that the former refers to the people presently at Mount Sinai, whereas the latter refers to as yet unborn generations of Jews.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ואביא אתכם אלי, “I have brought you to Me.” To the location where My glory its manifest, this Mountain where My presence is presently in residence.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ושמרתם את בריתי, “you are to observe My covenant.” According to Ibn Ezra this is a reference to the covenant that would be concluded right after the revelation at the Mountain, as we read in 24,8 [part of the description of Moses spending 40 days on the Mountain. Ed.] הנה דם הברית אשר כרת ה' עמכם על כל הדברים האלה, “here is the blood of the covenant which the Lord sealed with you concerning all these matters”. (Ten Commandments) 
      Nachmanides understands the word בריתי as referring to an existing covenant, the one entered into by G’d with the patriarchs that He was to be not only their G’d, but also the G’d of their descendants.
  
     והייתם לי סגולה מכל העמים כי לי כל הארץ, “you will be for Me a most beloved treasure, more than any other nation, for the whole earth belongs to Me.” Although the entire earth belongs to me, I have chosen you alone to relate to as exclusively Mine, i.e. I personally supervise your fates, and I have not delegated this task to various natural forces at My command, such as constellations of stars, etc. The Torah refers to the latter point in greater detail in Deuteronomy 4,19 אשר חלק ה' אלוקיך אותם לכל העמים תחת כל השמים, “which the Lord your G’d assigned to all the other nations under the entire heaven.”
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש, “a Kingdom of Priests, a holy nation.” Nachmanides understands the termממלכת כהנים as a kingdom that takes care and preserves intact My statutes, A nation that cleaves to the Holy G’d, as stipulated in Leviticus 19,2  “be holy, for I, the Lord, your G’d am holy.” This implies a promise by G’d to His people covering its existence both on earth and beyond.
  
  Verse 7
  
   וישם לפניהם. “He presented it before them in clear terms, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra, Moses did this verbally. Some people claim that Moses presented all this to the people in book form.     Rabbeinu Saadyah gaon, says that the meaning is similar to שימו בפיהם, (Deut 31,19) where it means that G’d had asked Moses to make the people thoroughly familiar with His admonitions.     Nachmanides says that G’d (Moses) told the people: “I have set out all these precepts for you to choose if you undertake to take these obligations upon yourselves.” The people responded by saying that everything G’d had said they were willing to carry out, just as is reported in Exodus 
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויענו כל העם יחדו, “all the people answered simultaneously, etc.“ Moses had called all the leaders, the judges, the law enforcers, etc., in the presence of all the people and had submitted to them all that G’d had told him, and had offered them the choice whether to accept all these commandments. Seeing the commandments concerned the entire nation, acceptance was also required by the entire nation. The people did not even wait until Moses had posed the question to them if they were willing to accept all this, but the Torah testifies that they interrupted Moses to indicate their ready acceptance.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   הנה אנכי בא אליך בעב הענן, “Here, I am about to come to you, within a thick layer of cloud.” Ibn Ezra writes that among the Israelites there were some who had ambiguous feelings about the existence of prophecy and the extent of it, or if indeed some people had been endowed with such powers. This was in spite of the Torah itself having testified that when at the edge of the Sea of Reeds the people appear to have been described as believers, i.e. ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו, “they believed in G’d and in His servant Moses.” (Exodus 14,31) The Torah had refrained from describing all of the people as sharing this absolute faith. Even after the crossing of the sea when the bodies of the dead Egyptians had become visible, the Torah does write “the Israelites saw Egypt dead on the edge of the sea,” (Exodus 14,30) again the Torah had omitted the crucial word כל, “all”, when describing who saw what. This is what is meant when after the revelation at Mount Sinai (Deut. 5,21) the people acknowledge היום ראינו, “on this day we have seen that the Lord has spoken to man and yet man has remained alive.” The fact that they had originally not believed completely in G’d, according to Ibn Ezra, is supported in that G’d had told Moses that as the result of His miracles not only would they have faith in Him but in Moses also. (compare וגם בך יאמינו, “they will also believe in you forever (our verse).” 
      Nachmanides disagrees, saying that the Israelites never doubted either the existence of prophetic powers, as they had the tradition that their patriarchs had all been endowed with such powers. When G’d told Moses to approach him into the thick cloud, this was designed to reinforce the people’s belief in Moses’ superior prophetic powers, a level of prophecy never before attained by any human being. Exodus 4,31 is already testimony that the people had complete faith in G’d. In fact, to a certain degree, all the Israelites had been endowed with some prophetic powers as proven by the fact that they were bidden by G’d to approach as testified by Moses in Deuteronomy 4,10, i.e. that instead of having to depend on hearing G’d’s words through the mouth of a prophet they themselves would hear it directly. This would teach them to relate to G’d with the appropriate degree of awe, as is spelled out there. Once they would do this it would be easy for them to have full confidence in everything Moses would tell them in the name of the Lord. The words וגם בך יאמינו לעולם, mean that not only the present generation would have full faith in what Moses had related in the name of the Lord, but all future generations who had not known Moses personally, would have a similar degree of faith in the words Moses had handed down. This would have the effect that if there were to arise in the future someone claiming that G’d had appeared to him in a dream, or spoken to him while he was fully awake and that the message he had received would contradict the teachings handed down in the name of Moses, such a person would have proven himself to be a liar, a fake, someone totally fraudulent. The people’s experience of Moses’ superiority as a confidant of G’d would guarantee that they would not lend credence to anyone who would attempt to countermand G’d’s orders as conveyed by Moses. The people, because they had prophetic powers themselves, would know for a fact that Gd had spoken directly to Moses. At the conclusion of the revelation, as recorded by Moses to the next generation in Deuteronomy 4, they are quoted as having said that as of that day they had seen with their own eyes that G’d had communicated directly with Moses, and that just as they themselves had survived their own experience during the revelation, they had no longer any doubt that Moses had survived many such direct communications from G’d during his waking hours. Once this degree of trust in Moses had been established, they asked him to approach G’d on their behalf and to relate His words to them as they had become overawed by their own experience, and were afraid that they could not endure any more such experiences and remain alive. (compare Deut. 5,24 where they told Moses to become their intermediary.)
  
     ויגד משה את דברי העם אל ה', “Moses told G’d what the people had said.” Ibn Ezra feels that this is one of many verses in the Torah that should have been written previously but have not, and we must understand them as referring to events which had already occurred and which the reader may already know about.
      Nachmanides does not agree that we are dealing with such a verse here, as he does not understand the line (verse 8) וישב משה את דברי העם אל ה' as referring to Moses having reported the people’s words to G’d immediately, but that Moses had to return first to the Mountain taking the people’s reply with him, so to speak. We must remember that G’d is omniscient, and He did not need Moses to tell Him how the people had reacted to what He had bidden Moses to tell them. On the contrary, as soon as G’d had become aware of the people’s reaction, He immediately told Moses to enter the thick cloud surrounding the Mountain, etc. Upon setting out, Moses told G’d what the people had said to him, assuring G’d that His children had perfect faith in Him and welcomed all the instructions He either had issued already or would issue in the future.
      Our sages interpret these verses as dealing with the boundaries erected around the Mountain, to protect overenthusiastic Israelites in their desire to come close to G’d from becoming victims instead. Moses had ascended on the third of the month, and reported the famous נעשה ונשמע, “we will do as soon as we will know what to do,” to G’d. G’d immediately instructed him to draw boundaries around the Mountain beyond which the people were not to approach. Moses descended on the same day and relayed this information. He ascended again on the fourth, informing G’d of the people’s reaction in response to the boundaries. Even though the Torah reports this only later, the fact is that the Torah is under no obligation to narrate events in their chronological order. 
      Some commentators say that initially, Moses told G’d that the people had said to him that whatever G’d would say they would do. G’d, Who can read between the lines, i.e. knows how to interpret what had not been spelled out. He realised that Moses was under the impression that the people referred only to what G’d Himself would say to them, but that they had not obligated themselves to carry out automatically everything they would only hear through Moses. He told Moses of the nature of the revelation, which would have as a by-product that henceforth the people would relate with the same degree of faith and trust to what they would hear from Moses’ lips, as they related to what they would hear from G’d directly. Subsequently, Moses confirmed to G’d that the people had indeed made such a commitment, i.e. that this had been their intention already when they had said that all G’d had commanded they would do.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   וקדשתם, “you will sanctify, etc.” according to <i>Rashi</i> the word here means: “you will make preparations.”
      According to Ibn Ezra the meaning is that the people are to wash themselves with water.
      According to Nachmanides the meaning is that the men should refrain from sexual intercourse with their wives, and should also refrain from contact with anything else that confers ritual impurity upon them. Any person who makes a point of refraining from contact with ritual impurity is described as “holy.”
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ירד ה' לעיני כל העם, “<i>Hashem</i> will descend in full view of all the people.” This means that the fiery spectacle of G’d’s descent to the top of the Mountain will be perceived as a spectacle of consuming fire. The people will obviously not see the essence of G’d, as we have been told in Exodus 33,20 כי לא יראני האדם וחי, “it is inherently impossible for a living human being to see Me.”
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   לא תגע בו יד, “a hand shall not touch it” (the fence) some commentators believe that the word בו in our verse refers to the Mountain itself; and that a person doing this is liable to the death penalty, but that the execution must not involve that the person being executed be touched by a human hand in the process. Rather he should be stoned to death, by throwing the stones at him. If the victim escapes the stones by running away, he is to be shot dead by arrows.
  
     במשוך היובל, “upon a prolonged blast of the <i>shofar</i>, etc.” Ibn Ezra says that the word יובל is another word for the horn we know as <i>shofar</i>. It is the horn being blown in the Jubilee year, the שנת היובל. 
      Translators generally [Bible scholars viewed as heretics by Ibn Ezra in his introduction to the Book of Genesis. Ed.] refer to יובל as a sheep, כבש.
      As to the allegorical explanation offered by <i>Rashi,</i> according to which the sound of the <i>shofar</i> at the revelation was the horn which had been part of the ram which Avraham had offered on the altar after G’d had stopped him from slaughtering Yitzchok, Nachmanides writes [as the plain meaning of the text. Ed.] that he does not understand that commentary, seeing that the entire ram had been offered as a burnt offering, i.e. including the horns which were burnt up at that time. He speculates that possibly Avraham or G’d had gathered up the ash from that horn and it had been resurrected to its former condition. [these speculations are pursued already in commentaries on the oldest text of <i>Pirke</i> de Rabbi Eliezer. Ed.]
  
     המה יעלו בהר,”they may ascend the Mountain.” According to Ibn Ezra permission to ascend the Mountain after the revelation was granted only to the elders but not to the people at large. Personally, I do not understand why the ordinary people should not have been allowed to ascend the Mountain after G’d’s glory had departed from it. [I do not understand the author’s reservations, as in my edition of Ibn Ezra a very plausible case is made for the word המה being restrictive, and referring only to Aaron and the elders who already prior to the revelation had been permitted to approach more closely than the ordinary people. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   וירד משה מן ההר, “Moses descended from the Mountain, etc.” This is mentioned so that we the readers will know that even the instruction to Moses to ensure that the people sanctify themselves on that day and the following day were issued to Moses while he was on the Mountain. Moses ascended the Mountain every time that G’d spoke to him.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויתיצבו בתחתית ההר, “they positioned themselves (beneath), at the base of the Mountain.” This teaches-as our sages have taught us- that G’d had made the Mountain assume a threatening posture, such as an inverted bucket above one’s head. This exerted psychological pressure on the people to declare their willingness to accept the Torah, as they felt that unless they did so the Mountain would crush them. There are sages who feel that in spite of the previously expressed willingness of the people to accept the Torah, this referred only to the written Torah and not to the oral Torah. The threatening posture of the Mountain persuaded the people to also accept the oral Torah. The background to that interpretation is the wording of the people who had said כל אשר דבר ה' נעשה ונשמע, “everything that <i>Hashem</i> has said we will do and learn to do.” They had not said: “everything G’d is going to say we will do, etc.”
      Rabbi Joseph Kimchi disagrees, claiming that the people’s acceptance had been comprehensive. The posture of the Mountain is to be understood as something after the event, G’d hinting that the people had done well to accept the Torah already, as a refusal might have had dire consequences, to wit the mountain collapsing upon them. G’d hinted that although He could put up with the refusal of the other nations to accept His Torah, He would not have come to terms with the Israelites’ refusal.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   משה ידבר והאלוקים יעננו בקול, “whenever Moses would speak, G’d would answer in an audible voice.” <i>Rashi</i> understands this line as referring to the Ten Commandments, the ones inscribed subsequently on the Tablets. G’d lent extra power to Moses’ voice [who proclaimed the last eight of these Commandments. Ed.] so that all the people could hear it.
      Other commentators understand the words יעננו בקול to mean that Moses had prepared the people beforehand that they should concentrate, as they were about to hear the sound of G’d’s voice. Immediately thereafter Moses concluded saying this, G’d would intone the Ten Commandments.
      Nachmanides does not consider our verse as referring to the Ten Commandments, but to the message that G’d would descend onto the Mountain on the third day (6th of Sivan) at which time the people were to be positioned at the bottom of the Mountain, whereas Moses would have ascended close to the summit of the Mountain and would speak to the Israelites from that position to instruct them what to do next. The Israelites would hear the sound of G’d’s voice as He answered Moses and instructed him in what is recorded later in the Torah commencing with the words רד העד בעם, in verse 21. Whereas the people hear G’d speaking to Moses, they did not understand what G’d was saying to him. This is why Moses explained to them what he had been told. All of this took place before the giving of the Torah. At the time the Ten Commandments were being given, things were not materially different, as Moses had entered the thick cloud behind which G’d’s glory was hidden, only after the conclusion of the giving of the Ten Commandments. In the interval he had been standing within full view of the people, though partly up the Mountain.
      Ibn Ezra writes that although the sound of the blast of the <i>shofar</i> was overpoweringly strong, so much so that all who heard it were trembling, at the time when G’d spoke to Moses and the people, he alone could hear [understand] the voice of G’d and was not distracted by the sound of the <i>shofar</i> blasts.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   רד, “descend!” this happened prior to the giving of the Torah, and also when the Torah was given Moses did not ascend into the thick cloud where G’d was manifest. He did so only after the conclusion of the Ten Commandments having been given. This is why he refers to himself as אנכי עומד בין ה' ובינכם, “I was standing between you and <i>Hashem.”</i> (Deut. 5.5)
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   לא יוכל העם לעלות, “the people are unable to ascend, etc.” Some people have trouble understanding the words of Moses here, for who prevented the people from ascending if they wanted to? We must understand the words of Moses as being the words of a messenger who reports back to the sender that he had carried out his mission, in this instance, that as a result of Moses having carried out his mission to warn the people not to ascend the Mountain, they were as of that point in time unable to ascend the Mountain.
      Ibn Ezra explains that G’d told Moses to descend and to warn the people, but that Moses did not see the need to warn them about anything, seeing that he had already done so. This is why he said to G’d that the people are unable to ascend the Mountain. In response to Moses’ [naïve belief?. Ed.] ] that the warning received was sufficient, G’d told him that the warning had to be repeated. It was only G’d Who knew if the first warning had been sufficient.
      Some commentators feel that the warning at this time included an additional warning not even to approach the forbidden area too closely. This is the reason for the additional words פן יהרסו אל ה' לראות, “they shall not break through to behold, etc.” I do not believe that this interpretation is acceptable, seeing that the Torah writes later in verse 24 specifically אל יהרסו לעלות אל ה' פן יפרץ בם, “the people must not break trough in order to ascend, lest G’d in His turn will burst forth against them.” The last mentioned interpretation is tenable only if we assume that Moses had told G’d on his most recent ascent that he had warned the people not only not to ascend, but also not to behold what they thought was the manifestation of <i>Hashem.</i> Seeing that it is impossible for Moses to enforce a ban on looking at something from a distance, G’d would then have amended His command and told Moses to warn them only against ascending.
      An approach to these verses by my sainted father the רא'ש. The words פן יהרסו אל ה' לראות, (verse 21) are problematic, for how could G’d issue a decree that the people would in the main be unable to honour? Such a prohibition was also not included in the warning in verse 12 not to ascend the mountain or to touch its edge. The only thing which had been forbidden then was the ascent and the touching of the Mountain. We find the warning not to ascend the Mountain repeated once more in verse 24. G’d told Moses in addition that the people were not to look at the Mountain. Concerning the second prohibition not to ascend the Mountain, Moses said to G’d that this was impossible as the people had already been warned concerning this. To this G’d replied to Moses that it was necessary to warn them again so that in their understandable enthusiasm to get a glimpse of the revelation, they would not expose themselves to mortal danger. G’d told Moses to descend and to ensure this together with Aaron. When the people would see that Aaron had also descended before the revelation, even though he had previously been allowed to approach more closely to the Mountain, they would realise that if a closer approach spelled danger even for Aaron and the priests, it would certainly be very dangerous for them to expose themselves to G’d’s anger if they were to ignore the warning. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   אנכי ה' אלוקיך, “I am the Lord your G’d.” This is a positive commandment to believe in and feel absolutely certain of the existence of <i>Hashem</i> as a primordial force that preceded any phenomenon which is part of the material universe, and that He is the sole Creator of the entire universe, that He is our G’d, and that we are His people. We are obliged to serve Him, and He has taken us out of bondage in Egypt. The historical fact that He took us out of Egypt serves as eternal proof of His existence and His express desire to guide our fate. It proves that our Exodus was the product of His will. It also proves that He must have been the original cause in this universe, seeing that once the universe, i.e. the laws of nature had been formulated, no radical changes such as the taking out of a completely assimilated nation such as the Israelites from the midst of another nation was conceivable according to what is considered “normal” in our world. The Exodus was not only testimony to His power, but also to His uniqueness. For all the above reasons, G’d did not commence to identify Himself as the One Who had created heaven and earth, but He identified Himself as the One who had taken us out of Egypt, a visible historical fact witnessed by millions. [No one had been around to watch the universe come into existence. Ed.]
      Some commentators understand the emphasis on the word אנכי here as meant to draw attention to <i>Hashem</i> saying that He is the One Who had already told Avraham “I will also judge the people who will enslave your descendants and they will depart from that country with great riches” (Genesis 15,13) At the beginning of the Decalogue, G’d introduces Himself as the One who had fulfilled that promise of over 400 years ago.
      The first two commandments of the Decalogue which were addressed to the people in direct speech, i.e. “I have taken you out, etc.,” were distinct from the other eight in which G’d appears to refer to Himself in the third person, were spoken by G’d to the people directly, whereas the others were relayed to the people by Moses. 
      The fact that our chapter commences with the words: וידבר אלוקים את כל הדברים האלה לאמר, “G’d spoke all these words to say,” as well as the verse in Deut. 5,19 את הדברים האלה דבר ה' אל כל קהלכם בהר, “the Lord spoke these words to you at the Mountain, etc.,” certainly gives the impression that the people had heard all the Ten Commandments directly from G’d’s mouth. Moses adds that all these words were inscribed on the two Tablets, which proves that as G’d was saying the words He simultaneously was inscribing them on the Tablets.
      Nachmanides claims that there is no question that G’d addressed all of the Ten Commandments to the whole people directly. The problem was that the people did not understand what they were hearing. Moses therefore needed to explain the text to the people, with the exception of the first two Commandments which they both heard and understood directly from <i>Hashem</i> without the need of any intermediary. The point in all this is that at that point in time the people were all on the spiritual level of prophets, who have primary knowledge of the uniqueness of <i>Hashem,</i> and the absolute impossibility to relate to anyone else as something Divine.
  
     מבית עבדים, “from the house of bondage.” Although the people did not need to be told this, G’d reminded them that seeing they had been enslaved by a cruel ruler such as Pharaoh, they could certainly not have any objection of trading such a ruler for <i>Hashem.</i>
       Some commentators see in the words מארץ מצרים the major significance of this line, i.e. seeing that everyone knows that there was no other country in which the Israelites had been enslaved. They therefore stress that the Egyptians being slaves, i.e. being descendants of Cham whose children Noach had condemned to be slaves, had instead become masters over descendants of Shem, had been an especially degrading experience. The fact that G’d had put an end to this geo-politically demeaning situation, deserved especial mention, and therefore the Israelites’ gratitude. [The Egyptians were fourth generation descendants of Cham. (Genesis 10,6-7) Ed.]
      The Ten Commandments were all formulated in the singular mode, as opposed to the summation of אתם ראיתם, in 20,19 as well as the formulation (plural) אם שמוע תשמעו, “if you will surely hearken, etc.” (19,5). The reason for the variation in the singular and plural mode is to warn the people that they are both individually and collectively obligated to carry out G’d’s instructions, and to refrain from violating negative commandments. G’d wanted to be on record as if He had spoken to every Israelite individually.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   לא יהיה לך אלוקים אחרים, “You must not have any other kind of divinity.” <i>Rashi</i> understands this as not maintaining (יהיה referring to something already in existence) any idolatrous image, seeing that there is a separate commandment following immediately afterwards that prohibits the construction of such images. This latter commandment would by itself have been insufficient, as it would have left open the option of preserving or even worshipping existing idols.
      Concerning this interpretation, Nachmanides writes that if that were so, G’d’s words: לא יהיה לך, while a prohibition, would not have indicated that violating this prohibition carries the death penalty. Furthermore, why would the Torah first tell us about the lesser sin of not destroying an existing idol rather than inform us of the worse sin of constructing a new idol ourselves? Seeing that the Torah spelled out the death penalty in this world [if tried and convicted by a tribunal. Ed.] and in the world to come [if it was impossible to convict legally or carry out the sentence. Ed.] for worshiping idols, we would have thought that maintaining idols was a minor offense. Whereas there is indeed a view expressed in the <i>Mechilta</i> that the maintaining, i.e. not destroying an existing idol is “only” a warning by the Torah, but not an indictable offense, this is the view of a lone sage, and we do not rule in accordance with that view.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, we need to understand the verses as follows: the meaning of the word אלוהים here is similar to והיה לך לאלוהים or to להיות לך לאלוהים, (Genesis 17,7, for instance) where the meaning is that we must not consider any of the celestial forces which have been imbued with some power by G’d as sharing power with G’d, or even as intermediaries. The fact that these forces are called by the name אלוהים on occasion, as for instance <i>vis</i> a <i>vis</i> Pharaoh (compare Exodus 7,1) is not a factor in our relationship to <i>Hashem.</i> If we were to allow such celestial bodies, or the like to substitute or to rank alongside G’d, it would not only dilute, but eventually ruin, our belief in G’d the sole and unique Creator. We must never address such celestial forces as אלי אתה, ”you are a celestial force in my eyes.”
      Ibn Ezra explains these verses as not viewing anything in nature as a junior partner to the Creator. This warning was necessary as there were theologians or philosophers who, while recognizing the supremacy of <i>Hashem</i> did not recognize His being absolutely exclusive as such. 
      [If there really were such a thing as אלוהים אחרים, “other deities” (plural, as suggested by the plural ending in the word אלוהים), the Torah should have written לא יהיו לך, in the plural, not לא יהיה לך in the singular, i.e. reminding the reader that the idea of other gods is a non-starter. Ed.]
  
     אלוהים אחרים, “other deities.” We must not admit that there are such other deities, even if we refuse to pay any tribute to these supposed deities. It is noteworthy that when the Torah forbids the making of such symbols, such images of other supposed deities, it does not dignify them with the title “other gods, or other deities,” but simply tells us not to make אלוהי מסכה, (Exodus 34,17). There is a subtle difference, in that the making for commercial purposes of a symbol to serve others, when such a symbol is known to be serving others as a deity or symbol of such. When making a symbol of one’s own deity the Torah wants it understood, in addition to the examples mentioned in our verse, that even a symbol of our true faith is totally forbidden to be made. If the Torah had not forbidden to make something אחר, something else, something that is not divine, as a symbol of one’s faith, this would be equivalent to admitting that such a notion would be credible, though foolish. The very idea of עושה אלוהים is laughable, as only The Creator could imbue anything created with divine power if He wanted to, not any creature.
  
     על פני, “in My presence.” We find a similar use of the expression על פני when Eleazar and Ittamar are appointed as priests in the presence of their father Aaron (Numbers 3,4). Here too, the meaning is the same as if the Torah had written לפני, “before Me.” This expression is used in all instances when we are reminded that there is nothing that is hidden from the Lord, and though He is not manifest, nothing does not occur in His presence. The reason why the Torah does not warn against prostrating oneself to idols here, is that it had already included this in verse five which is a conceptual continuation of not making idols mentioned in verse four.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   לא תשתחוה להם ולא תעבדם, “neither prostrate yourself before them nor worship them.” Any kind of worship even if it does not involve a visible form of obeisance such as prostrating oneself. This is forbidden even if one does not mean thereby to in any way diminish one’s faith and devotion to <i>Hashem.</i>
  
     אל קנא, “a jealous G’d.” We never find the attribute of G’d being jealous in any connection other than with idolatry. He warns us that just as a jealous husband is likely to take revenge on his adulterous wife, so He is going to punish the Israelite who, by breaching the covenant, gives Him cause to display jealousy.
  
     פוקד עון אבות, “Who visits the sin of the fathers, etc.;” according to Ibn Ezra the meaning of the word פוקד here is the same as that of the word זוכר, i.e. “who remembers.” The word is used in that sense in Genesis 21,1 where it means that G’d remembered the fact that Sarah had not yet been blessed with child. In our verse it means that <i>Hashem</i> allows even the wicked time to rehabilitate themselves through repentance before imposing the punishment for the sins which they deserve. G’d hopes that during the time He holds the punishment in abeyance the sinner will sire a child who in turn will be righteous, thus retroactively making the sinner’s life worthwhile. However, if both the sinner’s children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren continue in the sinful ways of their forbears, G’d will not continue to delay punishment in the hope that this situation will change.
      Nachmanides challenges this interpretation of our verse, saying that if it were correct G’d would be visiting the sins not on the third generation but on the fourth generation. This would mean that the second and third generation of the father who went unpunished would also go unpunished. If that were so, the Torah should have written: זוכר עון אבות ובנים ושלישים על רבעים, “He will visit (show remembrance) of the sin of the fathers and the sons and the grandsons on the great-grandsons.” Perhaps what Ibn Ezra had in mind was that G’d remembers the sin of the father to the offspring by saying to the sinful offspring: “you as well as your (deceased) father or/and grandfather have been guilty of such and such.” As a result, the string of generations will be punished by that line being wiped out.
      However, the Torah does not say that all people, i.e. the sins of all fathers will be subject to an identical consideration by G’d. There are various verses in Scripture which indicate that sometimes G’d will exact punishment from the son or the grandson, as for instance we read in Isaiah 27,1 יפקד ה' בחרבו הקשה where the prophet announces that G’d will remember to punish the nations who have subjected Israel to violence, or Isaiah 14,21 הכינו לבניו מטבח בעון אבותם, “prepare a slaughtering block for their sons in retribution of the sins of their fathers, etc.” In both of these examples G’d is not described as waiting for four generations with exacting His vengeance. Sometimes the third generation will experience G’d’s vengeance, compare Deuteronomy 5,9, other times some descendants will experience it a generation sooner than their brothers, although to the uninitiated onlooker there appears to be no difference in conduct between them. When G’d indicated to Avraham that the Emorites were indeed guilty and deserved to be uprooted, He added that their guilt was not yet complete, i.e. the guilt of some of them, until the fourth generation had been reached, hence the descendants of Avraham could not be given their land until then. (Genesis 15,16). Any fifth generation experiencing G’d’s wrath is not being punished for the sins of the first of these five generations.
  
     פוקד עון אבות על בנים, “remembering the sins of the fathers to the children.” Ibn Ezra says that the grandchildren are included in the term בנים in this verse. This is the reason why the Torah mentions both third and fourth generations in one sentence, without bothering to mention the second generation at all, seeing that the second generation was already included in the mention of בנים. 
      Nachmanides disagrees with this reasoning, stating that what is referred to as שלשים, is in fact the third generation commencing with the fathers, i.e. the grandchildren of the sinful father. The fourth generation described as רבעים here are the great grandchildren, and the same applies to the list in Exodus 34,7, where G’d reveals to Moses thirteen of His attributes. This is also why Moses, in connection with the sin of the spies, (Numbers 14,18) refers to בנים, שלשים, רבעים. What he meant was that the grandchildren are the third generation. This is also why our sages say that G’d extends goodness to more generations than vengeance, i.e. whereas the sins of the former generations may not be forgotten for 4 generations, their good deeds are rewarded for as long as 2000 generations (verse 6).
  
     לשונאי, “to those who hate Me.” If the member of that generation is a wicked person and he hates the Lord, previous sins of former generations will also be held against him, whereas if the present generation are righteous none of the sins of former generations will be held against them.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   לא תשא את שם ה' אלוקיך לשוא, “Do not mention the name of the Lord your G’d in vain;” according to our sages what is meant is to swear an unnecessary oath, confirming the truth of something universally known as true, by using the name of the Lord      According to the plain meaning of the text what is also included is that the holy name of the Lord must not be mentioned in vain even if it is not part of an oath. The use of one’s mouth or lips for speaking is referred to on occasion as נשיאות קול, raising one’s voice.     The reason why this commandment follows on the heels of the prohibition to engage in anything related to idolatry is to remind us that just as it is forbidden to accord any part of the reverence, respect, etc., due to the Lord, the Creator to any other phenomenon, so we must not bandy about His name for our own purposes, thereby demeaning it, and making use of Him instead of serving Him. Using G’d’s name in order to confirm one’s own words as true, is as if saying that just as He is truth incarnate, so our words are truth incarnate, a real desecration of His Holy Name. Because this is considered such a serious offense, the Torah warns that this sin is beyond G’d’s willingness ever to forgive completely. Punishment for committing this offense deliberately, just like that of idolatry, may drag out through four generations. 
  
  Verse 8
  
   זכור את יום השבת, “to remember the day of the Sabbath.” Having first commanded us to believe with absolute faith in the uniqueness of <i>Hashem,</i> His power, etc., and the fact that He alone is the Creator, and that He knows what is going on in any part of the universe, including what goes on in our hearts, the outward symbol of this belief of ours is to be demonstrated in our observance of the Sabbath as the day which bears the stamp of G’d’s creative power.
      Now G’d commands that we observe the Sabbath day as a weekly reminder of His stature, by emulating certain of the attributes He demonstrated when He created the universe.
      In the first version of the Tablets the formula chosen to refer to this reminder is the word זכור, a positive act of remembering, whereas in the second version of the Tablets, as recorded in the Book of Deuteronomy, the word is שמור, “guard, observe, by not violating,” the negative aspect of emulating G’d’s “repose,” abstention from creative activity on that day.
      Our sages say that when pronounced by G’d on Mount Sinai, both words were said by Him simultaneously. Although the sages could have made this point about a number of changes between the wording of the Decalogue in the Book of Exodus, as opposed to the one in Deuteronomy, which was formulated by Moses himself, they did not bother to draw attention to this, as only in this instance might Moses be perceived as having changed what sounded like a positive commandment to something which sounds like a negative commandment. They were anxious not to portray Moses as having taken liberties with G’d’s revealed word. When G’d commanded the observance of the Sabbath to Moses, having in mind Moses’ exceptional stature, He formulated the commandment primarily as a positive commandment, i.e.זכור לקדשו. When Moses relayed the same commandment to the next generation who had not stood at Sinai, He warned him to present first and foremost the negative aspects of this commandment, i.e. the work prohibitions, etc. Actually, the observance of the Sabbath, i.e. worshipping the Lord by observing the Sabbath, includes service of the Lord from overriding feelings of love, אהבה, the positive aspect of the commandment, as well as the observance of the law out of considerations governed by awe, by reverence, i.e. by יראה. The latter is expressed by not violating the prohibitions associated with observing the Sabbath. This is also the reason why, in <i>halachah</i> when observance of a positive commandment conflicts with the simultaneous observance of a negative commandment, as a rule, the observance of the positive commandment takes precedence and even displaces the observance of the negative commandment.
      The word זכור was written in the first version of the Ten Commandments in the written Torah, as it refers primarily to the Sabbath as a remembrance of the מעשה בראשית, G’d’s having created the universe, something concerning which the Torah writes elsewhere זכור ימות עולם, “remember the history of the universe,” (Deut. 32,7) whereas the word שמור was the one written in the second version of the Ten Commandments, as the second aspect of the Sabbath is its commemoration as an historical event experienced by the Israelites with both their bodies and their souls.
      Nachmanides writes that he is not sure if the word שמור in Deuteronomy was spoken by G’d Himself at all, seeing that it was not written on the Tablets [after all the Book of Deuteronomy, according to tradition was composed by Moses, the text being approved by G’d afterwards. Ed.] He concludes that it is even possible that the word שמור appeared on the original set of Tablets, the word זכור being substituted on the second set of Tablets. It was Moses who told the people that the word שמור had been said to him simultaneously, when he was told what was written on the first set of Tablets, the ones he had smashed. This, in Nachmanides’ view is what the sages had in mind when they said זכור ושמור בדבור אחד נאמרו, “the words <i>zachor</i> and <i>shamor</i> were said as a single utterance.”
  
     זכור, “to remember.” <i>Rashi,</i> in commenting on the infinitive mode of the word זכור used here instead of the imperative mode <i>zechor!,</i> as in Deuteronomy 32,7, comments that the commandment means that the memory of the Sabbath day must be foremost in the mind of Israelites not only on the Sabbath day itself, but must be something that we also think of during the six days of the work week. The practical way in which we are to do this is illustrated when the Talmud tells of Rabbis, who, whenever they came across some delicious food item during the week, bought it immediately, with a view to serving it on the Sabbath.
      Nachmanides, in commenting on that paragraph in the Talmud, (<i>Beytzah</i> 16) in which Shammai and Hillel respectively are described as fulfilling this requirement in slightly different ways, says that the plain meaning of the Torah’s text is that the reason why we must remember the Sabbath day everyday is to ensure that we do not observe the wrong day of the week as the Sabbath. [after all, in nature there is no visible difference between the Sabbath and the other days. It is not distinguishable by seasonal factors nor by the position of the moon in the sky, for instance. Ed.] By thinking of the importance of the Sabbath on an ongoing basis, we will not forget the debt of gratitude we owe the Creator, Who has given us this sign as a gift, reminding us of the dignity of being a creature instead of the product of a mindless act of natural forces. [my choice of words. Ed.] It is a most potent symbol strengthening our faith in <i>Hashem.</i>
      The meaning of the word לקדשו in our verse, i.e. “to sanctify it,” is that the existence of this special day be constantly present in our minds, that we think of the day as a sacred day, meaning that on that day we refrain from our mundane concerns which preoccupy us during the other six days of the week. We are to devote this day to enhance the spiritual concerns which we are capable of enjoying, and which we are bidden to devote our attention to. Included in this meaning of לקדשו are such activities as visiting our Rabbis, our spiritual mentors, and listening to their words of enlightenment and cheer, by means of which they improve our capacity to enjoy a day of “rest.” The farmer who asked his wife –not knowing that their son had died-why she was visiting the prophet on a day that was neither the Sabbath nor the New Moon, shows clearly that the Sabbath was used as a day on which the ordinary Israelite recharged his spiritual batteries by interacting with the spiritual elite of the nation (compare Kings II 4,23) The reason why the sages declared that observance of the commandment to remember the Sabbath to keep it holy, and not to violate the work prohibitions on that day is equivalent to all the other commandments in the Torah, is precisely this function of the Sabbath to renew our spiritual batteries.
      We are taught in the <i>Mechilta</i> that part of the sanctity of the Sabbath is that we do not count the days of the week as do the gentiles, but we relate each day to its position <i>vis a vis</i> the Sabbath, as for instance “today is the first day after the Sabbath, today is the second day after the Sabbath, etc.”
      Our sages, taking a cue from the word לקדשו, “to sanctify it,” tell us that this is why we must recite the sanctification of the day over a cup of wine before both the evening meal and the main meal on the Sabbath day. This ”sanctification” is known as <i>kiddush.</i> (compare Maimonides <i>hilchot Shabbat</i> chapter 29) Whereas the sanctification of the Jubilee year every fifty years requires a court of sages to declare it holy, the Sabbath is sanctified by every individual Jew every week. Remembering the Sabbath and sanctifying it are two separate aspects of Sabbath observance
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ששת ימים תעבוד, For six days you will work (for your livelihood).” The word עבודה refers to activities not performed because of bodily needs, such as tilling the soil. The Torah says that such activities as tilling the earth, or similar type of activities should be performed for six days during the week. On the other hand, the words:ועשית כל מלאכתך, refer to activities which are needed to maintain the body in healthy condition, and activities designed to make life more comfortable and enjoyable. The Sabbath is a day on which neither of these two kinds of activities is to be performed. The prohibition extends to male and female adults as well as their children even while they are minors. It includes even the slaves in a Jewish household who have been circumcised and have undergone the ritual immersion and have thus become subject to the prohibitions applicable to the Sabbath. This is spelled out specifically in the second version of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy Actually, it could be argued that such people deserved to be addressed by G’d directly, just as the Israelites, in order to commit them more deeply to this commandment. However, seeing that the slaves are subject to constant directives by their masters, their employers, the Torah preferred to inform them of their duties <i>via</i> their masters who are in the habit of giving them instructions as to what to do and when, all the time. Furthermore, seeing that at the time when G’d addressed the Ten Commandments to the Jewish people they did not have any slaves, it would have been impractical to orchestrate a special revelation for such slaves at a later time in history.
  
  Verse 10
  
     וגרך אשר בשעריך, “and the proselyte within your midst.” According to the plain meaning of the text, whenever mention is made of a גר, literally “a stranger,” in connection with the word שער the gate to your cities, it is assumed that the reference is to a גר תושב, a resident gentile, who has obligated himself to observe the seven Noachide commandments. Seeing that this is so, he is not included in the category of people to whom certain activities known as <i>melachah</i> in <i>halachic</i> terms are prohibited. After all, he is not part of a Jewish household described as applying to האזרח והגר, “the natural born Jew or the stranger who underwent basic conversion.” He is allowed to do for himself what he is not allowed to do on behalf of a Jew. As to the verse which speaks of וינפש בן אמתך והגר, “and the son of your maidservant as well as the stranger, shall recuperate, catch his breath as it were,” (Exodus 23,12) this refers to the fully converted gentile, who is subject to all the laws of the Torah from the moment he has converted.     However, our sages in the <i>Mechilta</i>, understand the meaning of the word גר on each of these occasions, exactly in the reverse order. They understand the words וגרך אשר בשעריך as applying to a one time gentile who has fully converted, whereas the word וגר in Exodus 23,12 they understand as referring to a גר תושב, a resident stranger, i.e. one who has embraced the seven Noachide laws. Seeing that this latter stranger is an uncircumcised person, he has been compared by the Torah to the beast mentioned in the same verse as entitled to physical rest, וינפש on that day, and just as beasts must not perform work for Jews on the Sabbath, neither must resident strangers. The resident stranger is free to pursue his own agenda on what is the Sabbath for Israelites. 
  
  Verse 11
  
   כי ששת ימים עשה ה' את השמים ואת הארץ, “for <i>Hashem</i> made heaven and earth during six days, etc.” Here the whole concept of the Sabbath is linked to the creation, as opposed to the version in Deuteronomy where it is linked to the Israelites’ Exodus from Egypt. In other words, seeing that the slave does not enjoy a day of rest during the week, the Torah underlines that a by-product of the redemption from Egyptian bondage was the entitlement to a weekly day of rest, a day free from the claims on our time and skill by human masters.
      It is also possible that the reason that the wording of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy is so materially different, when it comes to providing the rationale, is to caution us not to treat our own servants in a manner comparable to the way we have been treated while in bondage in Egypt, but to ensure that our servants enjoy a day of rest per week just as we do..
  
     ברך ה' את יום השבת ויקדשהו, “<i>Hashem</i> blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it.” To make it a blessed day and a sacred day by means of mentioning its holiness and by pronouncing it holy and abstaining from all the activities which have been categorized as מלאכה. 
      Ibn Ezra writes that it is G’d Who blessed the day and sanctified it as He conditioned it so that man’s body can host an additional soul on that day, a soul that enhances his spiritual capacity.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   כבד את אביך ואת אמך, “Honour your father and your mother.” After G’d had completed the list of duties we have <i>vis a vis</i> Him, He begins a list of primary obligations we have concerning our fellow man. He begins the list with an obligation to honour one’s biological father, as the father is G’d’s partner in the creation of any new human life. Whereas <i>Hashem</i> is mankind’s original father, the biological father is his final, most recent father. It follows that just as G’d commanded us in His capacity as our Creator, our father is entitled to a commensurate degree of honour and respect, as he fulfilled this role on earth. [It goes without saying that man’s mother is the third partner in the creation of every human being after the first pair of humans. Ed.] The Torah does not go into specifics of how such respect is to be shown to one’s parents. A major component of such honour accorded to one’s father is to publicly acknowledge him as such, just as the basic honour we accord G’d is that we publicly acknowledge Him as the Creator. We must not accord similar honour to other males in order to be recognized as the heirs of another male, for instance, for the sake of reaping some other benefit by such recognition of someone who is not our biological father as such. If one swears by the life of one’s father, one must not portray someone else as one’s father, for instance. Our sages have furnished us with a list of other activities the performance of which is considered proof of our observing this commandment.
      Our sages, in stressing the importance of this commandment, have compared the parents’ claim to be honoured by their children to G’d’s claim to be honoured by His creatures. They derive this, for instance, from the use of the attribute <i>Hashem</i> in this commandment, an attribute which does not occur during any of the last five Commandments, the reason being that those concern inter-personal relations, not man’s relations with his Creator. Seeing that in essence, the performance of the commandment to honour one’s parents concerns itself with issues of relevance in our lives on this earth, the Torah, in its promise of reward also describes this reward in terms of advantages to be enjoyed in our life on this earth, i.e. long life in the land of our forefathers. 
      Our sages say that the promise of the reward is to be divided into two separate promises. 1) Long life; 1a) life in the land of Israel. These two aspects of the reward speak about the terrestrial world, whereas 2) the word יאריכון in itself speaks of a domain in which time is unlimited, the world to come in the celestial regions in the words of the sages: בעולם שכולו ארוך, a world which is not bound by time. Moses elaborates on this further in Deuteronomy 5,16 by adding the words ולמען ייטב לך, “and in order that it will be good for you.”
      Seeing that there was no obvious need to append the letter ן in the word יאריכו, our commentators see in this a hint that the mother is included in all that is written here.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   לא תרצח , “Do not commit murder.” The order in which the Torah lists the following prohibitions needs to be understood as follows: The Torah, implies that the listener (reader) has appreciated that first and foremost G’d had insisted that He be recognized as THE Creator of the universe and all that there is in it. 
      Next, He had commanded that the parents be accorded honour and respect seeing they are partners in the creation of new human life. It follows that you, human being, must not do things which directly result in your undoing what I had done. First and foremost do not shed the blood of a human being who was created in order to honour Me. You would deprive Me of the honour due to Me by My creatures. 
      The prohibition against committing adultery is similarly motivated, as violating the wife of your fellow man not only is a serious injury, affront to the contractual bond between that wife and her husband, but it undermines the whole principle of enabling children to know who these parents are to whom they are duty-bound to show respect. It introduces lies as something normative into this world, whereas G’d stands for truth, and we are to emulate Him if we claim to be His partners. 
      Stealing, i.e. kidnapping, preventing human beings to live the kind of life G’d wishes them to live, similarly deprives G’d of the worship of Him by the kidnapped person held prisoner.
      Similar considerations are at the core of the laws not to testify falsely nor to plan to deprive others of their rightful possessions. Such actions proclaim the lie as an acceptable means to achieve one’s ends, the opposite of G’d’s outstanding attribute of אמת, “truth,” the attribute we are to emulate if we really want to be His partners.
      The first three negative commandments refer to actions performed with one’s body, i.e. with one’s external organs, such as stealing, followed by sins committed with one’s mouth (testimony) and with one’s heart (coveting).
      In the next portion the Torah deals with a long list of משפטים, violations of the norms of inter-personal relations which need to be judged by a court. As long as one violates only the commandment not to covet without taking action to illegally or even legally acquire the desired object no judges will be involved.
      In commenting on the sequence of items coveted, described in the Tenth Commandment, Ibn Ezra says that the reason that the house of your fellow man is mentioned first, even before the taking of your fellow man’s wife, is that any intelligent person makes certain that he has suitable accommodation to offer a woman before he asks her to marry him. Only after he has acquired a wife does he acquire man and woman servants to assist in the household chores. The reason why this order is reversed in the version of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy is that there the Torah addresses young men, who, in their urge to find a mate to marry, do not have the patience to wait until they are economically well established. It is also possible that there Moses talks about someone, who because he lusts after a woman forbidden to him, makes her the focus of all his desires.
      Nachmanides writes that the first 5 Commandments are designed to honour the Lord, the Creator, the fifth doing so indirectly seeing that in honouring parents one does so as they are the nearest link to the Creator that we have. In honouring them, we indirectly honour Him. All the remaining 5 Commandments are designed to enhance the dignity of the individual person.
      In some of the Commandments the consequences of observing it or not are spelled out, such as that G’d is jealous and will demand an accounting from those who slight Him, or that He will not easily forgive someone who uses His name in vain, or that the reward for honouring father and mother, though almost a natural in most instances, will be extremely worthwhile. On the other hand, most of the Commandments are not accompanied by promises of reward if observed or threats of retaliation if ignored. This may be explained in that acceptance of the first Commandment and non violation of the second Commandment are really two sides of the same coin, i.e. he who does refrain from all that is forbidden in the second commandment has in fact observed the first Commandment without lifting a finger. The absence of a warning of specific penalties for violations, or the mention of any reward, is also because Sabbath observance, i.e. recognition of G’d as the Creator both by sanctifying the day and by abstaining from work performed as a duty on the six days of the week is actually a way of fulfilling both the first and the second Commandment.
      The first 5 Commandments appear on the first of the Tablets, whereas the second five appear on the second Tablet [although if the numbers of words or letters were to be matched evenly the arrangement would have at least the fifth Commandment on the second Tablet, Ed.] This is to remind us that the Commandments on each of the Tablets correspond to one another. The Commandment not to commit murder parallels the Commandment of believing in the Lord the Creator, as murdering G’d’s creature undoes some of His work, diminishes His stature. The Commandment not to be disloyal to one’s wife or husband is parallel to the Commandment not to make or serve other deities. We are under oath to the One and Only Creator. The commandment not to use the name of the Lord in vain is parallel to the Commandment not to steal. Eventually, every thief will commit false testimony when he denies the accusation of having stolen. The Commandment to honour father and mother parallels the Commandment not to covet one’s neighbour’s wife, for if he does so successfully and illegitimate children are born from such a union, these children will eventually curse their parents instead of honouring them.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   וכל העם רואים את הקולות, “The whole nation was able to see the sounds, etc.” This is not the only time that the term “seeing” is used instead of “hearing.” Another such instance is found in Genesis 42,1 where Yaakov is described as “seeing” that there was food for sale in Egypt, a distance of hundreds of kilometers from where he was at the time. What was meant is that he had heard about it, from returning travelers.
      Our sages understand the verse literally, i.e. that during these exalted moments the people actually saw the sounds, the words.
      Nachmanides writes that our verse does not describe what the Israelites had seen during the revelation, but what occurred later, and that this is what Moses referred to in Deut.5,20 ותקרבון אלי וגו', “you approached me, etc.” They told Moses at that time that they could no longer endure the voice of G’d and were afraid to die unless Moses from then on would act as their interpreter. Personally, Nachmanides’ opinion is not acceptable to me, considering the fact that the Torah quotes the Israelites as saying words of a similar nature already in our paragraph immediately after the conclusion of the Decalogue. At that point nothing was said about the Israelites being afraid to die as a result of the overwhelming impact of what they had experienced. Furthermore, Moses is already telling the people: “אל תיראו, “do not be afraid (that you will die).” G’d had already commented that the people had done well in requesting that Moses be their interpreter of G’d’s words. (Deut. 5,25)
      I believe that the chronological sequence of what is reported in these paragraphs is as follows: the paragraph commencing with the words וכל העם (20,15) reports something which had preceded the actual giving of the Ten Commandments. As an introductory preamble, the Torah, i.e. Moses relates all the instructions he had received concerning the fencing off of the Mountain, followed by the proclamation of the Ten Commandments. Now Moses reviews what the Israelites had been saying to him in the course of this whole procedure, reminding them that from the moment they saw thunder and lightning they had trembled, retreated backwards, and taken up a position quite some distance from the bottom of the Mountain, way beyond the security fence Moses had erected. The secret to understanding all this lies in the fact that from early morning on the day of the revelation there were continuous explosion-like sounds of thunder, tremendous flashes of lightning, all of which preceded the manifestation of G’d’s presence. The people reasoned, understandably, that the intensity of these phenomena was likely to increase still further once the <i>Shechinah</i> began to manifest itself. Moses, in order to demonstrate to them that they had nothing to fear, led them closer to the bottom of the Mountain, a location from which the descent of the <i>Shechinah</i> to the top of the Mountain could be observed as a spectacle resembling the smoke arising from a crucible (19,18) all the way to heaven. The very Mountain started trembling, as if they were experiencing a major earthquake. David, in Psalms 114,4 describes the mountains of the Sinai range as dancing like rams. Seeing that, as reported, the sound of the <i>shofar</i> instead of receding, continued to become ever louder, the people reacted accordingly. The description by David in Psalms is not allegorical, just as the description of the sea fleeing from G’d at the time He split the Sea of Reeds, (Psalms 114,3) is not allegorical, but is a factual description of what had occurred. At that point, the people turned to Moses in awe, begging him to become their interpreter. They were willing or even eager to skip the experience of hearing the Lord address them directly. They had not even wanted to respond to Moses’ encouraging overtures to approach the Mountain somewhat closer to the edge of the fence. They observed Moses approach the thick cloud within which the presence of the <i>Shechinah</i> was concealed. He did however, not enter it. 
      At that point, G’d began to recite the Decalogue.
      The Torah, at this juncture does not report at all what the elders had been saying to Moses, i.e. the recollection of events as presented in Deuteronomy to the new generation, shortly before he himself was to die.
      At this juncture the Torah’s major concern was to begin to elaborate on all the commandments, primarily the ones dealing with inter-personal relations that are set out in the portion called משפטים in chapters 21-23.
      In the Book of Deuteronomy, however, Moses does relate that all the leaders of the people after the revelation approached him, expressing their profound fear that if they were to be exposed to more mind-boggling experiences like these they would not be able to endure this. The reason they approached Moses at that time was that they thought G’d would address all the Commandments to them in the manner experienced at the Mountain. They therefore gave Moses their leader <i>carte</i> blanche to accept all these Commandments on their behalf committing themselves to observe any and all of these Commandments they had not been informed of as yet. G’d agreed with the feelings the Israelites had expressed. It had been His intent all along that the people would only hear the Decalogue from His mouth directly.
  
     וינועו, “they trembled.” Our sages (compare <i>Rashi</i> quoting<i> Mechilta)</i>) understand the word as related to זיע, It appears in a similar sense in Isaiah 24,20 נוע תנוע ארץ כשכור, “the earth wobbles like a drunk.” People retreated from that spectacle out of fear.[the word poses many problems even in the <i>Mechilta de Rabbi Yishmael,</i> compare <i>Torah Shleymah,</i> Rabbi Menachem Kasher Ed.]
      According to the followers of the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, the word is related to תנועה, motion, i.e. the people moved away from this spectacle.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   לבעבור נסות, “in order to test, etc.” <i>Rashi,</i> basing himself on the word נס, a banner, something one looks up to, understands the meaning of the line as “in order to elevate you, to grant you greater stature.”
      Nachmanides understands the meaning to be: “to get you used to supernatural manifestations in order to strengthen your faith.” People who have been granted such revelations will have their belief transformed into knowledge. As a result, they will cling more closely to their Creator.
  
     ובעבור תהיה יראתו על פניכם, “and in order that the awe of Him shall be on your faces.” When you realize that He alone is G’d in heaven and on earth, you will be appropriately respectful. This would recall their fiery vision on that occasion.
      Alternately, the meaning could be related to נסיון, familiarity, being used to something from experience. Compare: לא נסיתי ללכת באלה, “I am not used to wear these.” (David declining King Saul’s armour or uniform before battling Goliath Samuel I 17,39).
      Maimondes explains the words בעבור נסות אתכם, to mean that “when I want to test you by sending you a false prophet, I steeled you against being misled by allowing you to witness the revelation as a safeguard against any claims by false prophets in the future.” The experience you had at the revelation at Mount Sinai will enable you in all future to be able to resist the lure of the promises that a false prophet is liable to make to you.
      In addition to this Nachmanides writes that the word refers to a real test, in the constructive manner of the term, and when David declined Shaul’s armour, he meant by saying לא נסיתי ללכת באלה, that seeing he had not had the proper training in handling such garments, he would not want to risk his life by wearing it without first having tested it. When a master assigns a difficult task to a servant in order to see if the servant is equal to the task, the intent may be to bolster the servant’s self-confidence, when he sees that the master expects him to be able to carry out such an assignment. The revelation at Sinai, in a manner of speaking was a compliment by our Master, <i>Hashem</i> Who demon-strated His faith in our being able to endure such a test.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויעמוד העם מרחוק, “The people stood at a distance.” Even though we have read this statement before (19,15), the Torah repeats it to tell us that due to the overwhelming impact of the spectacle they had seen and heard, they had retreated even further from their original position and taken up a new position still further away from the base of the Mountain. Moses meanwhile performed what they had initially been supposed to do themselves.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   לא תעשון אתי, “Do not make (images) of what is with Me;” our sages understand this to mean that we must not reproduce images of phenomena we see in the skies, i.e G’d’s primary domicile.
  
     אלוהי כסף ואלוהי זהב לא תעשון לכם, “gods of silver and gods of gold you shall not make for yourselves.” Nachmanides writes that after the Israelites had seen that <i>Hashem</i> spoke to them from the heavens and that He is Overlord in the heavens, do not assign anything to Him as a partner, i.e. such as silver or gold. The message of our verse is that the Jewish people have no need for additional external help such as is provided by material wealth represented by silver and gold. The reason why the expression לא תעשון, “do not make, construct,” is repeated twice in the same verse, is because the first time it refers to the faith people have in such values, whereas the second time the warning is not to make visible symbols of such faith in material goods. The Torah also separately forbade the making of a hewn deity which represents an abstract belief. (Verse 4)
      Ibn Ezra explains that G’d uses the fact that He spoke to the people directly, without intermediary at Mount Sinai as proof that the people have no need to revert to intermediaries, neither astrology nor material goods in this terrestrial world to assure their well being and to deify such values as the source of their good fortune. Idolaters are foolish enough to expect such images representing what they perceive to be independent values to intercede on their behalf with the Creator.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   מזבח אדמה תעשה לי, “an earthen altar you shall make for Me.” Some commentators see in this verse a message not to decorate the altar with any artwork on its walls, etc., and this is why the verse is followed by the injunction that if the altar is made of stones these stones are to be smooth, without engravings of any kind, either recessed into the stone or protruding from the stone.
      Other commentators understand the whole verse as G’d telling us that He does not expect us to erect fancy buildings for Him, buildings made of gold or silver, but to erect the most simple structure for Him which He will be happy to take up residence in on earth, the only condition being that we will offer our sacrifices to Him, exclusively.
      Nachmanides writes that Ibn Ezra means that the entire verse is to be understood in conjunction with the report in <i>Parshat Mishpatim</i> (chapter 24) where Moses is described as erecting an altar (central) and 12 smaller altars, one for each tribe, called מצבה, on which the priests, i.e. the firstborn offered meat-offerings to <i>Hashem</i>, most of these animals being consumed by their owners. These offerings represented the sealing of the covenant entered into by the people with G’d at the revelation. Assuming that the Torah reports the events surrounding the revelation in chronological order, the sequence is as follows: G’d tells Moses to remind the people (20,20) that they have seen visual evidence that <i>Hashem</i> spoke to them from the heaven in His capacity, as the attribute י-ה-ו-ה. On the one hand, you must not make beside Me silver or golden gods (material values which you revere as if they were gods), but I do permit you to erect altars made of earth, or of smooth stones in order to offer sacrifices to My attribute of <i>Hashem,</i> be they burnt offerings or meat-offerings, and these may be offered without restriction of location. I will bless you at these sites wherever they are. These blessings will be both of spiritual and material dimensions.
      The Torah writes: ואם מזבח אבנים תעשה לי which creates the impression as if the building of an altar is a voluntary thing, entirely up to you, although it is, of course, a precondition to the offering of sacrifices. The meaning of the line is: “if and when the time comes when you will inherit the land and a Temple is to be built, when the altar will be a solid structure, it must not be decorated with pictures, etc., but the stones must be perfectly smooth. There must not be any steps by which to ascend it. Seeing that the subject of the altar came up, mention is made here already of details of the altar, although we would have expected to hear about it much later, either when the Tabernacle’s furnishings are discussed, or in the Book of Kings when Solomon constructs his Temple and all of these details are recorded for posterity.
  
     בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי, “wherever I permit My name to be mentioned.” According to Ibn Ezra the line means “at any site where there is some memory of My presence to be recorded.” When, in the future, you will have occasion to visit such a site, I will make a point to also bestow My blessings on you there.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   חרבך הנפת עליה, “you have raised your sword over it.” This verse forbids contact of iron tools with the altar. Elsewhere this is spelled out as:אבנים שלמות תבנה, לא הניף עליהם ברזל, “you shall construct it of whole stones, stones which have not been worked on with iron.” (Joshua 18,4) The Torah uses the word ברזל and חרב interchangeably, as the sword is made of iron. A sword is an instrument meant to kill, an altar is a means to foster peaceful relations between man and G’d, and between man and man.
      Ibn Ezra offers another reason for this legislation, i.e. the Torah is concerned that part of the holy altar (the parts of the stone chiseled off when making smooth surfaces), should not wind up in the garbage container, whereas the other part of the same stone has become sanctified. Alternately, the Torah does not want people to scoop up these stone chips and to make out of these remains an altar for idolatrous practices.
      Nachmanides queries both the aforementioned commentaries, pointing out that the Torah did not forbid the altar to be made of hewn stones, it only opposes the use of iron when hewing these stones. This point is made explicitly not only here, but also in Deut. [not quite. Ed.] Accordingly, not only the legendary <i>shamir’s</i> glandular secretions are acceptable as tools to shape the stones for the Temple, but so are tools made of silver of copper. 
      Our sages (<i>Mechilta</i>) see the reason for this injunction in the desire of the Torah to fulfill the positive commandment of building an altar in the most perfect manner, bearing in mind that the task of the altar is to become an instrument to lengthen our lives on this earth. How does it look when we use as tools to achieve this objective instruments that are designed to shorten man’s life?
        My personal feeling (Nachmanides writing) about this commandment is that the reason that a חרב is called by that name, i.e. something that is מחריב, destructive by nature, and something that was Esau’s primary tool, he being a destroyer, so much so that in blessing him his father Yitzchok expressed the hope that he would at least use the word to lengthen his own life and not die in fruitless battles. The sword’s power extends beyond the terrestrial spheres to the celestial regions for during the ascendancy of the planet Mars, the red planet, the planet that alludes to blood, warriors are notoriously successful. In consideration of all this, neither the Tabernacle nor the Temple built by Solomon contained anything made of iron, the material swords are made of. The only things made of iron that had any function in either the Tabernacle or the Temple were the knives used to slaughter the sacrificial animals. [even these were not used inside the structure itself but in the courtyard where the altar for meat offerings was situated, and where the slaughtering of such animals took place. Ed.]
        The <i>Mechilta</i> draws attention to the fact that the Torah writes concerning the use of stones hewn with iron tools, that they must not be used in building the altar, i.e. they were permitted to be used in building the Sanctuary and the Holies of Holies. However, Solomon applied a more stringent interpretation of the underlying concept, and did not use such tools in the construction of the Temple itself either.
  
       לא תעלה במעות, “you must not ascend by means of steps, etc;” this legislation was for the honour of the altar itself. Seeing that the altar is the means by which the sins of the Jewish people are atoned for, it is appropriate to treat it not only with courtesy but to accord it honour. [If I understand the thoughts of the author correctly, the emphasis is on the fact that the altar stands “only” in the courtyard. Whereas it does not need special legislation to demand a dress mode inside the Temple which does not reveal any flesh not engaged in the actual performance of the Temple service, one might have thought that the rules pertaining to the altar which was outside the building, would be less stringent. Therefore the Torah wrote a special verse telling us that the sanctity of the altar is equivalent to that of the furnishings inside the structure, the היכל and the קדשי קדשים. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ואלה המשפטים, “and these are the ordinances, etc.” The introductory letter ו at the beginning of the word ואלה means that what follows must be understood as a continuation of what preceded it, i.e. the Decalogue.
      Alternately, what follows are new ordinances, continuing the laws which had been revealed already at <i>Marah,</i> where the Torah spoke of two types of laws that were taught to the people, i.e. חוק ומשפט. The reason why the Torah chose to follow this pattern is because at the beginning of the Decalogue G’d had first introduced Himself with the words: “I am the Lord your G’d, etc,” so here too Moses introduces all these laws by reminding the people that they had just recently experienced the revelation, In other words, all that follows originates with the same G’d as did the Decalogue. 
      Moses’ words: אתם ראיתם וגו', corresponds to the first two commandments (i.e. the ones heard and understood by the people spoken to them by <i>Hashem</i> directly.) What follows under the heading of ואלה המשפטים corresponds to such commandments as לא תחמוד, indicative of the final and perhaps ethically most demanding commandment (as it tries to control our feelings and desires that are unspoken) If man does not know the legal aspects of private property, how can he be sure that he does not violate G’d’s will in this respect? This is why G‘d used the term תשים לפניהם, meaning that the laws following must be clearly set out for the people, must be elaborated on. No one must remain in doubt so that he cannot claim that what he coveted was not something belonging to someone else.
  
     אשר תשים לפניהם, ”which you are to set out before them.” Our sages (<i>Mechilta</i>) draw attention to the word לפניהם, meaning “before the Israelites,” but not before the gentiles or the common, uneducated people. Had the Torah wanted that Moses explain the details of the following legislation to unlearned people, it would have written a different formulation, such as אשר תלמדם, which you are to teach them, or אשר תשים להם, a formula used when Moses taught the people some of the laws at<i> Marah.</i> (Exodus 15,25) The expression לשום לפני וגו' is a standard phrase when the Torah means for something to be taught to the judges, the elders of the people. All litigants always have to appear before a quorum of judges, compare Deut. The judges are described as יודעי דת ודין, possessing knowledge in matters or ritual law and interpersonal relations requiring legal decisions.
      The reason the <i>Mechilta</i> understands the word לפניהם as excluding gentiles, is to warn Israelites not to have their disputes judged by a court composed of gentiles even if the laws of the gentile host country are similar to ours in that matter. Even if both litigants are agreeable to submit their dispute to a gentile court for a ruling, the Torah does not permit this. If, however these same Israelites agree to submit their dispute to three gentile laymen, (or more or fewer) this is acceptable as G‘d’s jurisprudence has not been slighted thereby.
      Rabbi Joseph Kimchi draws attention to the Torah not having said תשפטם, “you are to render judgment,” but תשים לפניהם, “submit before them,” as the Torah speaks of a situation when the basic <i>halachic</i> rulings were known to the parties. However, this is insufficient, as it allows the owner of a Hebrew servant to claim that had he known that this man’s services would be limited to 6 years, he never would have bought his services in the first place, and that therefore the entire transaction had been based on a misunderstanding. Or, for instance in the case of an ox goring a gentile servant with fatal results, for which the Torah fixes that the owner of the ox which gored has to pay 30 shekel, (a small and fixed amount) even if in the market place such a slave while alive could have fetched several times that amount. Pleading ignorance of the legislation is no reason to revoke transactions that had involved ignorance of the finer points of the law of compensation.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   כי תקנה עבד עברי, ”When you acquire the services of a Jewish labourer,” Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah commences the legislation following with this example of the details of setting such a labourer free from his obligations <i>vis a</i> vis you in the seventh year, is that this law contains reminiscences of the Jewish experience in Egypt. This is why the Torah (in Deut. 15,15) writes: “you shall remember that you were a serf in the land of Egypt and the Lord your G’d set you free; this is why I command you this thing this day.” In addition to the reminder of the bondage experience of the Jewish people in the legislation containing the treatment of Jews performing forced labour, there is also a reminder of the 6 days of Creation followed by the Sabbath, the same cycle (in terms of years) applies to the period that a man who has sold himself, or been sold by the Court, has to serve out his term with the same master. The element of the sanctity of the seventh time seven years surfaces once more if said servant voluntarily extends his term of service for the same master. The entire legislation reflects symbolisms, seeing that the number seven surfaces as something intrinsically holy, or as something to be sanctified in terms of years or multiples of <i>shemittah</i> cycles. This is also why the prophet Jeremiah 34,13 warns the Jews that they will be punished with exile (becoming slaves again) for collectively violating the law which required them to release their servants not later than after 49 years, i e in the Jubilee year, as well as the law governing the abstention from working one’s land or orchard every seventh year. The Torah continues with laws governing murder or killing through negligence, which is the most serious of crimes committed against one’s fellow man, followed by the laws about not treating parents with the respect due them, even bodily harming them, followed by the laws about stealing property, etc., one after another in logical sequence.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   אם בגפו יבא, “if he enters service as a single individual,” a reference to his body גוף being unattached. Marriage can be perceived as the reuniting of two bodies separated at the time the first woman was separated from the body of the first man, Adam. Alternately, it means that this person did not own anything but his body, hence he was sold into service for his debts. 
     אם בעל אשה הוא, “if he was married at that time, etc.” if he was already married to a Jewish woman, his master may assign a non Jewish woman to be his mate. If, however, he had not been married yet, his master must not assign a non Jewish woman for him as a mate. The psychology underlying this legislation is that a normal person does not feel at ease with his fate unless he shares his life with the first woman who became his mate. If the first woman who became his mate is a gentile, he will most likely be so attached to her that even after his term of service he will not want to part from her although she is bound to her master for life. If the same servant had been married before his labour was sold for six years to the same employer, he is likely to yearn for his wife, and will not choose to remain with his master until the Jubilee year. 
     ויצאה אשתו עמו, “his wife will leave together with him.” From this verse we deduce that the servant’s master had obligated himself to look after the needs of the servant’s wife and children. (not voluntarily, but this was part of the contract the Torah has in mind). 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  והגישו אדוניו אל האלו-הים, “his master is to bring him to the Court.” The word אלו-הים here refers to a Court.      Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why the judges in the Torah are often referred to not as שופטים but as “<i>elohim</i>” is because they are G’d’s agents on earth, carrying out His will.     Nachmanides understands our verse to mean that the master is to bring the servant in question before a judge, a legally constituted tribunal, a site which enjoys the presence of the <i>Shechinah</i> and which inspires the judges to ensure that their verdict will be in line with G’d’s wishes. These judges are authorized by G’d to either exonerate or to condemn as evil, as guilty. (compare 22,8) Moses also stated: כי המשפט לאלו-הים הוא, “Justice belongs to G’d,” when he referred to the function of tribunals on terrestrial earth. (Deut.1.17) We also have an explicit verse illustrating this concept in Psalms 82,1, i.e. אלו-הים נצב בעדת א-ל, “G’d stands in the divine assembly.”  
     והגישו אל הדלת, “he shall bring him to the door.” According to the plain meaning, seeing that the court holds its session publicly as we know from Ruth 4,1 where the judges sat near the city’s gate, the servant’s ear would be pierced on the door of the city’s gate. This would ensure maximum publicity of the person’s new status.     Some commentators say that the point of the procedure is to indicate by the hole in the servant’s ear that this individual is charged with guarding the “door, entrance” to the home of his master     Other commentators claim that the procedure itself as well as where it took place, will ensure that this servant could never claim that the hole in his ear was self-inflicted, as his master by bringing him to the door where the procedure had been performed can demonstrate that the height of the mark left on the door by the chisel that pierced his ear matches exactly the height from the floor to the servant’s ear. 
     ועבדו לעולם, “he will continue in service to his master until the Jubilee year.” Seeing that the word לעולם in our verse cannot possibly mean: “forever,” the alternate meaning of this word in Scripture is: “until the Jubilee year,” and is applied here.     Ibn Ezra explains that the word לעולם in the Holy Tongue describes a certain period of time as we know from <i>Kohelet</i> 1,10 כבר היה לעולמים, “it has already existed in antiquity.” In this verse it refers to a well-known point in time, one that recurs every 49 years. In terms of time cycles in the Jewish calendar, or history, it is the longest such cycle, and therefore the word לעולם, commonly translated as “forever, without end,” is most appropriate. At the end of this cycle a new עולם, “world,” opens up before this servant. 
  
  Verse 7
  
   לא תצא כצאת העבדים, “she will not be free in the manner male servants are freed.” Loss by the servant of an eye or a tooth, through violent action by the master, leads to the servant’s immediate freedom. The same rule applies to the male Jewish servant. We need a special verse for this lack of symmetry governing treatment of gentile slaves when abused, and that of Jewish servants similarly abused, as without it we would have deduced from an a fortiori, that if a gentile slave is freed immediately due to his master having rendered a tooth or an eye useless, a Jewish servant would be entitled to at least the same privilege. If this logic were to be applied, the Jewish servant would forfeit his entitlement to compensatory damages, something he does not in fact forfeit. The basic difference in the legislation is that in the case of the gentile slave the freeing of the slave (whose body was owned by his master) is in the nature of a penalty to his master for having abused him. Whenever the Torah legislates a penal measure it cannot serve as a model for other situations. 
      Our verse must be understood as a negative commandment not to release a female or male Jewish servant for loss of eye or tooth, and that doing so, far from being a charitable act, is in fact the violation of a negative commandment. The Torah is stringent with the master, closing a loophole that would have enabled him to escape his financial obligations to the victim of his cruelty or carelessness. The Hebrew servant or female servant is compensated according to the rules prevailing for any other Jewish male or female, and in the event that the compensation exceeds the value of the servant’s labour still to be rendered under his contract, the master (employer) does not have the option of freeing such a servant forthwith. Such a temptation for the master is especially likely when the incident occurred near the end of the forced employment term of said servant.
      Alternatively, the plain meaning of the phrase is that maidservants, unlike men servants, are not supposed to be sent outside, into the fields, for instance, to perform their labours, but are to do this in the house of the master or in his yard.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   לעם נכרי לא ימשל למכרה, “he must not sell it to a member of a different family.” Our sages deduced from this wording that a father must not sell his daughter into service again after she has been released from her first master. Similarly, her first master, instead of releasing her, is also prohibited to sell her services to someone else, seeing he has not kept the promise that was implied when he first acquired her services contractually from her father. He had betrayed her trust by not marrying her when she attained the age of puberty or shortly thereafter.
      It is also possible that the meaning of our verse is to inform us that the criteria which apply to someone who sells himself, occasionally even to a gentile (Leviticus 25,47) if he cannot find a Jewish employer who pays his wages years in advance, so that he can pay back money he owes, are not the criteria that apply to a young girl’s father, or her employer, although, basically, her father had the right to sell her services as had her employer to buy her services, effectively preventing her from quitting he employment prematurely. This is why the Torah warns that no father has the right to sell the services of his daughter to a gentile. The Torah adds that if the father had bought his daughter out of her original contract (when it became clear that her employer had no intention to marry her, for instance) he is not allowed to sell her services to a gentile instead. He cannot do so even for a very short period of time.
      Another possibility of understanding our verse is: “when a father is about to sell the services of his daughter the minor, his authority is restricted to his doing so to a Jewish employer.” At any rate, at all events we derive from this verse that a second sale of the same girl by either the father or her former employer is absolutely prohibited. The extra wording in the verse that enables us to derive this rule is בבגדו בה, “seeing he has betrayed her.” The prohibition not to sell her to a gentile would have been clear from the words לעם נכרי לא ימשול למכרה, “he has no authority to sell her to a gentile.”
      Nachmanides writes that the plain meaning of the verse is as follows: when a man sells his daughter’s services the rules of her release from service are not identical to those applying to males mentioned earlier, such as her being wed by her employer, for instance. If this is the case, the father cannot redeem her by some means to prevent her becoming married to said employer. [the girl herself can, of course, decline such offer of marriage. Ed.] If she does not find favour in the eyes of her employer so that he wants to marry her, the father cannot sell her services instead to anyone else, seeing that he had betrayed her originally by selling her services to someone who had no intention of making her his wife. 
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ואם לבנו ייעדנה, “if he had intended her as a wife for his son;” the expression ייעדנה is equivalent to the Torah writing “הזמינה,” “invited her.” The expression occurs in this context in the Scriptures in Samuel II 20,5 מן המועד אשר יעד, “than the time planned for him.”
  
     כמשפט הבנות יעשה לה, “according to the rights of young women he shall treat her.” A reference to the master’s son. The entitlements of the young women are spelled out as שארה, כסותה, ועונתה, her food, clothing, and marital rights.” She is not to be derived of all or any of her statutory rights. He must, in the event that he does not personally marry her, provide her with the equipment given to Jewish daughters when they are about to marry. These endowments are known as מוהר בתולות. These rights are parallel to the economic stake a master has to give a male servant upon his release from service after the requisite number of years, (usually after 6 years.) All of the above legislation is a demonstration of G’d’s loving concern for the economically underprivileged, whose experience in service was, after all, a result of such under privilege.
      Nachmanides writes, that according to the plain meaning of the text one may understand the legislation as the employer of the girl who intended her as a bride for his son having to give her a dowry out of his own pocket.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   שארה, according to <i>Rashi</i> this is a reference to her entitlement to food. According to Nachmanides [who considers the opinion expressed about this as that of a single scholar, not binding, and not <i>halachically</i> accepted as being of such axiomatic nature. Ed.], this line according to the plain meaning refers to conjugal marital rights, the word שאר normally meaning גוף, body, especially when referring to family relations. Nachmanides views the meaning of the word as an expanded version of one’s own personal flesh, i.e. genetically related relations, “blood relations.” We know from Lavan that he said to his nephew Yaakov “אך עצמי ובשרי אתה,” “after all you are my bone and my flesh.” (Genesis 29,14). Flesh that is consumed, eaten, is also called שאר as we know from Psalms 78,27: וימטר עליהם כעפר שאר, “He rained meat on them like dust.” [a quantity of meat as generous as the dust on earth. A reference to the Israelites in the desert, compare Numbers chapter 11. Ed.] The reason why it is called this is that meat has a tendency to attach itself to other food. Blood relations also have a tendency to cling to one another. The description by the Torah of conjugal rights of intimacy by the wife as something anchored in law is therefore quite understandable. Naturally, this right is mutual, the husband being reciprocally entitled to intimacy with his wife’s body.
  
     כסותה, “her covering,” i.e. bed covers.
  
     עונתה, “her entitlement to conjugal relations.” At least after her having ritually immersed herself.
  
     לא יגרע, “he must not diminish.” He must not marry another woman in addition, and thereby reduce this former servant’s status to that of a concubine both in appearance and by her reduced conjugal rights The second wife is not to sit on the bed of the first wife, thereby causing her mental anguish. Any marriage to an additional wife must not be at the expense of the first wife.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   שלש אלה, “these three,” the three options the Torah provided to the master-employer, 1) to marry her herself; 2) to make her his son’s bride; 3) to release her before her contractual 6 years of service have expired if she showed premature signs of puberty. No compensation for time not served is due her master/employer in such or similar circumstances.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   מכה איש ומת, “if one strikes a man with fatal results, etc.” According to our sages the conceptual linkage between these apparently unrelated subjects is that when a capital punishment is imposed on someone for a crime normally involving compensatory financial damages, the sinner does not also have to pay financial compensation to his victim. The repetition of the words מות יומת implies that with his judicial death he has paid for all his crimes.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   וגונב איש ומכרו, “and he who kidnaps a person and sells him, etc.” The Torah inserts this verse (subject) between the verse dealing with murder, and the one dealing with physically assaulting one’s parents, or cursing them. Some commentators feel that the point of the sequence is to list two crimes both of which are punishable by strangulation of the sinner together. Cursing parents, on the other hand, is punishable by the guilty party being stoned to death, a more painful and demeaning manner of execution. This commentary does not seem very convincing to me, as if that were the reason the Torah adopted this sequence, the verse dealing with kidnapping should have preceded that of describing parents being assaulted. In that way the verses dealing with improper behaviour against parents could have remained part of the same sequence, and the two crimes for which the punishment is strangulation could also have been written sequentially.     Rabbeinu Saadyah gaon explains that seeing most victims of kidnapping are small children, who as a result of being sold, will be raised far from their parents’ homes, not even able to recognize their parents, the chances that at sometime during their lives they will curse or physically assault a parent, not even being aware that the person they cursed was a parent, the kidnapper deserves the penalty which otherwise would be applicable to the victim of the kidnapping had he done what he did deliberately. This is why the Torah chose this apparently obscure sequence.     The penalty for a son who curses his father without laying a hand on him is more severe than the penalty for physically assaulting one’s parent, because this offense is more commonplace than the one of actually raising a hand against a parent. In order to act as a deterrent, the Torah imposed a harsher penalty.     It is also possible that the reason why the penalty for cursing one’s parents is harsher than for striking them, is that cursing involves using the holy name of the Lord for such a nefarious crime. [<i>Halachically</i>, “cursing” means to curse someone in the name of G’d, to try and call down G’d’s anger against the person one curses. Ed.] He who curses parents has committed two major sins simultaneously. 
     ומכרו ונמצא בידו, “and he sold him but the kidnapper is apprehended while still having the kidnapped person under his control.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the victim is found in the kidnapper’s possession before the sale.     Nachmanides writes that if this were so the Torah would not have needed to bother to write the line ונמצא בידו, “the victim was still in the kidnapper’s control.” Seeing that we obviously have witnesses to the crime, the kidnapper had both kidnapped and sold the person concerned, he clearly was under his control. He therefore understands the meaning of the words ונמצא בידו to mean that the kidnapper has brought the kidnapped person into his private domain to mean that until the kidnapper had brought his victim into his private domain he is not liable to the penalty the Torah decrees. The rule is parallel to someone who has stolen and then slaughtered or sold the animal in question. His penalty of making 4 or 5 fold restitution is also applicable only if the stolen animal had first been transferred to the private domain of the thief. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   או באגרוף, “or with a fist.” According to our sages the word אגרוף refers to a fist, i.e. a palm balled into a fist. It describes the injury being caused as like a punch by a boxer. The reason the Torah mentions either a stone or a fist as being the cause of the non-fatal injury, is that both a stone and a fist when used in a fight are proof of a degree of premeditation. Even though, generally speaking, a stone inflicts a more serious injury, both of these weapons do not as a rule cause fatal injuries, although, admittedly, being hit by a stone appears to be more serious.
      Some commentators understand the word אגרוף as referring to dust, the word occurring in this context in Joel 1,17 עבשו פרודות תחת מגרפותיהם, “the seeds have shriveled under their clods of earth.”
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   על משענתו, “on his cane.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the Torah means that the injured person can manage to walk without any external assists, as distinct from sick and weak people who require canes or “walkers.”
      Nachmanides writes: “it appears to me that the Torah means that if this injured person is able to walk even only with the help of a cane, or “walker,” that the person who has hit him is exonerated from the charge of manslaughter (if eventually, more than 24 hours later the victim dies) The Torah’s example is based on the most likely result of injuries sustained by being struck by a stone or a fist. The immediate result may be a short sojourn in bed followed by a rapid recovery. The fact that the victim has ventured outside before he died, is an indication that any danger he had been in had already passed before that stage. If he had only been able to hobble around indoors, the attacker is not exonerated from causing the death of his victim.
  
       רק שבתו יתן ורפא ירפא, “he only has to pay compensation to the victim for time lost from work, and for his medical expenses.” The Torah refers only to the fee of the attending physician, not to the cost of medications, which, if prescribed by the physician will also be supplied by him. The victim is not entitled to forego the medications and retain the cost of them. Unless he uses them, the attacker is not liable for their cost.
        Our sages derive from the wording ורפא ירפא that the physician is permitted to practice his art, and that we do not adopt the attitude that if G’d wants him to recover he will recover and if not he will die, i.e. that it is not up to us to interfere. (<i>Baba Kama</i>105). The comment in the Talmud is strange as we have a law (Leviticus 19,16) that one must not stand idly by when a fellow Jew is in mortal danger and could be saved when one takes the appropriate action. The answer given is that the verse ורפא ירפא is needed to make clear that if through lack of skill or misdiagnosis the patient dies after receiving treatment, we do not hold his physician responsible for the death. Another interpretation of the line is that the physician is entitled to charge for his services. If not for this verse we would have assumed that it is one’s moral and ethical duty to heal for free, just as judges do not get paid, and just as Torah is taught for free. [the latter, no longer common, is excused by Abravanel on the grounds that if the teacher of Torah is economically underprivileged, lives in dire circumstances, his students will not want to “buy his wares,” i.e. his Torah, believing that Torah scholars are slated for a life of poverty. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   וכי יכה איש את עבדו, “if someone strikes his (gentile) slave, etc.” The subject of this verse is only a gentile slave, whose body is owned by his master. The Torah teaches that although the stick had been used as a disciplinary rod, and the stick was not a walking cane (whose use as a disciplinary means might inflict far more pain and injury,) the owner must take care not to inflict the kind of injury that might prove lethal. Otherwise, the death is to be avenged.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   אך אם יום או יומים יעמוד, “but if he will survive one or two days, etc.” seeing that if a survival of a single day suffices not to treat this death as manslaughter, why does the Torah add the words “or two days?” Our sages answer that what the Torah refers to is a day that is comparable to two days, i.e. the minimum period of survival is 24 hours, even on two successive calendar dates. (<i>Mechilta</i>)
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   כאשר ישית עליו בעל האשה, “according to the assessment levied upon him by the husband of the pregnant woman whose fetus died.” The Torah emphasizes that the injured party herself, i.e. the woman, is not allowed to determine the scale of compensation as she has no ownership rights concerning her children. [she is not allowed to “sell” her daughter, for instance, whereas the father is. However, she is compensated for pain, etc. Ed.
        Ibn Ezra explains that our verse allows for a mutually agreed settlement between the husband of the woman and the one causing the injury, failing which the court, i.e. בפלילים will assess the amount of damages payable. 
        Nachmanides explains that the new aspect of this legislation is the fact that although the damage is not definite as no one knows if the woman would have successfully carried out this fetus, and normally when the value of the damage cannot be assessed with precision, no financial damages are payable, the nature of this payment is under the heading of “punitive damages.” The Torah gives the husband leeway to determine the amount of punitive damages due to him. The reason is that he is presumed to have a greater stake in the loss of this fetus. The reason that the Torah also involves the court, בפלילים is to ensure that the husband does not make unreasonable demands, above the value of such a fetus if it had been born already, for instance.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   וכי יכה איש את עין עבדו, “if an owner strikes the eye of his slave, etc.’ The Torah speaks of a gentile slave. The legislation pertaining to the destruction of such a servant’s eye formulated here applies equally to 23 other parts of the body enumerated in the Talmud. The reason the Torah chose the eye as the example of the organ whose loss results in the slave’s being freed forthwith, is that when Cham, Noach’s younger son, saw his father in a state of nudity due to his being drunk, instead of covering him he told his brothers i.e. he employed his teeth in doing so. This is why even the loss of a tooth is considered so important by the Torah, (verse 27), as it too is an organ capable of causing serious harm.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   וגם בעליו יומת, “also its owners shall be executed.” This execution would be at the hands of heaven, not by human tribunal. [clearly, the owner could not have been warned of what his ox was going to do and that he would be executed if he did not prevent it so that legal proceedings against him would result in a death sentence. Ed]
      Nachmanides writes that he cannot follow the translation of Onkelos who takes the text decreeing execution of the ox’s owner literally. He speculates that possibly Onkelos meant that the owner deserves to be executed. Instead, the Torah, in this instance, provided monetary compensation to be paid by the owner.
      Alternately, what Onkelos meant to say was that this owner, when the day would come when he was meant to die, would die a violent death instead of dying from natural causes. In other words, by his negligent conduct with this aggressive ox he made himself liable to G’d’s direct intervention in causing his death.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   אם כופר יושת עליו, “If monetary atonement be assessed against him, etc.” The introductory word “if” presents a problem; what is “iffy” about this? The matter is similar to the atonement for sins obtained through the offering of a sin offering for instance. When such an offering has been legislated by the Torah, the court does not send enforcers to see to it that the party obligated to offer it does so. If he does not, he will not attain atonement. Similarly, in the case of the owner of the ox. If he fails to pay the assessment he remains out of grace with his Creator, but the court does not check if he has in fact made the payment decreed by the court. This is why the Torah prefaces the legislation with the word אם.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   או בן יגח או בת יגח, “whether it gores a boy or it gores a girl, etc.” The Torah considers the death through an owner’s negligence of a minor as just as serious as the death of an adult. The reason why we needed a specific verse for this legislation to be spelled out is that when an ox kills a man it is as if a bear enraged through the loss of one of its young goes on a rampage, i.e. disregarding danger to itself. On the other hand, I might have thought that when an ox gores a minor this was not such a serious departure from its normally tame behaviour that the owner forthwith has to guard it with all the means at his disposal. The Torah therefore informs us that any animal which kills any human being, even a minor, has changed its status to becoming a שור מועד, an aggressive ox, with all that this implies for the precautions its owner has to take to neutralize it as a source of danger.
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   או כי יכרה איש בר וגו', “or if he digs a pit.” The word for “pit” here is spelled without the customary letter ו, the only instance in the Torah when it is spelled in this manner. The reason is that the Torah implies that even if the digger of this pit dug far less that the minimum depth required for the pit to become a lethal hazard, (10 <i>tefachim,</i> 40 cm) it is the last such <i>tefach</i> which makes him liable for the consequences, even if he had only deepened an existing pit by a single <i>tefach</i>. The sages rule that in such an event it is also the last digger who is responsible for the damages caused. (<i>Baba Kama 51</i>)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   אם זרחה השמש עליו דמים לו, “If the sun illuminated the burglar, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text, the assumption of the Torah is that if someone breaks into a house at night he means to kill the owner (if he obstructs him in his attempt to steal) The murderer plans to flee by daylight when his being about does not arouse any suspicion. If the owner of the house kills the intruder, this is considered self defense even if the intruder had not yet laid a hand on the owner. When the intruder came by day, it is presumed that he had no intention to kill, and if nonetheless, the owner killed him, he is guilty of having shed his blood.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   כי יתן איש אל רעהו כסף או כלים, “When a man entrusts his neighbour with silver or chattels for safe-keeping;” the first paragraph in this sequence deals with someone who does not receive compensation for looking after his friend’s valuables in his own house. The reason why the Torah singled out money or vessels is that these are the most common items a person asks his neighbour to keep for him during his absence from home. The next paragraph deals with a situation where the guardian of his friend’s property is compensated for his trouble. This is why the Torah chose domestic animals as the example of what is to be guarded, as these require time-consuming care, not like money or vessels. It may therefore be presumed that the owner offered to compensate his neighbour for his trouble.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   אם טרוף יטרף, “if it is thoroughly torn;” the Torah describes the animal’s death as due to the kind of accidental death that the guardian could neither have foreseen nor prevented. This frees him from the need to compensate the owner, if his claim can be substantiated. The same rule applies if that beast had been kidnapped by armed thugs, or if it died of natural causes. In the event that the custodian claims that the animal in his charge had been killed by a predator, and there are no witnesses, he has to swear an oath in support of his claim. The Torah describes a scenario of, say, a lion attacking a sheep in a flock. Usually, there are more than one shepherd in the vicinity who can testify to what occurred. If the animal sustained a fracture or died of natural causes, this would likely have happened in the privacy of the custodian’s house so that there is hardly a chance to produce a witness testifying to the innocence of the custodian. Hence the Torah writes: אין רואה, there is no outside witness. 
      Ibn Ezra understands the line יביאהו עד, “let him bring a witness,” not as an unreasonable demand, but as referring to part of the mutilated animal. It can be determined by examining the remains how this animal met its death.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   מהר ימהרנו לו לאשה, “he shall make all the preparations required to marry her.” Nachmanides understands this as the seducer (groom) sending the girl the customary gifts סבלונות, a groom sends prior to the wedding. These are expensive gifts, not boxes of chocolate or a bunch of flowers. They are items that the bride needs as part of her outfits to prepare her for a dignified wedding ceremony. The wedding canopy would usually be erected after the bride had received these gifts from her husband to be. The reason why the Torah phrased this procedure in the way it did, instead of writing: “he must marry her forthwith,” is because it is not the seducer’s duty to marry her unless she has indicated her willingness to become his wife. If she does not agree to marry her seducer, the latter must still send her these gifts, as by seducing her he has greatly diminished the chances that another young man would want to marry this girl whose virginity has been jeopardized. Such a girl‘s father would have to tempt prospective suitors with a much larger dowry in order to make them consent to marry his daughter.
      Our sages say that the value of the <i>mohar</i> described in our verse is 50 shekel (<i>Ketuvot</i> 38), similar to the amount payable by a rapist to the father of the girl whom he had raped. The difference in law between the rapist and the seducer is merely that the former cannot ever divorce his wife (whom he had raped before she became his wife) against her will The seducer has a choice both in marrying his “victim” and eventually divorcing her if he so desires. The reason suggested for this rule is that it is not uncommon for young men to seduce girls who are of marriageable age. It would not be appropriate that the sinner should benefit by his deed in forcing marriage of his “victim” against her will. We must not forget that the girl who allowed herself to be seduced had been guilty of frivolous conduct also. This is why the Torah did not apply the same harsh rules to him that it applied to the rapist who forced himself on his victim. It suffices that he is made to pay a hefty financial fine. Moreover, rapists, as a rule, force their attentions on girls who are minors, and it would not be fair to force such a victim to be married to her violator against her will. If we were to do this she would become a victim of the same person a second time. Both she and her father can object to the rapist marrying her, whereas the rapist himself has no choice in the matter. In both situations the Torah limits these rules to when the girl in question is not yet older than 12 and a half years. In the verses dealing with rape this is spelled out in detail, i.e. הנערה (Deut. 22,28) Fully adult girls, (12 and a half+ receive the compensation themselves, not their father). In our verse here the Torah does not need to write the word נערה to indicate that this is the oldest girl to whom this legislation applies, seeing that if she were older the father would not be in the picture as the recipient of the fine stipulated by the Torah. She would not herself qualify as a potential recipient of a fine, seeing no crime had been committed against her interests. All she had had to do was to decline the invitation to engage in intimacies with the man in question.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   מכשפה לא תחיה, “Do not allow a witch to remain alive. Contrary to other examples of people guilty of the death penalty, where the Torah describes their fate in positive terms, i.e. “you must execute them,” in this instance the Torah chooses a negative way of describing its objective writing “must not be allowed to live.” In practice this appears to mean that failure to execute someone guilty of a capital offence is accounted merely as the failure to observe a positive commandment, i.e. negligence by the court, whereas here failure to execute a witch is described as the violation of a negative commandment, i.e. an act of insubordination against G’d. The reason the practice of witchcraft is so abhorrent in the eyes of G’d, is that these people not only sin but cause all those whom they mislead into believing in their powers to abandon their faith in the true G’d; in other words they present themselves as G’d’s competition. Another such category of sinner is the מסית, the person who actively solicits others to abandon the faith of his fathers. There the Torah categorically demands that no possible ameliorating circumstances be allowed to be presented in defense of the accused. (compare Deut. 13,7-12) In our case, the wording of the Torah implies that all means of killing such a witch must be employed if it proves impossible to convict her by the normal legal processes and the stringent demands of testimony normally applied in prosecutions that can result in the death penalty
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   זובח לאלוהים, “someone offering sacrifices to gods, etc.” The use of the vowel <i>patach (kametz)</i> under the letter ל is proof that the Torah refers to known deities, the ones which had been previously mentioned, and whose worship had already been forbidden.
  
     יחרם, “he shall be destroyed.” The individual is to be executed. The reason why the Torah chose the unusual term יחרם here is a play on words, seeing that the individual has seen fit to deify “dead” gods, he too is to be equated to the deities whom he had worshipped. We find that the Torah indulges in such play on words, for instance when describing how we are to relate to certain forbidden foods, living creatures of a lower order; or the offering of such creatures as sacrifices. In Deut. 7,26 the Torah forbids the presentation of such living creatures as sacrifices to the Lord, the reason being given כי חרם הוא, ”it is something that is viewed as slated for destruction.” People who are so misguided will wind up exactly where these sacrifices wind up, i.e. יהיה חרם כמוהו. He who deifies these creatures as substantive will wind up losing his own substance, just as these gods that never had any substance. The verse also implies that such gods are totally out of bounds, i.e. one must not derive direct or indirect benefit from them.
      Nachmanides writes that actually the vowel ל under the latter ל before the word אלוהים frequently indicates that the word אלוהים following is a celestial being such as an angel. He quotes numerous examples. Offering a sacrifice to an angel, as was the intention of Manoach in Judges 13,15 is equally prohibited. The only address for sacrifices is the attribute <i>Hashem.</i> The Torah had to make this plain, as many well meaning people believe that by honouring angels they also honour their Creator. They consider the angel as being a go-between man and G’d, whose task it is to inform man of what is pleasing to G’d. Their error consists in their assumption that by presenting gifts to intermediaries they are actually serving G’d. In order to prevent such errors from being practiced by Jews, the Torah had to make plain that <i>Hashem</i> is the only address for such offerings.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים, “for you had remained strangers in the land of Egypt.” Nachmanides writes that not all proselytes have become potentially fit for conversion because we, the Israelites, were strangers only in the land of Egypt. 
      Personally, (Nachmanides speaking) I think that the moral/ethical message here is that we must not taunt the proselyte, reminding him of his lack of illustrious ancestors, seeing that we ourselves not so long ago were no better than he while we were idol worshipping aliens in Egypt. I, the Lord, have saved you from there because I took note of your pitiful state. Similarly, any proselyte will certainly also enjoy My full protection a soon as he turns to Me complaining about being discriminated against. G’d promises similar immediate attention to the pleas of widows and orphans. Their claim for Divine assistance is based on the circumstances in their lives preventing them from taking the kind of initiatives that promise to improve their social and economic status among their peers. Elsewhere the Torah writes:ואתם ידעתם את נפש הגר “you know the mental state of the stranger,” meaning that his mentality is devoid of self-confidence, and that he is therefore liable to cry out to G’d for help at frequent intervals. (compare Exodus 23,9)
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון, “Do not oppress any widow or orphan.” The word כל, “every,” is meant to include wealthy widows and well to do orphans. It teaches that contrary to appearances, such people are keenly aware of the loss of companionship and moral support they have sustained, and that cannot be compensated for simply by earthly possessions. The Torah addresses people generally, society, hence the word תענון, is in the plural mode.
      Ibn Ezra comments that the penalty for someone witnessing such oppression without protesting the behaviour of the party guilty of it, is the same as the person actually guilty of such oppression of the orphan and widow.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   אם ענה תענה אותו, “if you as an individual will be guilty of oppressing such an unfortunate person, etc.” the Torah addresses every such individual not only as a member of society, but in his capacity as a heartless individual. 
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   והיו נשיכם אלמנות, “your own wives will become widows, etc.” This will be the penalty exacted as a result of widows complaining to G’d.
  
     ובניכם יתומים, “and your children will become premature orphans.” This will be the result of an orphan complaining to G’d about being treated unfairly.
      This type of retribution is quite different from death sentences handed out by a heavenly court of law. Concerning such penalties the Torah employs such syntax as ומתו בו כי יחללוהו, “they will die on account of having profaned it or Him.” (Leviticus 22,9) Examples of how such decrees are carried out would be soldiers dying in battle, (i.e. before having completed a normal life cycle).
  
     אם ענה תענה אותו, <i>Rashi</i> comments on that line in verse 22 that it contains an abbreviated dire warning without spelling out the kind of penalty resulting. The penalty mentioned in verse 23 refers only to G’d’s response to a complaint by the injured party, whereas no mention is made of the penalty imposed when the injured party did not complain to G’d about being maltreated.
      Nachmanides writes that <i>Rashi</i> is not correct, but that the words אם ענה תענה אותו, have to be understood as in lieu of the words “if he will complain to Me” preceding the punishment of the offender in time, that G’d threatens that He will immediately respond to the complaint if the oppressed orphan even before he has finished complaining. The apparently illogical sequence of this line underlines the immediacy of G’d’s response. The reason for G’d’s “haste” in responding to the outcries of widows and orphans is that whereas ordinary people try to mobilize their social contacts or their wealth to help them over temporary difficulties, the orphans and widows have no such means to fall back on.
      Only G’d will avenge the wrong done to them
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ושמעתי כי חנון אני, “I shall listen for I am compassionate.” G’d is concerned that the reader should not conclude that G’d’s concern for the property and comfort of the righteous does not also extend to the not so righteous, such as in the legislation not to take as a pawn for a loan which is overdue certain necessities. (compare Deut. 24,17)
      Some commentators interpret the line והיה כי יצעק אלי to mean that if the individual in question was in the habit of thanking the Lord for the acts of kindness he had experienced that had been performed by you, such as not taking your bedclothes as a security for a loan, He in turn would respond to the prayer when he asks for help.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   אלוקים לא תקלל, “You shall not revile G’d; nor shall you curse a legally appointed dignitary of your people.” This is a warning not to curse a judge who has found you guilty in litigation.
  
     ונשיא בעמך לא תאור; not to curse the king if he imposed some penalty on you. Not only the king, any legitimate official is meant. Even a member of a religious court, i.e. one dealing with ritual matters, is included in this prohibition.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   מלאתך, “your fullness offering, etc.” Nachmanides writes that this word is applied also to seed as in פן תקדש המלאה הזרע, (Deut. 22,9) “lest the growth of the seed that you plant become forbidden.” The expression is also found in connection with the יקב, the winery, i.e. the wine press or the oil press. Apparently, produce from field or vine is called both תבואה because it is “brought” home to be stored, and it is also called מלאה as it has to be gathered and collected, to wit סוכות is the festival called חג האסיף the holiday of ingathering. We encounter the expression מלא רועים referring to a gathering of shepherds. (Isaiah 31,4)
      It is also possible that they are called מלאה as an expression symbolizing the blessing represented by the farmer filling his granaries and vats.
  
     ודמעך, “your priestly heave-offering.” A reference to grape and olive harvests, the juice of which is perceived as flowing out like tears, a little at a time.
      Ibn Ezra understands the word מלאתך as the grape harvest that due to its abundant moisture needs to be transferred to vessels for storage before irretrievable loss of juice occurs. The word דמעך, refers to the olive harvest in his opinion, as oil drips very slowly, drop by drop similar to tears.
  
     לא תאחר, “do not delay in offering.” Our sages understand this to mean that they are not to be offered in reverse order. (<i>Terumot</i> 3,6) [such as tithes being given before the <i>terumah</i> to the priests. Ed.]
      According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah simply warns not to eat of any of these fruit before the requisite gifts have been set aside enabling the farmer and ordinary individuals to eat from all this. The reason why the Torah speaks about redeeming the firstborn, calling it a gift to G’d, in the same breath, is that just as the harvest of what grows in the field and orchard must be freed for secular use only after the various tithes have been set aside, the same rule applies to the “harvest” of the union of husband and wife, the first born male child.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   ואנשי קודש, “and “holy” people, etc. The reason that the Torah suddenly refers to the status of holiness, sanctity, is that up until now in this portion when we spoke about laws governing interpersonal relations this consideration did not enter the ordinances revealed in our chapter. Now, when forbidden foods are mentioned, the rationale which serves as the background to such legislation is the fact that Jews are spiritually on a higher level than gentiles, i.e. they are in varying degrees “holy.” A person is to eat the kind of food that not only assures his physical health, but also that which contributes to his spiritual health. This “spiritual health” is referred to generally as טהרה, ritual purity. Avoidance of the foods mentioned by the Torah is intended to forestall the body of Jews becoming gross, uncouth, something which the intake of certain animals prohibited by the Torah would facilitate, even if the same animal when healthy, unblemished, is fit to be consumed. The Torah’s message is that <i>Hashem</i> desires us to maintain a level of spirituality that enables us to cleave to Him in the desired manner.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   לא תענה על ריב, “do not respond to a grievance, etc.” The Torah speaks of a grievance that you are asked to get involved in as one of the arbiters, with the understanding that a majority opinion would be decisive. You must voice your opinion regardless of being outvoted.
      Some commentators understand the verse to mean that one must not decide such matters alone, but in a quorum in which the majority opinion is accepted.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   וחדלת מעזוב לו, “and you would refrain from assisting him;” this is a veiled warning that you must not dare abandoning him to his problems just because the owner of the beast has a record of being hostile to you. On the contrary, you must make every effort to assist such a person, provided he too does his share in enabling the overloaded beast to get rid of its burden.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   תשמטנה ונטשתה, “you shall leave it untended and unharvested.” You must neither plough and seed it nor fertilise the earth for future use.
      Nachmanides questions that the only work prohibited by Biblical decree is ploughing and seeding. Other work in the field during that year is prohibited by Rabbinic decree. He therefore explains that what the Torah speaks about here, [seeing that the first mentioned prohibition of seeding and harvesting has been spelled out in Leviticus 25. Ed.] is the subject dealt with in the previous verse where seeding for 6 consecutive years has been permitted or even ordained. During the seventh year, neither seeding nor harvesting is allowed. Whatever has grown in the field during that year must be left for the poor, and if there are not enough poor it must be left for the beasts roaming the fields.
      Ibn Ezra understands the word תשמטנה to refer to the foregoing of seeding, planning, the root שמוט implying withdrawal from activity. This is the way in which an owner signals that ultimately his field is G’d’s.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ובכל אשר אמרתי אליכם תשמרו, “be careful concerning all that I have said to you.” According to <i>Rashi</i> this is a warning concerning every positive commandment, i.e. each positive commandment implies violation of a negative commandment if it is ignored. [based on <i>Mechilta</i> chapter 20 by Rabbi Eliezer. Ed.] 
      Nachmanides questions this whole concept, claiming that contrary to the meaning of the word השמר when used in connection with a negative commandment, when used with a positive commandment it leaves the positive commandment intact as such. He adds that unless, according to <i>Rashi,</i> this would be a general negative commandment, it would follow that every violation, i.e. failure to observe a positive commandment would automatically be punishable by 39 strokes.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, this line covers all the words commencing with ושם אלוהים אחרים in our verse.
  
     ולא ישמע על פיך. “your mouth shall not cause it to be heard.” The Torah means that even if the name of such a deity is mentioned without any attribute identifying it as such, it is still prohibited to mention it as such in the presence of people who worship such a deity. These considerations prompted our sages to advise not to enter into a business partnership with a gentile, in order not to inadvertently violate this commandment. (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 63) 
      It is possible to understand the word תזכירו here as a transitive verb, meaning that you must not mention the name of the deity to the person who worships such a deity anyway by, for instance, saying to him: “why don’t you pray to your god for help?”
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   חג הקציר. “the harvest festival.” Nachmnanides explains why the name of this festival has not been mentioned here. It is because all the legislation about festivals does not appear in the Torah until much later in Leviticus and in Numbers, at this point the Torah only alluded to it, without naming something we are not yet familiar with. Nonetheless, it was important to indicate that as soon as the harvest has begun, the duty to set aside for G’d or His representative on earth, i.e. the priest or Levite, whatever is due to Him. The command to “make” such a festival resurfaces in Deut. 16,10, i.e. ועשית חג שבועות לה', “you are to make a festival of weeks for <i>Hashem.”</i>     Perhaps, in view of the fact that the Torah writes here already that there are to be three festivals involving pilgrimage to the place where G’d is in residence on earth, and the Torah had mentioned that the <i>matzah</i> festival occurs in the spring, the second such festival occurring during the harvest season, mention of the third such festival is related to the end of the harvest season, the Torah introduces already the first such festival with the warning, i.e. תשמור, meaning that we must make certain that all of these festivals are observed according to the seasons, i.e. the solar calendar. [with a certain degree of latitude. Ed.]     They are named here in accordance with agricultural activities which predominate around the calendar dates when these festivals are being observed. Each progressive stage in food production from the earth which G’d has put at the farmer’s disposal, qualifies for an expression of thanksgiving by the farmer that he has been fortunate enough to reach that stage without his potential or actual crop having failed. To remind us of this aspect of farming, the Torah describes the address to which the gratitude is to be addressed as אל פני האדון ה', “in the presence of the Master i.e. <i>Hashem</i>.” It is in this capacity as the “boss” of nature that He has supervised your activities and blessed them with success. 
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   הנה אנכי שולח מלאך, “Behold I send an angel, etc.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the Torah hints at this point already that the Israelites will become guilty of a sin which will cause the present proximity of G’d the essence, to be replaced by an intermediary, an angel (compare Exodus 33,2). <i>Rashi</i> mentions this, although at the insistence of Moses, (Exodus 33,17) the presence of G’d eventually did accompany the people, until under Joshua, it was replaced by the angel mentioned here. (compare Joshua, 5,14)
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   לא תשתחוה לאלוהיהם, “do not prostrate yourselves before their deities.” The warning not to become guilty of any form of idolatry is repeated in the Torah again and again, in spite of the Torah’s refraining from any unnecessary verbiage. This only proves how seriously any form of idolatry is considered by G’d, so much so that He repeats such warnings again and again to impress us with His great concern that we not become victims of such philosophies. The Torah, representing our Master, does what any human master does when he warns a servant repeatedly not to forget some basic task that he has to perform. The human master also does not like to have to repeat himself constantly, but he does so in light of the importance of the message he conveys. 
      Perhaps, in the Ten Commandments G’d issued a general command, but now that the Israelites are liable to come face to face with the idolaters in the land of Canaan, they need especial reminders not only not to copy any of their practices but to completely uproot any residue of such idolatry.
  
     ולא תעשו כמעשיהם, “and do not act in accordance with any of their practices.” This is the basic law not to adopt symbols of any gentiles that identify the practitioners as idolaters, even if the practice does not appear to have a religious significance. Generally, these prohibitions are known as not to copy דרכי האמורי, “the customs of the Emorite.” Perhaps the Torah warns here not to copy these religious practices even if in our eyes the practice appears as the very opposite of an act of deference and worship, such as the custom of defecating in front of the “<i>Baal Peor,”</i> a revolting practice, in our eyes. 
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ועבדתם את ה' אלוקיכם, “You shall worship the Lord your G’d.” Nachmanides writes that seeing most of the idolaters are fully aware that the Creator in heaven is the supreme G’d, and they do not pay respects to such forces of nature as for instance the sun, except because they believe that some benefit will accrue to them on account of that, as they think that the sun influences the ripening of the respective crops in their fields, and that G’d has delegated some of His power to the sun for that purpose, the Torah is at pains to remind us that only exclusive dependence of the Creator directly is permissible. We are to realize that by wiping out traces of idolatry in the country this will not only not harm our interest, but, on the contrary will ensure that G’d’s blessing will be even more bountiful. This is why the Torah adds that our bread and our water will receive its blessing directly from <i>Hashem,</i> without recourse to any intermediary.
  
     והסירותי מחלה מקרבך, “I will remove disease from your midst.” This is a promise that the food and drink grown or taken from existing sources will not be contaminated and will be healthy.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   לא תהיה משכלה, ”there will not be a woman who prematurely loses her fetus.” Seeing that the water and other drinks will be healthy thanks to G’d’s blessing, the bodies of the people will be healthy, and the organs responsible for reproduction will be able to carry out their function without hindrance. The reason why the Torah singles out the female population for this promise is that premature abortions occur with women, while a dysfunction of impregnating a woman with healthy sperm occurs generally with men, hence if a woman is barren this may not be her dysfunction but her husband’s, although the visible effect is the fact that she does not bear children.
      It is also possible that premature death of a fetus is a disease, one that originated with the male sperm, so that the promise of לא תהיה משכלה may actually be addressed to the man who will not suffer disease, מחלה, whereas the promise that there will not be an עקרה is addressed to the mothers to be.
  
     בארצך, “in your land.” This includes the livestock.
  
     את מספר ימיך אמלא, “I will fill the number of your days.” You will not die in war, through disease, through adverse climactic effects, but you will live out your years as envisaged at the time of your birth. These promises require supernatural intervention by G’d in your lives, i.e. miracles. G’d will perform these miracles on behalf of people who have made a point of living according to G’d’s revealed wishes. G’d adds that just as He will make plain that we are the beneficiaries of His goodwill, so will He make it plain that the sinners, i.e. His and our enemies, will become the victims of His wrath. They will be afflicted with a number of natural disasters, such as invasions of crop destroying insects, etc. These poisonous insects will even drive out the population of part of the land of Canaan in advance of your arrival there. The tribes mentioned are only representative of all the Canaanite tribes.
      Quite possibly, under ideal circumstances, there might not even be many Canaanite tribes left to make war against, after these plagues had afflicted them.
      According to Ibn Ezra the צרעה mentioned here is a disease afflicting the body, not an insect infesting the grain. The word would be related to the dreaded skin disease צרעת. 
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   לא תכרות להם ולאלוהיהם ברית, “You must not enter into any covenant with them or their deities.” The plain meaning is that the inhabitants will not be promised that their lives will be spared if they surrender, and there will be no understanding that the Israelites will accept any part of their religious practices.
      Nachmanides writes that one could also interpret the Torah as meaning that no agreement of any kind with the local inhabitants must include retaining any of their religious practices. In other words, as long as the local inhabitants have not completely abandoned their idolatrous practices. In the event that the inhabitants convert to Judaism they may be allowed to survive.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה' אתה ואהרן נדב ואביהו ושבעים מזקני ישראל, “and He had said to Moses: “ascend, you and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu as well as 70 of the elders of Israel.” I find it puzzling that Eleazar and ittamar, Aaron’s other sons, were not included in this invitation. Surely they were more distinguished than the seventy elders mentioned in our verse. We have a list of the respective rank of Israelite dignitaries at the time in Maimonides <i>בי</i>את המקדש ה,י<i>ג</i> in which he enumerates the following ranks in this order: Aaron, Eleazar, Ittamar, and Pinchas. The above-mentioned all rose to the position of High Priest, and were superior in a variety of ways to the seventy elders.
      We have a tradition that Nadav and Avihu had already become guilty of death by burning during the episode introduced here (<i>Vayikra Rabbah,</i> 22,10) when they “saw G’d,” i.e. they treated their spiritual high as if it were something ordinary, not even interrupting their eating and drinking during the time they enjoyed this vision. (compare verse 11) Had they not been so highly placed, they might not have been punished in such a salutary manner. At any rate, G’d Who foresees events without necessarily interfering in them, knew that Nadav and Avihu would commit an even greater indiscretion in their enthusiasm to participate in the consecration of the Tabernacle. They were not punished on the occasion described here, as G’d did not want to mar the joy experienced by the people on that day. At the same time, G’d did not want that Aaron would die without a son or grandson who could inherit the office of High Priest. In order not to have all of Aaron’s sons become guilty of the same offence, He did not invite them at the time to accompany Moses part of the way on his ascent to the Mountain.
      According to <i>Rashi</i> this portion describes events which occurred on the 4th of Sivan, (2 days before the revelation). On the other hand, the instruction to Moses to ascend Mount Sinai (verse 12) occurred after the Ten Commandments had been given.
      Nachmanides does not agree with this scenario described by <i>Rashi.</i> He supports this by quoting 21,1 claiming that what Moses told the people then were not the 7 Noachide laws, taught to the people at <i>Marah</i>, but laws revealed to him on Mount Sinai. The words ואת כל המשפטים in our verse here (verse 3) as well as the expression ויספר, an expression used only when something new is being revealed, make it plain that this occurred after the giving of the Torah. These were laws mentioned to Moses immediately after the Ten Commandments had been given, laws introduced with the words כה תאמר לבית יעקב, in G’d added there a reference to the people’s visual experience, i.e. אתם ראיתם “you have witnessed, etc.” (at Mount Sinai, i.e. the revelation) Subsequently, G’d commanded the משפטים to the people as described in chapter 21, and the people accepted all of these joyfully, culminating in their declaration כל הדברים אשר דבר ה' נעשה, “we will perform all the instructions G’d has issued.” (24,3) This was a declaration of faith in Moses who had conveyed all these laws to them in the name of <i>Hashem.</i> It was at this point that G’d said to Moses to tell the people to go back to their respective tents. (Deut. 5,27) It is reported there that the people went back to their tents and made a great celebration on that day. They prepared the slaughtering of the animals for the following day as there was not enough time left on the day of the revelation to build a major altar and 12 minor altars known as מצבה. (compare verse 4) Moses had meanwhile written down all that had been revealed on that day orally. It was better to give the people time to prepare properly for the conclusion of the covenant on the following day. On that day the people rose early in readiness for what was to develop. The people stood at the foot of Mount Sinai, the very place where they had stood to receive the Ten Commandments. It was here that Moses built the altar and the 12 pillars representing the 12 tribes of Israel. After the offerings had been presented on the altar, Moses read for the people what he had written down on the previous day. (verse 6) and the people responded with the famous נעשה ונשמע, “we are prepared to carry it out, let’s hear the details.” The words ויעל משה ואהרן concluded the making of the covenant.
      G’d invited Moses to ascend the Mountain once more and there to receive the Tablets on which were inscribed the Ten Commandments in G’d’s own writing, and to remain on the Mountain for some time, (verse 12) speaks of the day following the giving of the Torah, the 7th day of Sivan, G’d announced to him that at the end of that stay he would receive the Tablets.
      As to the grammatically strange wording ואל משה אמר עלה, which we would normally translate as “and He had said (previously to all this) to Moses: ‘ascend,’ etc.,” we have to understand this in context. Up until now the commandments Moses had related to the people were applicable to the people, including Moses, of course. Now the Torah refers to a commandment that had been given exclusively to Moses, to be performed only by him. G’d commanded him the details of this commandment after Moses had instructed the people in what they were expected to do, and had concluded the covenant with them. G’d then said to him “ascend to Me,” accompanied by the people enumerated, for a part of the way.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ונגש משה לבדו, “only Moses, alone, is to approach close to <i>Hashem.</i>” Ibn Ezra comments that actually the Torah should have addressed Moses in direct speech, i.e. ונגשת אתה לבדך, “you are to approach alone.” However, the pattern of the Holy Scriptures is to frequently use indirect speech when we nowadays would use direct speech. G’d even refers to Himself in the third person, as in Genesis 19,24 וה' המטיר על סדום ועמורה גפרית ואש, מאת ה' מן השמים, “The Lord made it rain on Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire, from the Lord from heaven.” The Torah does not quote G’d saying: “מאתי,” emanating from Me.
      Nachmanides writes that G’d’s comments in this case were also addressed to Aaron, who was to hear that G’d wanted only Moses to ascend the Mountain. On a previous occasion Aaron had also heard G’d say that both Moses and he were “to ascend to Me on the Mountain, but that he and the elders were to prostrate themselves from afar. (verse 1).” Seeing that on one occasion Moses was accompanied by his dignitaries, the Torah had to spell out that at some point only Moses could proceed beyond that threshold. Having eliminated the elders by the words ונגש משה, the word לבדו was needed to make plain that also Aaron was prohibited from advancing toward the Mountain any more closely.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   את נערי בני ישראל, “the youths of the Children of Israel.” What are meant are the firstborn sons of the respective families.
      Nachmanides writes: “I do not know why the Torah calls these firstborns נערים, “youths?” Perhaps the reason is that in the previous verses the Torah had specifically mentioned the זקנים, the elders, the ones who had also been characterized as the אצילי בני ישראל, “the great men of Israel,” the ones blessed with a measure of holy spirit. The Torah may have hinted that attainment of spiritual maturity was not something reserved for people who were born as firstborns, even though those were the ones to whom the functions of the priesthood were entrusted. Seeing that they were the ones, he distinguished them as separate from the multitude.
      According to the plain meaning of the text the reference is to the young men who were still free from sin, had not slept with any woman, so that they were considered the elite of the people.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   וישם באגנות, “he put it in the basins.” These vessels were made in a manner that did not resemble the ones that were part of the regular Temple service, or the regular appurtenances of the altar. The reason for this was that Moses intended to sprinkle half of the animal’s blood on to the people who would become active participants of the covenant through this. The other half of the blood Moses sprinkled on to the altar 
      According to Ibn Ezra the basins, אגנות, were used by Moses both to sprinkle blood on the people and on the altar.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויזרוק על העם, “he sprinkled on the people.” Some commentators understand the word על here to mean בעד, “on behalf of.” We have a parallel to this in Numbers 17,12 ויכפר על העם “Aaron atoned on behalf of the people.”    
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויראו את א-לוהי ישראל, “they experienced a vision of the G’d of Israel.” Ibn Ezra explains that the word ויראו here describes a prophetic vision, not perception with their physical eyes. This vision would be similar to that seen by the prophet Ezekiel when he described the appearance of G’d’s throne. (Ezekiel 1,26) He described it as made of אבן ספיר, whereas here the Israelites due to their familiarity with bricks, described it as לבנת ספיר, as a brick made of sapphire. In verse 28 in that chapter in Ezekiel, the prophet spells out that what he saw was not the actual throne but a דמות, an image of such a throne.     Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text the words א-לוהי ישראל mean that the merit of the patriarch Israel was the catalyst that enabled them to be granted such a vision. 
  
  Verse 11
  
   ואל אצילי בני ישראל, “and against the nobility of the people of Israel, etc.” This is a reference to Nadav, Avihu, and the elders of Israel. The reason why they are described as אצילים is that they had been granted a prophetic vision, the holy spirit had descended upon them. Compare ומאציליה קראתיך, “and from its spiritual elite I have called you forth.” (Isaiah 41,9)
      Ibn Ezra says the Torah uses the appellation אצילי so as to make a qualitative distinction between Moses on the one hand, and the elders. The reason this was called for was that Moses, at the age of 80, could also have been perceived as one of the ”elders.” The new term אצילי was thus coined here to describe the stature of Nadav and Avihu.
  
     לא שלח ידו, “He did not stretch out His hand (punitively).” Nachmanides writes that seeing that the Torah had warned both the priests and people not to ascend the Mountain as this would constitute a breach of the protective fence around the Mountain, (19,24) the Torah refers to the fact that these people had not committed any breach of the rules and therefore did not deserve punishment. Had they done so, they would not have been found worthy to experience a prophetic vision. The whole line of ויחזו וגו' must be understood as what these people did do or experience, meaning that they did not disregard the prohibition of approaching too closely to the Mountain. Some commentators contrast what did not happen here with what happened when G’d did stretch out His hand to Moses to give him the Tablets. This would mean that the people experiencing these visions at this time did not receive encouragement from G’d .
  
     ויאכלו, “they ate, etc.” they consumed the part of the peace-offerings that all Israelites may consume, at the foot of the Mountain, They did not take the meat back to their tents.
  
     וישתו, “they drank;” they used the occasion of receiving the Torah for organizing a great feast on that day to express their happiness at having received the Torah. We find that a similar festivity took place when the Torah, at the end of 40 years, was engraved on the stones taken from the river Jordan. (Deut. 27,7)
      Some commentators understand the Torah’s mentioning that the elders ate and drank as the Torah’s way of drawing attention to the contrast with Moses who, forthwith, ascended the Mountain and remained there for 40 days neither eating nor drinking. Moses most certainly did not have lesser visions than the elders, and yet he did not feel the need to eat for supplying his body with food on such an occasion.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויאמר ה' אל משה עלה אלי ההרה, “The Lord said to Moses: “ascend to Me on the Mountain.”
      According to Nachmanides this is the same commandment he had been given on the previous day when G’d had said to him (verse 2) ונגש משה לבדו, “Moses alone is to come close.” Now, on the seventh day of Sivan, G’d added that Moses was to remain o the Mountain for forty days.
  
     ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן והתורה והמצוה אשר כתבתי להורותם, “I shall give you there the stone tablets as well as the Torah and the <i>mitzvah</i> which I have written down in order to teach it to them.” 
      According to Nachmanides the words: “which I have written,” refer to what is inscribed on the Tablets, whereas the word להורותם, “to teach them,” refers to the Torah and the <i>Mitzvah.</i> Moses is to teach the words on the Tablets to the people.
      <i>Rashi</i> understands the words אשר כתבתי to mean that when closely examined, we would find that the entire Torah is included in the Text of the Ten Commandments.
      Ibn Ezra understands the word התורה as referring to the written Torah, whereas the word המצוה is supposed to refer to the oral Torah.
      The correct interpretation is that both words refer only to the Tablets. The proof is in the words אשר כתבתי להורותם, “which I (G’d) have written to teach them.” G’d never wrote the Torah, only Moses did.
      Some commentators claim that the word התורה refers to the first of the Ten Commandments, whereas the word המצוה refers to the remaining nine Commandments. 
      Still other commentators understand the word התורה as referring to the negative commandments, whereas the word המצוה refers to the positive commandments, as in זכור ושמור that refer to the two aspects of the Sabbath. I believe the message in our verse is that both negative and positive commandments form an integral part of Torah legislation, and it is the purpose of each group of commandments to teach us the right way to conduct our lives. This is why G’d added the words אשר כתבתי להורותם, “which I wrote down in order to teach them.”
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ואל הזקנים אמר שבו לנו בזה, “and he said to the elders: ‘wait for us here.’” According to <i>Rashi</i> Moses said this when he was about to leave the camp, [not at the foot of the Mountain. Ed.] They were to spend the time he was absent judging the people and filling in the void whenever the need would arise.
      Nachmanides questions how this was possible, seeing that the previous verse had both the elders and Moses at the bottom of the Mountain, not in the camp. He therefore explains what happened as follows. When Moses and Joshua took their leave of them, they both said to the elders to go back to their respective tents. However, they added that under no circumstances were they to come back to this location or beyond, not even to the place where Joshua remained during all the forty days Moses would be on the Mountain.
      It is possible to understand the words שבו לנו as meaning “remain in lieu of us and be our deputies.” During our absence, you will be ably assisted by Aaron and Chur.
  
     מי בעל דברים, “if someone has a grievance, etc.” Moses meant that if there would arise a problem beyond the ability of the elders to solve they should turn to Aaron or Chur for a definitive ruling. By saying this to the elders, Moses added stature to both Aaron and Chur, seeing that he publicly appointed them as final arbiters during his absence. The turn of phrase שבו לנו, is also to be understood as a compliment to the elders to whom Moses delegated most of his authority during that period. Moses had used the word לנו once before in a complimentary manner when he authorized Joshua to select fighting man to resist the attack by Amalek, at the end of <i>Parshat Beshalach.</i>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויקחו לי תרומה, “let them take for Me a contribution.” After G’d had spoken to Moses face to face when He gave him the Ten Commandments, and He had already communicated some of the other 613 commandments which form the bedrock of the entire legislation known as Torah, a method comparable to our sages when they admitted proselytes to the Jewish faith and nation, the people in the meantime had accepted even all the laws they had not yet had time to become familiar with. G’d had concluded a covenant with them which confirmed them as His exclusive people for all time to come. He, in turn, would be their exclusive G’d. The time had come then to erect a Sanctuary for this G’d on earth, a structure which symbolized G’d’s presence not only on earth generally, but in the midst of His people. This represented the realization of G’d’s promise in Exodus 19,5 which spelled out the special relationship between G’d and the Jewish people. The principal reason for building this structure was to provide a home for the <i>Shechinah,</i> G’d’s benevolent presence among the people. The Holy Ark within that structure represented the holiest part of it. In connection with it, and after giving detailed instructions as to its size, the materials it was to be made of, and the lid and the cherubs adorning it, G’d had announced ונועדתי לך שם ודברתי אתך מעל הכפורת מבין שני הכרובים אשר על ארון העדות, “there I will set My meetings with you, and I shall speak with you from atop the Cover, from between the two cherubs that are on the Ark of Testimony, etc.”
      This is why Moses began immediately with the construction of the Holy Ark, followed by the making of the Cover, followed by the Table and the <i>Menorah,</i> all of which are the furnishings of that Tabernacle The fact that G’d did indeed speak to Moses from that location, on the Cover of the Holy Ark, has been confirmed in Numbers
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   בשמים לשמן המשחה ולקטורת הסמים, “spices for the oil of anointment, and for the aromatic incense.”
      Nachmanides says that there are some commentators who consider this verse as having been abbreviated, and that its meaning is as if the Torah had written:וסמים לקטורת הסמים, “and fragrances to be used in the aromatic incense.”
      Other commentators interpret this verse as if the text had read: ולקטורת הסמים יביאו סמים, “and for the purpose of making the aromatic incenses they shall bring different fragrances.” The Torah mentions these fragrances collectively at this point, as the letter ה in front of the word סמים indicates that the various fragrances alluded to were well known, and did not require being listed. They were not even listed individually in the paragraph dealing with the making of the incense in Exodus 30,34-38, where only 5 out of a total of 11 are enumerated. [the other six are derived by the sages through interpretation of the text. Ed.]
      Ibn Ezra explains that there was no need to mention the other 6 ingredients as they were used both for the oil of anointment and for the making of the incense. There was no need to repeat the words בשמים and סמים as these words were mentioned already in connection with the “headings” for both the oil of anointing and the incense for burning up. The Torah also did not consider it necessary to write שמן לשמן המשחה, “oil for the oil of anointing,” as the “heading” שמן was implied by the term שמן למשחה as applicable to each of these ingredients.
      The reason why we need all these different explanations with which the commentators preoccupied themselves, is to counter the argument of the linguists that the word סמים refers to medications, or drugs, in other words, something used internally, in the body, not externally. According to these linguists the word פיטום as in פיטום הקטורת, denotes that these drugs exude a strong fragrance.
      However, <i>Rashi</i> thinks that the word סמים describes certain categories of spices, and this is also the opinion of Onkelos who translates both the word בשמים and the word סמים as בוסמיא, spices.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   אבני שוהם ואבני מילואים, “<i>shoham</i> stones, and stones for the settings.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the reason why these stones were called מילואים, settings, is that they were set in gold which had been recessed to accommodate each stone so that it would be firmly set in its frame. The exact spot of this recessed hole is called משבצות in the Torah. (28,25)
  
     לאפוד ולחושן, “for the <i>ephod</i> and the breastplate.” The <i>shoham</i> stones were on the shoulder pieces of the <i>ephod,</i> and the jewels referred to as מילואים were inserted in the breastplate. They were משובצים, surrounded by the golden rim that protruded around the grooves within which these jewels were inserted. 
      Nachmanides is troubled by this interpretation as it does not seem right to him that the stones should already have been named according to their ultimate function, although this was still many months in the future. At this time each jewel had a name by which it was known universally, regardless of which piece of jewelry it was used in. He also finds it strange that the Torah should refer to settings for these stones, seeing that even the breastplate and the ephod for which they were intended did not exist yet, and we have not been told what either of these two garments was. Furthermore, Nachmanides makes the point that the אבני שוהם also required to be placed in settings on the shoulder pads of the ephod, so that the expression אבני מילואים applies in equal measure to these two jewels. They are, however, nowhere described as other than משבצות זהב, “held in place by gold settings.” (28,11) Nachmanides also does not accept <i>Rashi’s</i> comment that the meaning of משבצות זהב is that the jewels set in a groove, depression in the gold, were held in place by a golden rim around the jewel. He prefers the translation by Onkelos מרמצן בדהב, enclosed in gold. This means that underneath each jewel there would be a golden receptacle with small fork-like pincers at the top, which would grip the jewel once it had been inserted in the golden setting. This concept is borrowed from the sages ברמצא דפרזלא, boring a hole with an iron pick. (Shabbat 103, <i>Niddah</i> 62) What is described is a kind of fork, the extreme ends of which can be bent so as to hold a precious object firmly in place. The jewels would be placed at the curved bottom of such a “fork,” before the prongs at the top would be bent over to hold the jewel inside firmly in its position. This is still the way it is done in our days (author speaking)
      The meaning of the word מילואים is that the stone be whole, stones that have not been worked over by diamond cutters and such. Just as hewn stones, אבני גזית, were not to be used in constructing the altar, so the jewels for the breastplate and the <i>ephod</i> of the High Priest had to be in their original state. It is an accepted assumption by people who believe in the therapeutic and other value of certain jewels, that if these jewels are not in their original state they will have no such therapeutic value. 
      The reader interested in the subject, is encouraged to read up in my translation of the commentary of Rabbeinu Bachya, pages 1286-1294 where he explains the therapeutic values of each of the stones in the breastplate of the High Priest. Some gemstones’ therapeutic value cured diseases of the body, others had beneficial effect for people mentally underprivileged. [The author claims that scientific texts in his time claimed that there are actually no more than12 kinds of genuine gemstones. Ed.] Apparently, when such gemstones are found in a river bed, they are flawed as far as their use both in the breastplate or as therapeutic aids is concerned, as the constant contact with the water of the river makes it impossible for them to be retrieved in their natural state. This is why here Onkelos translates the word מילואם as אשלמותא, emphasising the wholeness, whereas in connection with filling of vessels or filling in a hole, he translates it as מילוי, as this is an expression used when it concerns such an activity.
      When the Torah discusses the אבני אפוד, (28,11) it speaks of מעשה חרש אבן פתוחי חותם תפתח על שני אבנים, usually translated as “with a jeweler’s handiwork, engraved like a signet ring, shall you engrave the two stones.” In those instances, each gemstone had to have holes in them to accommodate engraving the names of the various tribes. This was the kind of work done by stonemasons. Concerning the gemstones on the breast plate however, the Torah does not use the expression חרש אבן, but ומלאת בו מלואת אבן, an expression which is repeated in 28,20 יהיו במלואותם, perhaps best translated as “in their mountings.” In view of all these considerations, Moses had no choice but to use the secretion of the <i>shamir</i> worm to accomplish this objective. He showed this worm to helpers of Betzalel, demonstrating that the gemstones would split by themselves in the desired places without the use of stonemasons’ tools, jewelers’ engraving tools.
      Seeing that the word במלואותם occurs only in connection with the jewels inserted in the breastplate, even though the sages say that Moses brought the <i>shamir</i> also to go to work on the jewels of the<i> ephod</i>, by moving that worm above the surface of these two jewels in a manner parallel to writing the respective names of the tribes on them. This is probably an incorrect reference to the jewels on the breastplate, seeing that the breastplate, after all, is known also as the חשן האפד “the breastplate of the <i>ephod”</i> seeing it was fastened by chains to the <i>ephod.</i> The meaning of the wordsאבני שוהם, accordingly, is: the three places where jewels were affixed, i.e. 2 on the shoulder pads of the <i>ephod</i> itself, plus the four rows of jewels on the breastplate. The expression אבני מלואים however refers merely to the jewels worn on the High Priest’s breastplate.
      If it was indeed the opinion of the sages that the jewels on the shoulder pads of the <i>ephod</i> were mounted in the same way as those on the breastplate, it is conceivable that they derived this from the wording in our verse, and they understood the words אבני מלואים as applying equally to the jewels of the <i>ephod</i> and the <i>choshen,</i> respectively.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   וכן תעשו, “and so you shall do.” According to<i> Rashi</i> these words are an instruction that the materials and dimensions mentioned here are applicable not only to the Tabernacle, its furnishings and the priestly garments about to be constructed, but that the same rules apply throughout later generations.
      Nachmanides is not sure at all that this is in fact so, as it would have obligated Solomon to make exact replicas of the vessels used in the Tabernacle, and we have clear evidence that Solomon built an altar of 20 by 20 cubits instead of 5 by 5 cubits as described in (compare Chronicles II 4,1) 
      Ibn Ezra explains the need for the words וכן תעשו, as due to the fact that up until this point the Torah had spoken of the structure, not the furnishings.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, there is no need for all these explanations, as whenever the Torah repeats something, the objective is to urge the party addressed to proceed with the task at hand without any delay. G’d had first said: ועשו לי מקדש, “they shall make a Sanctuary for Me,” and now He repeats: “now that I explained what it is to consist of, I tell you to proceed with the job.” All the Israelites are addressed by the word תעשו, and they all responded, as we know from Seeing that in this verse we are dealing with a command, and instruction, the people are addressed in direct speech: “you are to do.”
      25,10 ועשו ארון, “they shall construct an ark.” This refers to the Israelites referred to in verse 2. When the Torah switches to direct speech in the following verses, making it sound as if these commandments were all addressed to Moses personally, this must be understood in terms of Moses representing the entire Jewish people. The reason that the Torah first employed a plural mode was to encourage all the Israelites to take an active part in the making of the Tabernacle by contributing of their wealth, so that their participation in a sacred undertaking would guarantee each one of them a share in the Torah. However, only skilled people could take part in fashioning the parts and the furnishings.
      Actually 3 separate arks were made. The outer and inner one were made of gold, whereas the middle ark was of acacia wood. The reason that the Torah does not use the expression וצפית אותו זהב, “you are to overlay it with gold,” is that the ark was enclosed only from 5 out of 6 sides, the top remaining open, until the lid was placed on it, as a separate part.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ועשו ארון, “they shall construct an ark.” This refers to the Israelites referred to in verse 2. When the Torah switches to direct speech in the following verses, making it sound as if these commandments were all addressed to Moses personally, this must be understood in terms of Moses representing the entire Jewish people. The reason that the Torah first employed a plural mode was to encourage all the Israelites to take an active part in the making of the Tabernacle by contributing of their wealth, so that their participation in a sacred undertaking would guarantee each one of them a share in the Torah. However, only skilled people could take part in fashioning the parts and the furnishings.
     Actually 3 separate arks were made. The outer and inner one were made of gold, whereas the middle ark was of acacia wood. The reason that the Torah does not use the expression וצפית אותו זהב, “you are to overlay it with gold,” is that the ark was enclosed only from 5 out of 6 sides, the top remaining open, until the lid was placed on it, as a separate part.
     
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   על ארבע פעמותיו, “on its four corners.” <i>Rashi,</i> following Onkelos, understands the word פעמות as referring to the four corners of the ark, and suggests that these rings were fastened at the upper third of the ark close to the כפורת, the lid. There were altogether only four such rings. When the Torah writes later ושתי טבעות וגו', these are not additional rings, but the reference is to two out of the four rings being fastened on one of the sides of the ark.
      Nachmanides writes that there certainly were not more than four rings, but that he cannot agree with <i>Rashi</i> that these rings were fastened in the upper third of the ark, something he considers physically impossible, as it is a well known fact that the higher the rings for the staves were positioned the more difficult would it be for the carriers of the ark to carry their load. 
      [this editor has seen a calculation by the late Rabbi Eliyahu Ki Tov, of sainted memory, that the ark with its combined content weighed approx 39000kg. If so, it could only be lifted with the help of a miracle, and Nachmanides’ concern is of no practical significance. Ed.] A second argument by Nachmanides against the view of <i>Rashi,</i> is that it is far more dignified that more of the ark would be exposed to view when it was being transported, seeing it was borne on the shoulders of the sons of Kehat. [I find this argument also irrelevant as the ark, in common with all the other furnishings was covered by blue woolen cloth, and thus not visible to the people at large while it was being transported. Ed.]
      The following is the commentary on the location of the rings. by my late father of sainted memory the רא'ש. “Personally, I prefer <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary to that of Nachmanides, seeing that the Talmud in tractate <i>Shabbat</i> chapter 8 states that if someone carries a load on the Sabbath more than 10 <i>tefachim</i> (100 cm) above ground he is guilty of carrying in the public domain on the Sabbath, the reason being that the sons of Kehat carried the ark at a level higher than that. [This in itself is an unusual <i>halachah</i> as the domain known as רשות הרבים, the public domain, is not considered as such at a level above 10 <i>tefachim.</i> However, since all the details of forbidden activities on the Sabbath are directly derived from what was forbidden on the Sabbath for the Israelites in the desert, this anomaly resulted. Ed.] The Talmud derives this from the fact that according to the measurements given in the Torah, the height of the ark at one and a half cubits was 9 <i>tefachim</i> without the lid, which was an additional <i>tefach</i> thick. It is derived from there that any load that is transported by means of staves, (such as the ark<i>)</i> has the staves affixed at the juncture of the first and the second third from the top. The rationale given in the Talmud is that the major part of the height of the ark would be above the level of the shoulder height of the carriers, would be in constant state of swinging to and fro, a most uncomfortable if not impossible manner of transporting such a heavy load. On the other and, when two thirds of the height of the ark was below the shoulder height of the Kehatites carrying it, the task of carrying it would be much easier.
      I believe (<i>Rosh speaking)</i> that there were not 4 but 8 rings, 4 small rings attached to the 4 corners, in order to enable the ark to be properly positioned. There were another 4 rings along the respective sides each about one quarter of the distance from the respective corners. They were attached to the sides forming the width of the ark. The staves of which the Torah writes, were inserted through these latter 4 rings along the sides. This explains why in connection with the first 4 rings the Torah added the words על ארבע פעמותיו, whereas no mention of these corners is made in connection with the second set of 4 rings that were attached along the walls of the ark.
      Ibn Ezra writes that wherever else the wordפעמות appears, it refers to legs. He quotes verses from Isaiah, Psalms, and Song of Songs, to prove his point. He therefore concludes that the ark had legs attached to its four corners, and that it would have been disgraceful for such a holy vessel as the ark to be simply resting on the floor of the Tabernacle, [especially as the “floor” apparently was not even a carpet over the desert sand. Ed.] The four rings by which the ark was carried, were attached near the bottom, immediately above the legs. The other 4 rings were decorative, much higher than the ones by means of which the ark was carried.
      Nachmanides, while agreeing that the word פעמות appears elsewhere in our Scriptures always as meaning ”feet,” comes to the conclusion that it means the steps taken by the feet here, but that the feet referred to were those of the priests carrying the ark [through the Jordan river, for instance compare Joshua 4,15 Ed.] The Torah thereby hints that the rings were attached at the corners at the bottom of the ark, the length of the ark faced the eastern wall of the Tabernacle, whereas the rings faced north, one at the north east corner and the other at the northwestern corner. The two southern rings were exactly opposite them at the southeast and southwest corners respectively. The feet of the priests would move between the positions of the rings.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ואל הארון תתן, “and you are to place within the ark, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the reason why this verse appears to repeat what has been written already in verse 16, is to tell us that the Tablets were to be placed inside the ark even before the lid was placed on it. I might have thought otherwise that only after the lid had been constructed was the ark considered complete enough to house the Tablets. After that the lid would be placed on the ark.
      I do not understand what <i>Rashi</i> is saying. It is the most obvious thing that the Tablets could not have been placed inside the ark unless the lid was off at the time. Perhaps <i>Rashi</i> meant to say that the lid was not to be put on the ark at all, not even in order to move it from one site to another, unless the Tablets had already been placed inside it.
      Nachmanides, referring to <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary, writes that if indeed our verse is an instruction, this sounds most illogical; it would be far more likely that the Torah would instruct not to put the Tablets into an as yet incomplete piece of furniture, and only after the ark had been fitted with the lid were the Tablets to be placed inside. After all, the Torah writes that the Tablets are to placed inside the ark, and the ark is not called “ark,” unless it has been fitted with the lid first. Nachmanides also questions the words מעל הכפורת אשר על ארון העדות, “from above the lid, which is on top of the ark of the testimony.” Why would this information have to be repeated? We know that the cherubs were part of the lid, the כפורת! He therefore explains that seeing the Torah had neither explained the need for the cherubs, nor why they had to have their wingspans extended <i>vis</i> a <i>vis</i> each other, it is explained now that the voice of G’d when He spoke to Moses would appear to emanate from precisely this spot between the extended wings of the cherubs on top of the lid of the ark.
      Keeping all this in mind, the Torah repeats that seeing that the <i>Shechinah</i> will speak to Moses from between the outstretched wings of the cherubs, it is fitting that they are placed on the equivalent of a “throne,” כסא הכבוד. This “throne” for the <i>Shechinah</i> on earth, is the Holy Ark, when it is the repository of the Tablets that had been written by G’d Himself.
      Some commentators think that the reason the line was repeated is simply to teach that the first set of Tablets, the ones Moses had broken, were also to be placed inside the same Ark.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ועשית שלחן, “you are to construct a table;” the reason is that the table is the symbol of wealth, honour, distinction, grandeur. 
      Nachmanides writes that the significance of placing the table in the Tabernacle lies in it being a reminder that all material blessings are channeled to us from its original source, from G’d, ever since He created the world. However, in order for that blessing to continue and to grow, it must have some root that it can draw on. The table represents this root. The matter became evident when the prophet Elisha asked the woman whose creditors were threatening to take her children as slaves in settlement of her deceased husband’s debts, (Kings II 4,1) “what can I do for you?” Seeing that all she had was the remnants of a small jar of oil, he told her: “get yourself some containers from your neighbours first.” After she had done so, Elisha used the existing oil to fill all the containers. The lesson we learn from that story is that even a blessing must have something it can focus on, something of substance in this world. Something similar was demonstrated by the prophet Elijah, Elisha’s mentor in Kings I The table on which the show-breads were stacked, fulfilled the same function on behalf of the entire Jewish people. Our sages illustrated the effectiveness of this heavenly blessing channeled through the show-breads by stating that any priest who ate as little as the size of a bean from these show-breads found that he was completely sated.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ועשית קערותיו, “you will make its dishes, etc.” Onkelos translates that which <i>Rashi</i> describes as קערות, the forms in which the show-breads were baked (iron forms, and subsequently displayed), golden forms, as being the מנקיות. In a dispute on the subject, in the משנה, (compare <i>Tossaphot</i> 96,b commencing with the words לא היה) Onkelos decides in favour of the view of the sage who considers the מנקיות as being sort of branch-like semi-open tubes, מכילתא, in Aramaic. The reason advanced by the author for his view is that these מנקיות supported the weight of the forms in which the show-breads were displayed on the table, especially the highest layer of the show-breads. The source, linguistically speaking, is the phraseהכיל ,נלאתי in Jeremiah 6,11, which means: “I am exhausted and cannot contain it anymore.”
      Nachmanides, not assuming that the word may have an Aramaic origin, quotes numerous verses in Scripture where the word means: “supporting something.” He explains that what Onkelos means is that these are the forms in which the show-breads had been baked, and, due to their thinness, they could not be allowed to lie there without being enclosed as during the seven days that each bread stayed on the table from one Sabbath to the next, they would have broken up into small pieces without such support. The Talmud speaks of three kinds of forms, one of which was exactly matching the dimensions of the bread, i.e. the dough that was baked in them; these were the ones called here מנקיות. In Aramaic they are called מכילתא, as they had to be true to the measurements of the dough. Incidentally, Onkelos translates the words איפת צדק, “a true measure,” as מכילין דקשוט. (Leviticus 19,36) This was a form, presumably made of wood or clay, in which the dough was placed prior to being transferred for baking into a similar form made of iron. Finally, there was a form made of gold, to which the breads were transferred after having cooled off, and they were placed on display on the two parallel racks above the table. The measurements of these latter forms did not have to be so meticulously tight fitting. The main purpose of the latter forms was to act as containers. 
      The קשוות is a term which includes the various other small utensils including the shelving tubes. Perhaps they were named thus as they were meant to prevent the breaking up of these breads, and the letter ש in this word is used in lieu of the letter צ. We find a similar substitution of the letter ש for the letter צ in Psalms 65,9 וייראו יושבי מאותותיך, “the dwellers at the far corners of the earth were awed by Your signs (miracles).” 
      The word מנקיות describes a certain measuring cup, or something similar; they are called thus to symbolize that they are accurate, not deceptive, i.e. איפה צדק “true measure.” (Lev. 19,36) The owners will be perceived as free from sin, נקי, as they do not use these devices to enrich themselves by deceiving their customers. I find it difficult to understand, if that were the meaning, why the מנקיות should not have been mentioned first.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   לחם פנים, “show-bread.” <i>Rashi</i> explains the name פנים, faces, to mean that these breads had two ”faces,” i.e. that the manner in which they were displayed enabled people from opposite sides of the Tabernacle to see them clearly. He accepts the view of the sage who describes the manner in which they were displayed as resembling a box that has split open. According to the view that these breads, when in their forms, resembled the shape of a ship, this cannot be the meaning of the word פנים.
      Ibn Ezra explains simply that the breads were called thus as the Torah itself describes G’d as viewing them as constantly in His presence, i.e. enjoying His attention,לפני תמיד.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   כן לששת הקנים היוצאים מן המנורה, “likewise for the six branches that protrude forth from the <i>Menorah.”</i> Seeing that thus far only two of these “arms” have been mentioned, the Torah had to add the word “כן,” “likewise, similarly, i.e. that the same pattern applied to all the six arms. In the verse following, (35) where all six “arms” have been mentioned specifically, there was no need for the extra word כן. This was necessary only where I could have thought that a different six “arms” were referred to. We did need to be told that the knobs, almond shaped decorations, and blossom shaped decorations, were all to be integral on each of these “arms.”
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
   ומחתותיה, “and its pans.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that these “pans,” were meant to accommodate the wicks after they had burnt out.
      Other commentators claim that these “pans” were small receptacles in which the oil for each of the lamps was placed. This seems unlikely, as it would pose the question what does the word נרותיה in verse 37 mean?
  
  
  Verse 39
  
   ככר זהב טהור, “one talent of pure gold.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the Torah means that the <i>menorah</i> including all its auxiliary vessels, should weigh neither more nor less than one talent of gold. 
      Nachmanides comments that when looked at from the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, <i>Rashi</i> is certainly correct. However, if it is so, this poses the question how much the chunk of gold known as the <i>menorah</i> was to weigh by itself? Why would the Torah not have given us this detail concerning the by far largest part of this major piece of furniture in the Sanctuary? The Torah might at least have revealed how much the total of all the auxiliaries weighed, and we would have been able to calculate how much the <i>menorah</i> itself weighed? By not revealing this detail we might even assume that the various auxiliaries together weighed more than the <i>menorah</i> itself<i>!</i>
      When perusing the discussion about all this in the Talmud, <i>Menachot</i> 85, it appears that <i>Rashi</i> departed from the views expressed there. Apparently, the words ואת כל כליה, “and all its auxiliary vessels,” in our verse, do not refer to vessels constructed separately, not part of the chunk of gold, but refer to the basic auxiliaries such as the lamps which were also part of the single cast chunk of gold which constituted the <i>menorah</i>. If, in spite of the fact that they were an integral part of the <i>menorah,</i> the Torah describes these lamps as נרותיה ואת כל, clearly implying that they were subordinate to the <i>menorah</i> itself, the reason is that all other candelabras that we are familiar with, always have these lamps attached as a detachable auxiliary to the candlestick itself. They deserve a name in their own right precisely because as a rule they are separate attachments.
      According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning of the line ככר זהב טהור יעשה אותה ואת כל כליה, is that even all the auxiliary vessels of the <i>menorah</i> were made of pure gold. Seeing that it was quite unusual for vessels constantly in touch with fire to have been made of gold, the Torah, in describing the weight of the gold used for the single cast <i>menorah</i> describes the weight as pertaining to אותה, “it,” before including the auxiliary vessels, that, while made of gold, were not part of that talent of pure gold described previously.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why the Torah mentions the weight of the <i>menorah</i>, whereas no such weights were given for the Holy Ark, for instance, or for the Table, for that matter, is that it was the only one of the furnishings in the Sanctuary which consisted of pure gold only, both the Ark and the Table were only overlaid with gold. Moreover, the Torah was interested in informing us in an oblique manner that the maximum size of such a <i>menorah</i> that could be fashioned out of a single talent of pure gold was well known, so that the Torah did not need to spell out the height of the <i>menorah,</i> though the sages did tell us the measurements i.e. eighteen <i>tefachim.</i> There was also no need to describe the size of the crown-like borders around the Table and the Holy Ark, as they were thin and were directly attached to the Table and Ark, respectively.
      Although, according to our sages the thickness of the lid for the Ark, the כפורת, was one <i>tefach</i>, there was still no need to mention the size or weight, as it too corresponded precisely to the measurements of the Ark which the Torah has provided. Seeing, that the basic size of the <i>menorah</i> was not spelled out, the Torah, giving us the weight of it, enabled the sages to calculate its size on that basis. The height of the menorah was such that it had to provide illumination for the surface of the Table when the show-breads would be placed there and would be exchanged on the following week.
      As to the reason why <i>Rashi</i> quoted the <i>Midrash</i> according to which the word תיעשה in the passive mode means that the <i>menorah</i> emerged from the crucible on its own, i.e. without having been cast by Betzalel in a specific mould, you may interpret this as not conflicting with the view expressed in the <i>Midrash</i> that G’d showed Moses a precise image of what the <i>menorah</i> would look like, but that Moses still had difficulty envisioning the construction of the <i>menorah</i> even after G’d had shown him the vision referred to.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  שתי ידות לקרש האחד, “two tenons per beam.” 
      Nachmanides, in commenting on the <i>baraitha</i> (<i>Shabbat</i> 98) quoted by <i>Rashi,</i> according to which each of these tenons had been left exposed after a quarter of its width had been removed on either side, so that the combined width of the two parallel tenons would be zero, and there would not have remained any part of the tenon to insert into the silver sockets. one cannot understand the <i>baraitha</i> at face value. There was no specific measurement prescribed for the lowest cubit of the beams to be made to fit into the silver sockets. The meaning of the word רביע in the <i>baraitha,</i> is that enough of the sides of both tenons had to be shaved off to enable them to fit inside the silver sockets, but at the same time forming a continuous line, flush with the outside of these sockets. The same amount of wood had to be shaved off in between the two tenons, seeing that each beam was fitted into two sockets.
      Personally, I think that apart from the <i>baraitha,</i> there is no problem, seeing that the words רביע מכאן ורביע מכאן, “a quarter from one side and a quarter from the other side,” do not refer to the thickness of the beams, but to the thickness of the hollow walls of the silver sockets. Seeing that the thickness of these was minimal, the <i>baraitha</i> describes this as רביע to describe an insignificant amount. 
  
     משלבות אשה אל אחותה, “parallel to one another.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the two tenons at the bottom of each beam were parallel and matching one another, the Torah mentioning that they were not one protruding further than the other from their respective outer parameters, i.e 6x9. <i>tefachim.</i>
      Nachmanides explains the word שליבה, as “projection,” as the tenons of the rungs of the ladder which fit into the mortise of the sides of the ladder’s frame. The adjoining beam would have a similarly shaped projection so that they could dovetail into one another and make a solid joint. Each beam at the top would have two such projections.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויחדיו יהיו תמים אל ראשו, “and together shall they match at the top.” To the ring which linked two beams each together after an incision the thickness of the ring was grooved near the outer rim of each beam.
      Nachmanides adds that he does not understand why the Torah did not mention that there were a total number of 20 such golden rings just as there were 20 beams, and why the making of these grooves to accommodate the rings was not mentioned either.
      Perhaps, the expression אל הטבעת האחת, “into the one ring, with the definitive article ה in front of the word טבעת, ring, is a reference to the accepted method of builders to fit adjoining beams with such rings. The Torah uses a similar definite article when describing the bolts, בריחים, when it speaks about הבריח התיכון, “the central bolt.” Normally, seeing that we had not heard about such a bolt before, it would not qualify for the description: “the central bold.” The fact that people were familiar with how such structures were joined together, especially, portable ones such as the Tabernacle, enabled the Torah to condense its description of the details.
      The <i>baraitha</i> in <i>Shabbat</i> quoted above appears to understand the rings mentioned here as the ones affixed to the sides of the beams, the ones through which the בדים, staves were inserted to insure that the beams did not move in any direction. The same applies to the manner in which the hooks of the curtains in the courtyard of the Tabernacle are described, where we also would not be able to account for the use of the definitive article ה otherwise. [compare 27,10] According to this interpretation the Torah would not have mentioned the bolts affixed to the exterior sides of the beams at all.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   והבאת שמה מבית לפרוכת את ארון העדות, “and you shall bring there, beyond the dividing curtain, the ark housing the Tablets of Testimony.” Moses was not commanded at this time to do this, i.e. to place the dividing curtain underneath the golden clasps, קרסים, and only subsequently to bring the Ark into the Holy of Holies, beyond where the dividing curtain had been hung. This is not the time and place when the Torah would issue directives for matters other than the ones that concerned the construction of the Tabernacle and its furnishings.
      In light of this, also the words ונתת את הכפורת על ארון העדות בקודש הקדשים, (verse 34) “you are to place the lid on the ark of Testimony in the Holy of Holies,” are not to be understood as to the order in which the Tabernacle would be assembled. On the contrary, when the directives for assembling the Tabernacle were issued, the Torah specifically directs that the lid be placed on the Ark only after it had already been placed in the Holy of Holies. (Exodus 40,3) This is also repeated when the assembly of the dividing curtain is described in 39,33-38 clearly shows that the furnishings were installed in the Tabernacle before the respective curtains were hung. Therefore, the meaning of the words in our verse is that it is mandatory to arrange for the dividing curtain to be beneath the clasps holding it in place so that at all times the Holy Ark would be within the Holy of Holies. The sole function of the dividing curtain was to separate two domains of differing degrees of holiness, i.e. the Sanctuary, היכל, and the קדשי קדשים, the Holy of Holies. It was important for us to know that the lid of the Ark, כפורת, with its cherubs mounted on it, the source from which G’d’s voice would address Moses, be completely within this Holy of Holies all times.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ועמודיו עשרים, “and its pillars twenty.” The Torah fails to mention the raw material these pillars were made of. Presumably, we are to deduce this by comparing them to other pillars, such as the ones at the entrance to the Sanctuary, and the pillars that supported the dividing curtain. These were all made from acacia wood, expressly stated. (26,32) Also the fact that these pillars were overlaid with silver is not mentioned here, although it is mentioned in <i>Parshat Vayakhel</i>, (36,36)
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ואתה תצוה, “and you are to issue instructions, etc.”
      Moses has not been mentioned by name in this portion, seeing that he had said to G’d that He should erase his name from His Book. (Exodus 32,32) Although Moses had said this conditionally, i.e. if G’d were to kill the Jewish people as punishment for the sin of the golden calf, we have a rule that a curse of a sage, even if uttered only as something conditionally, is taken by G’d at face value. (<i>Zohar Chadash</i>, 60)
      Other commentators explain the absence of the mention of Moses’ name here as due to the subject matter following being the priestly garments of Aaron, the High Priest. Originally, Moses himself had been slated to be the High Priest. The fact that this honour was now being given to Aaron, might have produced a certain amount of regret on Moses’ part if he had heard his name mentioned as being part of transferring this rank to his brother. To forestall as much as possible any feelings of sorrow on Moses’ part, the Torah referred to him anonymously. 
      After the Torah had completed its instructions about the building of the Tabernacle, it gave directives concerning the illumination that was to be part of the daily service in the Sanctuary. The reason that the Torah mentions the priesthood of Aaron at this juncture, is because he was the one who would attend to lighting the <i>menorah</i> on a regular basis. Seeing that the Torah had already revealed the status of Aaron as the High Priest, it continued by describing the special garments to be worn by the High Priest when he was not inside the Sanctuary. This is also the logical place when the details of the golden altar, the altar on which the incense was offered are described another task performed by Aaron both in the morning and in the afternoon of every day. It was important to inform us that the golden altar did not serve the purpose of sprinkling the blood of sacrificial animals upon it.
  
     ואתה תצוה, according to Ibn Ezra, Moses was to issue a directive to the community of the Jewish people at large, to provide top quality olive oil for the lamps on the <i>menorah</i>. The community at large was similarly instructed to donate the funds for the mandatory daily communal offerings, described in the Torah by G’d as קרבני לחמי, ”My offering, My food.” (Numbers 28,2)
      Nachmanides writes that seeing that in connection with the donations of the materials for the Tabernacle the Torah had constantly added the word: ועשית, “you are to make out of it, etc.,” so here too the idea of determining which oil qualified for lighting the <i>menorah</i> was not left to the good judgment of the community at large, but the Torah writes ויקחו אליך, “they will present it to you,” i.e. you will then examine it if it measures up to the required degree of refinement. One of the reasons the Torah did not leave the refining of this oil up to each individual Israelite, was that they did not possess the tools to refine the oil to that degree. They could only donate what they had taken with them out of Egypt, if it had remained in good condition. In fact, the princes brought the kind of refined olive oil fit for kindling the <i>menorah.</i> The meaning of the words את בני ישראל, [if they did not have such oil, was Moses to command people who did not have it to bring it as a contribution? Ed.] is that Moses himself was to accept from the Israelites whatever grade of olive oil they were willing to donate for the cause. The words are to be understood in the same way as the opening line in <i>Parshat Terumah</i>, מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו, “from every person whose generous heart moves him to donate, etc.”
  
     ויקחו אליך, “they shall take it to you,” i.e. for your benefit, seeing you are charged with the task of having the Tabernacle constructed, G’d is at pains to make clear that if the Israelites were not going to provide oil for the <i>menorah,</i> He, being G’d, certainly did not need them to illuminate any space for Him, seeing that He is the source of all illumination. In fact, after the Tabernacle was erected, it was found that the light of the <i>menorah</i> inside the windowless Sanctuary provided illumination also for the surrounding area.
  
     להעלות נר תמיד, “to kindle on a permanent basis.” According to <i>Rashi</i> when a light burns all night long, it is considered as burning תמיד, i.e. all the time that there is a need for it. <i>Rashi’s</i> proof is derived from the expression עולת תמיד in Numbers 28,7 which cannot mean that such a burnt offering was being burned up on the altar on an ongoing basis, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but meant that it was a regular sacrifice, offered on a daily basis, one in the morning and one in the evening.
      Other commentators understand the word תמיד as meaning that the other lamps on the six arms of the <i>menorah</i> were to be kindled by drawing on the already kindled נר מערבי, the lamp on the central shaft of the <i>menorah.</i> That particular lamp was kept alight around the clock.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   מערב עד בוקר, “from evening until morning.” This is an instruction to supply sufficient oil to each of the lamps to enable it to keep burning all night long without need for a refill of oil. The amount of oil provided was a constant, i.e. half a log, however allowance was made for the nights being longer in the winter by providing thinner or thicker wicks in accordance with the seasonal factors involved.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   נדב ואביהו אלעזר ואתמר, although the Torah had already indicated that this task was to be performed by “Aaron and his sons,” and we know the names of these sons of Aaron, the Torah names each one of them individually once more, in order to show that although both Aaron and his sons had been anointed with the oil of anointing, such had not been the case with Pinchos, Eleazar’s son, and that therefore at this time Pinchos was not included in the priests qualified to service the <i>menorah.</i> Once a priest had been ordained, his offspring born subsequently did not require anointing in order to be fully qualified as a priest.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ועשית בגדי קודש, “you are to make vestments to be worn during holy service.” Moses was not expected to fashion these garments himself, of course; this is a directive that he instruct the artisans charged with that task to insure that the vestments they would make would correspond to the details given in the Torah, Just as the skilled labourers constructing the Tabernacle itself were instructed by him personally, although Betzalel was the supervisor of the whole project to carry out their duties in consonance with the details recorded in <i>Parshat Terumah</i>. 
  
       לכבוד ולתפארת, “for glory and splendour.” Nachmanides writes that this means that by wearing the garments described forthwith the wearer would enjoy glory and splendour in the eyes of those who saw him wearing these garments. The reason was that the garments that will be described now were all of the type worn by Royalty only. Already when Yaakov had a tunic, כתנת, made for Joseph, this was meant to distinguish the wearer, to set him apart from less distinguished peers. The מעיל, robe, was similarly a garment worn only by Royalty or other highly distinguished individuals. This is why the sages decreed that after the collapse of the independent Jewish state, grooms under the wedding canopy were no longer allowed to adorn themselves with turbans, and the brides were not wearing crowns on their heads. (compare <i>Maimonides Taanit</i>, based on Ezekiel 21,32). The headgear of the priests is also referred to as פארי מגבעות, as the kind of hat conferring distinction on the wearer. The breastplate too is a garment worn by Royalty. They were usually made from blue wool, gold threads, as we know from Daniel 5,7 (et al) והמונכא די דהבא על צואריה, “will wear purple and a golden chain around his neck.” The ציץ, the golden headband, corresponds to the crown worn by kings. Their crowns are made of a combination of blue and red, purple wool and gold. In Psalms 45,15 we are told כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה ממשבצות זהב לבושה, “the royal princess, her dress embroidered with golden mountings,” etc. Finally, תכלת, the wool dyed a royal blue, was also the colour worn only by Royalty.
        It is also possible that the meaning of the words לכבוד ולתפארת is a way of saying that seeing that the High Priest is to perform service of the Lord, he is to do so while clad in suitably decorative attire, all in honour of <i>Hashem.</i> [the problem with this interpretation is that the High Priest was not allowed to wear these vestments inside the Temple, only outside of it. Ed.] The Biblical verse supporting such an interpretation would be Psalms 69,19 כי תפארת עוזמו אתה, “for You are the glory of its strength.” 
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   חושן ואפוד ומעיל וכתונת תשבץ ואבנט, “a breastplate, an <i>ephod</i>, a robe, a tunic of chequer work, a turban, and a sash.” All the vestments have been mentioned here with the exception of the ציץ, the golden headband, and the trousers. It is possible that seeing that the Torah wrote that Moses was to address כל חכמי לב, “all the wise-hearted people,” there was no need to mention the two last mentioned garments, as making them did not involve any special skill.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   והם יקחו את הזהב, “and they shall take the gold, etc.” Up until this point all the directives had been addressed to Moses personally, whereas now G’d commanded that Moses address all the wise-hearted people to fashion the vestments, therefore the Torah had to continue with והם יקחו וגו', that these wise-hearted people had to get hold of the raw materials they were to employ when making these vestments. They would receive them directly from the donors and there would be no need for an accounting of the quantity of such materials handed over to the artisans entrusted with the work. They were all trustworthy. The same principle also applied to all the other people engaged in the construction of the Tabernacle. We know this from the fact that the only time mention is made of these donations being handed over by the people was on the first day they had been given such an opportunity, and Moses already had to stop them from binging additional contributions as the Tabernacle’s needs had already been oversubscribed. (compare 35,21 and 36,7) It is clear from there that the people brought their contributions directly to the artisans appointed to convert the materials into the respective furnishings of garments.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   ונתת אל חשן המשפט את האורים ואת התומים, “you are to place within the folds of the breastplate the <i>Urim</i> and the <i>Tumim</i>.” 
        Nachmanides writes that Ibn Ezra,in an effort to be very astute, wrote that the <i>Urim</i> and<i> Tumim</i> were something constructed by human hands, by artisans. (compare Leviticus 8,8 where Moses is described as placing the <i>Urim</i> and the <i>Tumim</i> inside the breastplate after Aaron already wore the breast plate). He clearly thought that these <i>Urim</i> and <i>Tumim</i> were something man made of silver and/or gold. He appears to have thought that these mysterious inserts were similar to what the astrologers use in order to understand communications from their zodiac signs.
        [Before translating the scathing criticism by Nachmanides here on the personality of Ibn Ezra, the reader must be cautioned that the commentary by Ibn Ezra found on this verse in most editions of the <i>Chumash</i> is a one liner, not as in the version of the Ibn Ezra’s commentary published by Mossad Harav Kook by Asher Weisman in three volumes in 1976. Anyone reading that version (at the end of volume 2, in the so-called short version) will come away with a totally different impression than if he had read only the standard version available in most editions of the <i>Chumash.</i> Ed.]
     (continuing Nachmanides’ commentary) Ibn Ezra said absolutely nothing, but the <i>Urim</i> and <i>Tumim</i> were in accordance with<i> Rashi’s</i> commentary a piece of parchment on which the Holy name of <i>Hashem</i> had been written and which Moses inserted between the folds of the cloth supporting the <i>Choshen.</i> The proof of all this is that we do not find a single mention in the Torah of the <i>Urim vetumim</i> as being one or two of the components of either the Tabernacle or the vestments of the priest being constructed by any of the artisans who fashioned all the other items. When the making of the <i>ephod</i> [to which the breastplate was attached. Ed.] was mentioned as well as that of the breast plate, (39,2-6), there is not a single word about the <i>Urim</i> and <i>Tumim</i> having been constructed. Neither is there a mention anywhere of the people having contributed from their materials for the construction of the <i>Urim vetumim.</i> 
     We are dealing here with a mystical element, the apparent function of the Holy Name of <i>Hashem,</i> or a variety of them, being concealed within the folds of the breastplate enabling the letters engraved on the 12 gemstones which decorated the breastplate, to flash in response to queries directed by the wearer, the High Priest, to G’d, queries to which he required a direct answer from heaven as the <i>Sanhedrin,</i> Supreme tribunal, was not competent enough to answer them. One such example is found in Judges 1,1 when Joshua wanted to know which tribe should lead in the attack against the Canaanites. It is quite possible that these names of G’d which Moses wrote on the parchment which he inserted in the folds of the breast plate, were known as such to the elite of the Jewish people at the time, and that this would explain the use of the definitive article used here, i.e. האורים, התומים, something which is never used unless the subject is a known quantity, a phenomenon that at least some people are familiar with. This may also explain why David possessed an <i>ephod</i> comparable to that which Moses had in his time, and why we read that in <i>Nov</i> the city of priests (whom King Shaul murdered) there were 85 priests wearing such a type of <i>ephod.</i> (compare Samuel I 22,18) These priests were all trained by prophets, and possibly they used their <i>ephods</i> to address inquiries to G’d on certain occasions.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   ועשית את מעיל האפוד, “and you are to make the robe of the <i>ephod,</i> etc<i>.” Rashi</i> explains that the robe was a kind of shirt. Nachmanides queries the expressionעוטה , wrapping, used in connection with the robe, as this expression certainly seems out of place in connection with a shirt. The word means to drape (oneself) as in a <i>tallit,</i> a garment which envelopes the body completely. It has neither sleeves, nor a collar, a cutout for the neck as described in verse 32, and called פי תחרא. This particular robe, according to the Torah’s directives, had to be of weaver’s work, ארוג, embroidered, and the wearer would slip it on overhead and would place his arms through the armpits provided. At the front it had two flaps that could be opened or closed according to the wishes of the wearer. We know this from Samuel I 15,27 where King Sha-ul is described as grabbing hold of the flap of the prophet’s Samuel’s robe
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   פעמון זהב ורמון, “a golden bell and a pomegranate.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the Torah speaks of two distinctly separate kinds of ornaments, one looked like a bell, the other like pomegranate.
      Nachmanides writes that if that were correct the “pomegranates” would not have served any purpose that we can understand. If we were to understand that the “pomegranates” were decorative only, why would he not have made them like apples, but made of gold? We must assume that the bells were surrounded on the outside by these “pomegranates,” the “pomegranates” being hollow, they were made to look like unripe small “pomegranates” that had not “opened” yet, and the bells were hidden within their cavities, but could be seen partially from the outside.
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
   ושמת אותו על פתיל תכלת, “you shall fasten it to a cord made of blue wool.” <i>Rashi</i> points out that instead of the verb שים, i.e. ושמת, used by the Torah here, the Torah uses the verb נתן, i.e. ויתנו, in Exodus Not only that, but here the ציץ. is to be fastened to Aaron’s מצנפת, turban, though worn on his forehead, מצח, whereas in <i>Parshat Pekudey</i> it is described as being worn over the Turban.
      [<i>Rashi, in</i> discussing the implications at length, something that Nachmanides assumes the reader has already familiarised himself with, therefore comes to the conclusion that there were three locations on the ציץ to each of which a blue cord was attached in order to securely place the ציץ in such a way that there was room for Aaron to put on his phylacteries on the skin of his forehead. Ed.]
      Nachmanides expresses his amazement at <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation, claiming that clearly the Torah mentions only a single blue wool cord in connection with the headband. According to <i>Rashi</i>, in Nachmanides’ view, there would have been six such cords. Furthermore, he accuses <i>Rashi</i> as unjustifiably lumping together verses that describe the instruction to make the headband, with verses (<i>Parshat Pekudey</i>) that describe the manner in which the directive was actually carried out. If indeed there were as many blue wool cords as described by <i>Rashi,</i> what would have been the purpose of the blue cord mentioned here which was in the center of the ציץ? According to <i>Rashi,</i> the headband had already been firmly secured in place behind Aaron’s head, at the nape of his neck!
      We must conclude that there was only a single such cord made of blue wool, this cord was stretched on Aaron’s forehead from one ear to the other and the headband itself had two holes in it at either of its two extremities, the cord being threaded through these holes so that the headband was securely tied together by means of this cord at the nape of Aaron’s neck. Simultaneously, the turban Aaron wore on his head covered this blue cord at the level of Aaron’s brain; whereas at the back of his head the turban covered this cord down to the level of the nape of the neck. In the front, the ציץ was worn so that it covered a major part of Aaron’s forehead, from ear to ear. The result of all this was that the rear of Aaron’s head was enclosed by the turban from ear to ear, whereas the front was covered by the golden headband from ear to ear. This is the meaning of the line: ושמת המצנפת על ראשו, i.e. “on the upper part of his head,” not like the מגבעות, the caps worn by the ordinary priests that enclosed the entire head, as we know from 29,9 וחבשת להם מגבעות, “you shall wrap the headdresses on them.” The meaning is that the entire head be covered by these מגבעות, headdresses, caps. As to what the Torah writes ונתת את נזר הקודש על המצנפת, “you are to place the crown of sanctity on the turban,” (29,6) the meaning is that that the ציץ is to be connected, tied, to the turban. There is no need to belabour the switch from the word ושמת to ונתת, and <i>vice versa</i>, as the Torah did not choose these two expressions for such interpretations, just as once the Torah writes that ויתנו עליו פתיל תכלת, whereas another time it writes ושמת אותו על פתיל תכלת. The variations of the wording teach that as long as the principal purpose of fastening the headband both to the forehead and to the turban was accomplished, minor changes in the procedure did not matter. We find similar variations in language of the Torah in connection with the consecration offerings in chapter 29, where the Torah writes in verse 3: ונתת אותם על סל אחד והקרבת, “you are to place them on one basket (the loaves of bread) and present them as an offering, etc.,” where the word על does not mean “on,” but “inside.” Similarly, there are numerous occasions when the preposition על actually is used instead of the preposition אל. Here too it is quite in order to understand the words ושמת אותו על פתיל תכלת, as if the Torah had written ונתת אותו אל פתיל תכלת, “you are to fasten it to a cord of blue wool.” The fact is that the cord was fastened to the headband, ציץ. Inversely, the headband was also fastened to the cord made of blue wool. The result was that the cord was on the headband.
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
   והלבשת אותם את אהרן אחיך ואת בניו אתו, “ you will dress your brother Aaron and his sons with him with them.” Moses was to dress up Aaron and his sons in the garments described previously. The word אתו, normally translated as “with him,” means here that this procedure should be performed with all of them on the same day, just as their anointing took place on the same day.
  
     ומלאת את ידם, “you will inaugurate them.” According to <i>Rashi</i> whenever the expression מלוי ידים occurs, it refers to a kind of consecration, inauguration. The party so described begins a new assignment, one that is a long term assignment, not a short term one.
      Nachmanides explains the words ומלאת את ידם as being similar to מלאת ימים, completing a certain length of preparatory days, such as the nine months of pregnancy, or completing a tour of service, as when Yaakov demanded to be given Rachel as his wife, his reason being described with the words כי מלאו ימי, “the seven years I contracted to work for her are complete..” (Genesis 29,21). We encounter the phrase ובמלאת הימים האלה, “at the completion of these years, etc.” (Esther 1,5) It describes what the occasion was for the party Ahasverus gave to both his ministers, and subsequently to the citizens of Shushan.
      The connection with our consecration is that any non-priest who nonetheless performs service in the Tabernacle, even if he copies the exact procedure performed by the priests, lacks something. This something is added through the anointment to the priesthood of Aaron and his sons, and the garments they wore that were testimony to their qualifications as priests. The ”uniform” completes the act of consecration, officially makes the wearer the appointee to the King’s service, his “guard.” Another element completing this appointment to the priesthood was the איל המלואים, the ram as well as the other offerings listed in chapter 29 which were one-time offerings to mark this occasion. The occasion could not recur, as from that time on the priesthood became a hereditary status. Having offered these sacrifices once, initiated Aaron and his sons into the priesthood, so that their performing similar tasks on behalf of others had become legitimate.
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
   והיו על אהרן ועל בניו..... ולא ישאו עון ומתו, “they shall be on Aaron and his sons…..so that they shall not bear a sin and die.” According to <i>Rashi</i> this verse is the source of the law that a priest who performs his duties in the Sanctuary without all the appropriate garments is guilty of the death penalty at the hands of heaven. This law applies equally to the High Priest and to the ordinary priest.
      Nachmanides (on 28,35) queries <i>Rashi’s</i> comment by writing that if this were indeed so, the Torah should have written this verse much earlier immediately after all the priestly garments have been listed. Why would such a statement be made when only three of the eight garments have been listed as yet? Furthermore, our verse continues: ובצאתו ולא ימות, “when he leaves the Sanctuary he will not die,” something that has no longer anything to do with any shortcoming in the procedure of doing the sacrificial service, and still the Torah mentions the word “death. He concludes therefore that the death penalty applies only to priests not wearing trousers when performing their service in the Temple. This raises the question whence does the Talmud derive the death penalty for priests who perform their service while not wearing their other special garments? (compare <i>Zevachim 18</i>) The Talmud derives it from a different verse. What is clear from the discussion in the Talmud there is that there is no difference which of the priestly garments the priest omitted to wear when it comes to his being guilty of death. 
      The death penalty mentioned in connection with the robe, מעיל, referred only to the ornamental pendants at the lower rim of that robe, the bells and the pomegranates. The reason that the Torah repeated mention of the death penalty in that instance is that seeing that these ornamental pendants did not serve any visible purpose, one might consider them as not essential if unaware that the failure to append them put the life of the High Priest at risk. Moreover, seeing that ordinary Royalty are not known to wear garments with these kinds of ornaments, one might not comprehend how these ornaments symbolized the כבוד ותפארת, the glory and splendour which are the purported effect these garments have on the people seeing the wearer dressed in them.
      The pealing of the bells at the rim of the robe announce that the High Priest is approaching the Sanctuary. It is as if to announce that he has been granted an audience with the <i>Shechinah</i>, similar to the commoner who is granted an audience by a king of flesh and blood, who would not dare to enter the King’s chambers without first being announced. Were he to do so, he too would put his life at risk, as he would be perceived by the king’s guards as planning to assassinate their ruler or otherwise harm him or insult him.
      In the Talmud <i>Yerushalmi</i>, the sages see an allusion in the line (Leviticus 16,17) וכל אדם לא יהיה באהל מועד, “no other human being is to be in the Sanctuary when the High Priest enters there in order to obtain atonement, etc.,” as including the angels. This is why the approach of the High Priest must be audible. [I assume that the <i>Yerushalmi</i> that author has in mind is in <i>Yuma</i> 5,2 where it is recounted that for the 40 years that the High Priest Shimon Hatzadik officiated on the Day of Atonement, he would see an angel with a face like a human being accompanying him to the Holy of Holies, except for the last time when he entered there. He told his friends that he would die during that year, something he gathered from the fact that on that occasion this angel did not materialize. Ed.] Joseph ordered that every person other than his brothers be removed from his chambers before he revealed himself to them. Similarly, during intimate audiences granted by kings, only the immediately concerned party is permitted to be closeted with the King. [Incidentally, this enabled the judge Ehud to kill King Eglon of Moav. Ed. (compare Genesis 45,2, and Judges 3,20)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   והקרבת אותם בסל, “you are to present them in the basket.” The loaves are dragged in front of the priest; the verse refers to what takes place in front of the entrance to the Sanctuary, something mentioned in the verse following.
      The whole procedure may be understood as follows: “you will present the breads in the basket assigned for this, followed by the bull, and the rams, all of which are brought to the entrance of the Sanctuary by Aaron and his sons.”
      An alternative explanation: the words והקרבת אותם בסל, are not defined more closely at this point, as it is understood that the location which had been designated for this is where the basket containing these breads is to be presented in accordance with instructions issued to the priests. The following verse speaks only about Aaron and his sons, hence Moses is instructed to ensure that they undergo ritual immersion in a ritual bath prior to donning their garments.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ולקחת את שמן המשחה ויצקת על ראשו, “you will take hold of the oil for anointing and pour it over his head.”      Ibn Ezra wrote that this anointing took place before Aaron wore his turban, מצנפת, seeing the oil was poured directly on his head.     Nachmanides disagrees, seeing that even when the Torah reports the carrying out of these instruction in Leviticus 8,9 the Torah writes (concerning Moses) וישם את המצנפת על ראשו, “he placed the turban on his (Aaron’s) head.” Immediately following this, the Torah writes וישם על המצנפת אל מול פניו את ציץ הזהב, נזר הקודש, “he placed on the turban toward his face, the golden headband, a crown as symbol of sanctity, etc.” Only after this description of the actual procedure, does he Torah go on in verse 12, to describe the pouring of the oil of anointing on the head of Aaron. We must assume that the turban did not cover the entire surface of Aaron’s head, but that this turban was constructed in such a manner that it left a substantial area of Aaron’s head uncovered, so that the oil of anointing could be poured on even while he was wearing the turban. This corresponds to <i>Rashi’s</i> understanding of the procedure. According to <i>Rashi,</i> the oil was poured on the area where the phylacteries are placed on the head. Naturally, that area of the head was left uncovered.     
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
    וחגרת אותם אבנט אהרן ובניו, “you shall girdle them with a sash, Aaron as well as his sons.” At first glance, the word אותם appears to refer to Aaron and his sons, and the verse would make a “u–turn” explaining whom Aaron and his sons were to girdle with a sash each.     Nachmanides writes that if that were the meaning of the verse then the words וחבשת להם מגבעות could not refer to Aaron and his sons, seeing that Aaron did not wear a garment called מגבעת. Moreover, seeing that he was already wearing his turban, how could Moses wrap a מגבעת on top of his head? It is possible to understand the word אותם at the beginning of our verse as referring only to Aaron’s sons, which, in turn would explain why the Torah would have to write once more “Aaron and his sons,” meaning that Moses was to girdle Aaron with a sash just as he had done to his sons. Seeing that both Aaron and his sons wore sashes made of the same material, Aaron’s name was not mentioned at the beginning of the verse. The simple meaning then is that Moses would girdle the sons of Aaron with their respective sashes just as he had done for their father Aaron. Moses was the one who dressed both his brother and his nephews in all the priestly garments on this initial occasion. However, the priests themselves put on their undergarments, the ones which covered their private parts. 
  
  Verse 10
  
   והקרבת את הפר לפני אהל מועד, “you shall bring the bull close to Tent of Meeting.” 
      Nachmanides, in referring to the commentary by Ibn Ezra, writes that according to Ibn Ezra both Aaron and his sons placed their hands firmly (סמיכה) on the bull at the time when he brought it in front of the entrance of the Sanctuary. Seeing that the actual presentation of the bull in front of the entrance of the Sanctuary in verse three (by implication) had already been mentioned, it would not be repeated without adding a new dimension to it, he writes that in his personal opinion all that happened at the entrance to the Sanctuary after the bull, etc., were presented there, was that they received the directive to offer these animals as sacrifices on the altar in the courtyard. The only reason the location is mentioned here again, is to ensure that the slaughtering, etc., would be performed in the areas designated for the priests to perform these procedures. There would have been no need to spell out the placing of their hands on the sacrificial animals, as this is always done immediately before the animal is slaughtered.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ולקחת את כל החלב המכסה את הקרב, “you will take all the fat membranes which are attached to the innards of the animal, etc.” According to <i>Rashi</i> this refers only to a membrane above the animal’s abdomen. Nachmanides agrees that there certainly is such a membrane there that is part of the חלב mentioned in our verse. However, seeing that the Torah speaks of כל החלב, “all the fat,” this must mean at least two distinct kinds of חלב, i.e. also the fat described in Leviticus 3,3 ואת כל החלב אשר על הקרב. When the Torah reports about these directives having been carried out, no mention is made of the fat usually known as על יותרת הכבד, “the diaphragm with the liver.” (compare verse 22). This also belonged to “all the fat, etc.” It is clear from the mention of יותרת הכבד in verse 22, that the fat membranes mentioned earlier without more precise locations, are those that cover the abdomen.
      This poses the problem for Nachmanides that in the respective chapter in Leviticus 8,15 both כל החלב אשר על הקרב as well as יותרת הכבד are mentioned separately. 
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   תשרף באש, “you are to burn by fire.” <i>Rashi</i> writes that nowhere else do we find that a sin offering offered on the altar in the Temple’s courtyard, was completely burned up without a portion of the meat being consumed by the priests. This was so only because of the exceptional circumstances surrounding this event.
      Nachmanides suggests a specific reason for the departure from the normal procedure when a sin offering is presented on the altar. He claims that this bull was meant to atone for the sin of the golden calf; the offering in question, i.e. a bull as a sin offering, is that assigned to the High Priest if he has committed an inadvertent sin, which if it had been deliberate would result in the <i>karet</i> penalty. Aaron atoned for his share in the sin of the golden calf by means of this offering. This particular sin offering (its blood) is brought to the Sanctuary, seeing that in the legislation dealing with this kind of sin offering the Torah stipulates that its blood is to be presented to the front of the curtain dividing the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies. The element known as הוראת שעהemergency legislation, involved on this occasion, was that Aaron had not yet completed his consecration as High Priest, so that he really had no business to be in the Sanctuary as yet. On the other hand, the Presence of the <i>Shechinah</i> had not yet manifested itself until the eighth day of the מלואים, so that he did not commit a capital crime by doing so in his present state. The dividing curtain therefore had not yet qualified for its very name, i.e. a fence before the Holy of Holies. Nonetheless, the legal status of the Sanctuary was similar to that of the Holy of Holies, so that both he and his sons required a degree of atonement for what they did, but this was not connected to the sin of the golden calf that had occurred many months earlier.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   מאיל המלואים אשר לאהרן, “from the bull of the consecration rites concerning the appointment of Aaron to the priesthood.” Even though this same ram served as a consecration rite ram also for his sons, they are not mentioned here, seeing that Aaron was considered the owner offering these sacrifices. Moses acts as Aaron’s and his sons’ priest at this stage, performing the rites the priest generally performs for the owner of the sacrificial animal as his appointed emissary. Once this point had been made, we need not wonder that in the next verse Aaron’s sons are mentioned as also partaking of the meat of these animals. Father and sons will partake in the portions normally assigned to the priests of such offerings which are not burned up on the altar.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
   ופר חטאת תעשה ליום על הכפורים, “and one bull shall you make as a sin offering on each of these days of the consecration rites.” The atonement was required in respect of non-consecrated people having performed service on the altar. (or according to the <i>Midrash</i> anyone whose donation to the materials of the Tabernacle having donated materials not legally his.)     Nachmanides considers these words as referring back to the words אשר כופר בהם, in verse 33, in case during eating any of the parts of these sacrifices an inadvertent <i>halachic</i> error had been committed by either Aaron or one of his sons. Although a sin offering is always the catalyst of atonement, in this instance, there was an innovation in that even the rams also conferred atonement of their owners. 
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
   לשכני בתוכם, “for Me to dwell in their midst.”
      According to <i>Rashi</i> the meaning of the word לשכני is “in order for Me to reside.”
      Nachmanides understands the prefix ל in the word לשכני as similar to the prefix ב, i.e. “for I have taken up residence” (among them). The reason I did so is that they shall forever be aware that it was I Who has taken them out of Egypt.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ועשית מזבח מקטר קטורת, You are to construct an altar for the burning up of incense.”
      Nachmanides writes that seeing that the golden altar was considered one of the pieces of furniture of the Sanctuary, it should have been mentioned in the same chapter as the Table, the <i>Menorah,</i> and the ark. In fact, in <i>Parshat Vayakhel</i> the golden altar has indeed been listed together with the other furnishings of the Tabernacle, (compare chapter 37).
      The reason why here the golden altar, primarily used for the burning of the incense, has been mentioned only after the details of the construction of the Tabernacle have all been recorded, as well as details of the sacrifices, is to inform the reader that after all said and done, the crucial element in securing the presence of the <i>Shechinah</i> in the Tabernacle, i.e. within the encampment of the Jewish people was that the presentation of the incense on that altar was of such importance to <i>Hashem,</i> as we know already from Moses’ own reference to this importance of the presentation of incense in order to defuse G’d’s anger at His people. *Deuteronomy” Presentation of the incense repre-sented not a prelude to something that the Israelites expected from G’d in return, but was meant solely as an expression of honour and reverence for G’d. It was an expression of appreciation for being allowed to house the <i>Shechinah</i> on earth. [I added a few words of my own in order to make the concept clear. Ed]
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   והקטיר עליו אהרן קטורת סמים, “Aaron is to burn up on it the incense comprised of a variety of spices.” Nachmanides writes that contrary to first impressions, the command to offer the incense was not addressed to Aaron in his capacity as the High Priest, exclusively, but in his capacity as representative of the priesthood. The same holds true for the lighting of the<i> menorah,</i> which is mentioned immediately after this verse, and where the Torah also mentions Aaron by name, although he was not the only one authorized to perform this service. In that instance, the Torah adds that Aaron’s sons were charged with performing this task. (compare 27,21)
      I do not know why the High Priest Aaron has been mentioned twice, both with the incense and the lighting of the lamps on the <i>menorah,</i> nor does the Torah refer to him with the definitive article, i.e. הכהן. Perhaps, seeing that in verse 10, where the Torah describes Aaron as bringing atonement by way of the animals’ horns, once a year, only Aaron (i.e. the High Priest) is meant, we might have concluded that the same applies to the burning of incense on the golden altar, seeing the Torah also at the legislation about the kindling of the lamps refers to Aaron without mentioning his sons (Leviticus 24,2). We might have been misled, therefore at the end of that legislation, when the Torah speaks of חוקת עולם, an enduring statute, these words refer to the legislation itself, not to who is to kindle the lamps. Aaron was singled out because he was the first one to ever kindle that <i>menorah,</i> but other priests were allowed to do it subsequently.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   קטורת זרה,”alien incense.” <i>Rashi</i> understands this to mean that even similar incense offered as a free-willed donation, is considered “alien,” and as such carries a severe penalty. Onkelos translates the verse as referring to spices not listed in <i>Parshat Ki Tissa</i> that begins forthwith. The prohibition of changes in the composition of the spices includes even adding an additional spice to the ones the Torah authorized and whose proportions the Torah specified. (30,22-38)
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   כי תשא, “when you take a census, etc.” 
      Nachmanides writes that the words כי תשא את ראש mean: ”when you take a census of the people, etc.,” they shall each give a half shekel as atonement for having legally forfeited their claim to life. Moses is to take the sum total of these half shekels and make use of them in connection with the sacrificial service in the Sanctuary. From these words in the Torah, Moses concluded that he was meant to conduct such a census at that time. Moses acted upon this, and this is why we read in 38,25 that the money from the census was used to provide the silver sockets of the beams in the Tabernacle. The fact that the Torah does not record Moses as being told to collect these monies from the people concerned shows that they had brought them along at the same time they brought the diverse donations for the construction of the Tabernacle. This is why there was no need for Aaron and the tribal princes to accompany Moses when he would go to the individual tents in order to collect the half shekel needed for each person’s contribution to the daily communal offerings as Moses was required to do during the census related in the Book of Numbers. (compare Numbers 1,4)
      <i>Rashi</i> raised the problem<i> of</i> how it was possible that two censuses seven months apart could produce the identical number of males between the ages of 20 and sixty, and his answer is that actually these censuses were taken in the same calendar year, one being the Jewish year which commences on the first of <i>Nissan,</i> the other the calendar used by the gentiles, which is based on the years since the creation begins on the first day of <i>Tishrey</i>, and that the first census took place immediately after Moses had returned from his last ascent to Mount Sinai, the day after the Day of Atonement, whereas the second census, as pointed out in Numbers 1,1-2, took place on the first day of <i>Iyar</i> of the year following. The reason why the numbers appear to match is that as far as the ages of the people counted were concerned, they celebrated their respective birthdays according to the day and month in which they had been born, whereas for the purpose of army service a single day during the year (presumably the first of <i>Nissan</i>) was the day on which all those who had attained the age of 20 during the preceding 12 months were now considered as 20 years of age.
      Personally, (Nachmanides speaking) I do not believe that there was a problem to begin with. The first count was made during the first year of the Israelites’ wanderings, when the tribe of Levi had not yet been counted separately. In other words, the remarkable thing is not that the counts show the same total both times, but the remarkable thing is that in a period of 7 months the number of Israelites of the ages of 20 and up had increased to such an extent that the absence of any Levites during the second count was not even noticed in the final tally. The very fact that before the second census the Levites were specifically excluded from the total for the 12 tribes, is clear proof that during the first census the tribe of Levi was counted on exactly the same basis [not from 30 days and up, instead of from 20 years and up Ed.] as per the directives in the Book of Numbers. Seeing that we are entitled to assume that numerous people died between the Exodus and that time, at which time the Israelites were described as approx. 600000 strong, the natural increase was quite remarkable.
      I believe further, that the donations (money) mentioned in our paragraph here and the one mentioned in Numbers chapter 1, the purpose of which was to raise equally sized donations for financing the mandatory daily communal offerings, could not have been raised as part of that census either, as suggested by <i>Rashi.</i> If <i>Rashi</i> were correct, why should the members of the tribe of Levi not also have been required to contribute their half shekels for the communal offerings that were offered on their behalf?
      Furthermore, the people who were required to contribute half shekels for the communal mandatory offerings were all those who had demonstrated signs of puberty, by having at least 2 pubic hairs. It is clear therefore that the purpose of the census in our chapter, i.e. the three donations hinted at, were 1) for atonement, i.e. ½ shekel by each male above the age of 20, 2), contributions for the building of the Tabernacle, and 3) the emphasis on everyone passing the turnstile not contributing either more or less than ½ a shekel were people above the age of 13 (with two pubic hairs) whose contribution to the purchase of mandatory communal offerings, would enable them to benefit from the atonement provided by the offering of these communal sacrifice if and when due.
  
     ונתנו איש כופר נפשו , “they are each to hand over a ransom for their souls.” This had to be done at this point in time, seeing that they had participated in some manner in the sin of the golden calf. This was the reason why, in this instance, the shekel was used as the symbol of their atonement. Normally, whenever a census is taken, coins are not required, the only restriction is that it must not be a head count. This is why we find that King Sha-ul, prior to the campaign against the Amalekites, counted the soldiers by means of sheep and broken shards of clay.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   מחצית השקל, “half of the coin known as ‘shekel.’” Nachmanides writes that in common with other important Kings, Moses designed a coin called “shekel” [from the word משקל, weight] to symbolize that it was of pure silver, without any dross. Seeing that this coin became the standard for the redeeming of the firstborn, all of whom were redeemed in terms of whole <i>shekalim</i>, the coin itself was called שקל הקודש, i.e. a silver coin used to redeem something holy. In Leviticus 27 we have a whole chapter dealing with the use of this coin in redeeming various kinds of vows made by man. Whenever the Torah speaks of definitive amounts of silver, the quantity referred to is expressed in terms of multiples of that coin. This also explains why the language in which the Torah has been written is called לשון הקודש, “the Holy Tongue,” seeing that so many subjects dealing with holiness and sanctity have been recorded in the Torah. This is also the language in which G’d communicated with the Jewish nation through His prophets. It is also the language in which His holy nation, when praying to Him utter His Holy name, the tetragram, the language He used when He created the universe and issued directives to His creatures. All the phenomena He created both in heaven and on earth were named in that language. 
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   העשיר לא ירבה והדל לא ימעיט, “the wealthy must not contribute more, nor the poor less, etc.” According to Nachmanides this is one of the 365 negative commandments in the Torah, i.e. anyone violating this directive has become guilty of a transgression of a Biblical prohibition. He feels that a wealthy man who contributed more than one shekel,-contrary to the Torah’s instructions,- could compensate by contributing less the next time, and the poor man who contributed less than a half shekel could make up for it at a future occasion, is reminded by the wording of the Torah precludes such a תיקון, adjustment, but having failed to do it as directed, the person is guilty of a transgression which cannot be made good. It is not as if someone who had sent the correct amount by means of a messenger, and for some reason this shekel never reached the proper destination, he can compensate by replacing the lost shekel with a replacement. According to the Talmud <i>Ketuvot</i> 108, in the latter case the person whose <i>shekel</i> did not arrive in time (before the end of that year) did not violate the commandment but merely did not get credit for fulfilling it, whereas according to Nachmanides the incorrect contribution constitutes a transgression. None of the other authorities lists this directive as a negative commandment in their count of the 613 commandments. [in Ramban’s commentary on Maimonides’ ספר המצות, we do not find it mentioned either. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ורחצו אהרן ובניו ממנו את ידיהם ואת רגליהם, “Aaron and his sons are to wash their hands and their feet with the water from this basin.” This was a standard procedure, observed by people who ventured into the presence of their king’s table in order to perform valet services there. They would wash their hands and feet immediately before commencing their duties. The procedure was not a ritual, but was purely hygienic in nature. Hands and feet are by definition more likely than any other part of the body to touch matters which contaminate them. This is why the Rabbis insisted on our washing our hands before prayer. [nowadays, when the feet are encased in shoes, the feet are less likely to become contaminated so that this part of the regulation has been relaxed. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   מור דרור, “pure myrrh, etc.” according to Nachmanides all the scholars are agreed that the myrrh described here originates with a certain musk ox found in India, the animal is a variety of the family of deers. Near the neck of that animal a concentration of this musk is found, the reason it is accumulated there is the extremely hot climate in the regions where these animals abound. It oozes out of the pores of that animal.     The meaning of the word דרור in our verse is that it is pure, not contaminated by other materials which would render it unfit for use as part of the spices prescribed by the Torah for the oil of anointing.     Ibn Ezra disagrees with this explanation claiming that מור is not a spice even though it does exude a pleasant fragrance. Perhaps this is the reason why מור was mentioned separately from other spices listed. 
     וקנמון בושם, “and fragrant cinnamon;” according to <i>Rashi</i> this was the bark of the cinnamon tree.     Nachmanides, commenting on Maimonides, cites him as writing that the Torah refers to a tree that grows in India. [The fact is that there are conflicting statements as to what Maimonides thought, and his writings do not bear out what Nachmanides attributed to him. Ed.]     Nachmanides himself holds that all the scholars up to then were wrong but that what is meant is what is described in <i>Midrash Rabbah</i> as a kind of grass which grows in the land of Israel, and which is known as something that sheep and deer feed on. I believe that it is the dried out version of that grass, known in Arabic as <i>ad’brand</i>, and in Latin as <i>Ashkent</i>, a potent fragrance. 
  [in view of the obvious confusion and inability of our sages to agree on which of the fragrances can be matched to fragrances we are familiar with nowadays, I will not bother to translate the author’s comments on this subject any further. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   אשר יתן ממנו על זר. “and he anoints an alien with this, etc.” according to<i> Rashi</i> the word זר here means anyone neither a priest nor Royalty (from the house of David) who would be in line for this oil of anointing.
      Ibn Ezra explains that seeing the Torah first mentioned Aaron and his sons as the ones to be anointed with this oil, and now the Torah writes that a זר must not be anointed with this oil on pain of the most severe penalty <i>karet,</i> it is clear that the word זר includes only non priests. 
      Nachmanides writes that it certainly appears at first glance as if the word זר only applies to non-priests, i.e. anyone not descended from Aaron, so that even a King may not be anointed with this oil. However, we must examine the text more closely and try to understand the meaning of the words שמן משחת קודש יהיה זה לי, “oil of sacred anointment this shall be for Me.” If the word זר were to be used as narrowly as suggested by Ibn Ezra, the Torah, instead of writing יהיה זה לי “shall this be for Me,” should have written יהיה זה לאהרן ובניו לדורותם, “shall this be for Aaron and his offspring throughout their generations.” This would then be parallel to what the Torah wrote about the priestly garments and who were not allowed to wear them, (compare 29,29) 
      We must therefore conclude that the correct interpretation about who may be anointed with this oil is that at this time Aaron and his sons are to be anointed with it. The reason that the Torah used the somewhat vague expressionשמן משחת קודש is that the Torah, i.e. G’d, reserves the right at some time in the future when a titular political head will be appointed for the people as per the instructions of a prophet, authorized to sanction this in the name of G’d, the appointee will also be anointed with this oil as proof that the appointment had been sanctioned by G’d. The reason that the Torah does not prohibit with the words על בשר זר, “on the flesh of an alien,” is that even a priest who is not in need of this oil for ritual purposes must not be anointed with it.
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   קח לך סמים, ”Take yourself spices, etc.” Nachmanides writes that there are scholars who hold that the plain meaning of the line קח לך סמים וגו' is: “take yourself spices, namely נטף, שחלת, חלבנה,” whereas what follows are not spices but are varieties of frankincense, לבונה, such as pure frankincense mixed into the whole mixture. These scholars are not correct, as it is not the custom of the Torah to write the word סמים a second time just for reasons of style and syntax. The Torah does not use unnecessary repetition.
      <i>Rashi</i> explains that the very word סמים, seeing it is used in the plural mode, refers to a number of (2 seeing no number is specified) different spices, i.e. take a variety of spices, namely the ones named forthwith, i.e. a total of 5 varieties and an equal number, the ones used for the oil of anointing, plus the last named, i.e. לבונה, making a total of eleven spices which make up the offering of incense. If so we have reason to wonder why the Torah did not name all the varieties?
      Perhaps we have to conclude that the verse which commences with the words קח לך סמים נטף ושחלת וחלבנה, did not consider the unnamed additional varieties as so important, as long as they were pure, זכה. However, only the varieties named are so important that they each need to be part of the mix prescribed. The reason may have to do with the cloud of smoke generated when burning these varieties of spices. The unnamed varieties would contribute the sweet smelling fragrances, whereas the ones named would contribute what was visible to the eye as opposed to what could be inhaled. This may also be the reason why no quantities are mentioned in the Torah in connection with the incense. What interested the Torah was only that the proportions of the named spices be equal to one another. The addition of other spices was left vague, just as in the case of the olive oil in the oil of anointing no quantity was specified. The Torah relied on what had been written before, i.e. that the composition should follow certain ratios already outlined. The מעשה רוקח, “handiwork of the perfumers,” was a commonly known mix and the Torah merely writes that in the making of the incense the same basic procedures should be followed which are followed when preparing perfume. In due course, the completed incense was to be deposited in front of the Holy Ark in order that the fragrance would rise as they do when presented to kings of flesh and blood. Alternatively, we may infer that what was not spelled out here in writing had been communicated to Moses orally in which all the details about fragrances and incense were explained.
      It is also possible to explain that סמים and בשמים are different names for the ingredients and that the three ingredients that have been named in connection with the oil of anointing are not סמים, for נטף and חלבנה are actually a form of שרפים, resin from either the tree trunks or other plants. (Maimonides in <i>hilchot kley hamikdash</i> calls these עצי הקטף, derived from the wood of the balsam tree). The ingredient described as שחלת, may be a clove, possibly grown in the sea. The Torah would then have instructed Moses to take סמים which people were familiar with, i.e. the ones named, which would be added to the oil of anointing, seeing that the ingredients described asמור, דרור, קנמן were all part of the mixture which made up the incense, קטורת. The reason that the word סמים is repeated was to inform Moses that additional ingredients, all under the generic name of סמים would be part of the mixture. These additional סמים are then named, viz. שבולת, נרד, כרכום, קושט in accordance with what our sages have taught us in tractate <i>Keritot</i> 6. To this mixture frankincense, לבונה, was added. The whole would resemble the type of concoctions produced by the handiwork of the perfumers, מעשה מרקחת. 
  
     נטף, “balsam, also known as צרי.” <i>Rashi</i> adds that צרי in French is equivalent to resin from trees.
      Nachmanides claims that this is wrong, and that someone misspelled what <i>Rashi</i> wrote, and that the French word attributed to <i>Rashi</i> erroneously, is actually a mixture of leaven and honey and a variety of dead insects, and the like, something that the Torah most certainly would not have instructed Moses to prepare as oil of anointing or incense, the offering G’d supposedly receives with maximum goodwill. He therefore concludes that צרי is another word for שרף the resin oozing out of trees when the trunk has been sawed off or branches have been broken off. This may be the reason our sages coined the phrase עצי הקטף, to describe the origin as being trees or wood which had been injured, cut off.
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   ממולח, “thoroughly mixed;” <i>Rashi</i> understands the word ממולח, as thoroughly mixed, whereas Nachmanides sees in the word its original meaning, i.e. “salted,” and the Torah would instruct that just as meat offerings have to be salted so even the incense has to be salted. This is why the Talmud referred to the quarter <i>kav</i> of salt from the Dead Sea, which was part of the mixture.
  
  
  Verse 36
  
   ונתתה ממנה לפני העדות באהל מועד אשר אועד לך שמה, “you are to place some of it in front of the Testimonial Tablets in the Tent of Meeting, where I shall designate a time to meet you.” The Torah emphasises that this offering is to be presented twice daily, on the golden altar, inside the Sanctuary, quite close to the Holy Ark. 
      Nachmanides writes that it is quite possible that the reason why the Holy Ark is mentioned here is that the Torah wanted to include every aspect of the offering called קטורת, and that it is so holy that on the Day of Atonement it was even taken into the Holy of Holies, the room reserved for the Holy Ark from whose lid the voice of the <i>Shechinah</i> would emanate whenever it addressed Moses. The words אשר אועד לך שמה, are referring to the presentation of the incense in the Holy of Holies, as distinct from the rest of the year when it is presented in the Sanctuary, the היכל.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ראה קראתי בשם בצלאל, “See, I have called by name, Betzalel.” Moses repeats this description of Betzalel’s qualifications when he says to them in This was necessary, as it was a miracle that a people who had been forced to perform basic slave labour for hundreds of years should have produced among themselves artisans capable of performing highly skilled work such as was envisioned for the making of the priestly garments, and for the furnishings of the Tabernacle. Betzalel, personally, had been endowed by G’d not only with the wisdom to carry out the physical work required, but he had been endowed with the spiritual insights necessary to comprehend the mystical aspects of the Tabernacle and everything connected with it. He was fully aware of the significance of both the materials used, the measurements G’d had commanded, and the manner in which the entire project represented a re-enactment of מעשה בראשית, the way in which G’d had created the universe. Our sages, in attempting to give us an inkling of all this, stated that G’d had shown Betzalel the book of Adam, the first human being. They meant that just as Adam, initially, had been on intimate terms with his Creator, so Betzalel had been endowed with something parallel, as much as this is possible in the present imperfect world.
      Some commentators interpret the word: “ראה” as meaning “I want you to know that in My eyes this man appears to be good.” Seeing that this is so, I want you, Moses, to relate to him in a similar manner.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ואת בגדי השרד, “and the knit vestments, etc.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the vestments mentioned here were the covers in which the furnishings of the Tabernacle were wrapped while the Israelites were en route from one encampment to the next. The literal meaning of the word שרד appears to be that the fabric of these vestments was very porous, like knitwear.
      According to Nachmanides this is not the issue, but the word שרד indicates that only one single kind of yarn was used in the construction of these covers, as opposed to the ceremonial garments of the High Priest which consisted of a variety of yarns all used in the making of a single garment. 
      At any rate, I have an additional and basic difficulty with <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary. It appears unlikely that G’d would instruct Moses to have vestments made without telling him how many, what size, and what materials these were to be made of. Furthermore, what is astounding, if <i>Rashi</i> were correct, is that such auxiliary vestments would be mentioned ahead of the ceremonial garments of Aaron, or even before the garments of the ordinary priests. Moreover, the expression לשרת בקודש used in 35,19 is totally incomprehensible; what “service” would these vestments possibly perform if their purpose were just to serve as covers for the Tabernacle’s furnishings? Also what is the meaning of the words in verse 6 ועשו את כל אשר צויתיך, “they are to do in accordance with all that I commanded you,” and what follows are a list of things including the בגדי השרד?” Seeing the making of the בגדי השרד had not been commanded to Moses as yet how could they have been included in what is described in verses 7-11?
      From the words of our sages it would appear that the vestments referred to as בגדי השרד are none other than the priestly garments, and the reason that they are here referred to by the description בגדי השרד, is that the wearer be uniquely distinguished among his people. The word שריד appears in a similar context as referring to the unique phenomenon of someone escaping the general slaughter of Israel’s enemies in Joshua 8,22, and again in the sense of someone unique in Jeremiah The message here is that only one single individual in his generation may be clothed in these garments, i.e. the High Priest Aaron, and after his death the High Priest who replaces him. This may also be the reason why these garments are referred to for all times as בגדי אהרן, Aaron’s garments, not plain “the High Priest’s garments.” The term בגדי אהרן reflects the unique honour bestowed upon Aaron for whom these garments were designed and fashioned. It is not for nothing that the Torah refers to these garments as being לכבוד ולתפארת, “as marks of honour and glory.” This is also why in our literature the term בגדי השרד is equated with בגדי מלכות, “Royal garments,” garments reflecting the glory and authority of the king. As such they become automatically בגדי הקודש, the garments reflecting the sacred duties performed by their wearer. No one else is allowed to wear them. [we know of the unique image of the wearer of these garments when Haman desired to be dressed in the king’s clothes as a mark of the king’s regard for him. Esther, 6, 7-10. Ed.]
      When we are told in <i>Parshat Pekudey</i> that these garments were woven from blue wool, purple coloured wool, and red wool; it is noticeable that on that occasion no mention is made of the material שש, i.e. fine linen; the reason is that linen, even the finest linen, was considered as inferior to the three kinds of dyed wool mentioned. (compare Exodus) Possibly, there had been no excess donations of these three kinds of woolen threads. Seeing that in our verse the mention of the purpose of these garments to perform holy service in them has been omitted, the Torah may instead have referred to them as בגדי השרד as an alternate way of informing us of the distinction of these garments.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   אך את שבתותי תשמורו, “However, you must observe My Sabbaths;” a reference to the numerous Sabbath days during the year.
      <i>
      Rashi</i>, pointing out that the word אך always precedes a restrictive clause, claims that the verse in front of us specifically addresses the subject of interrupting the construction of even such a sacred project as the building of the Tabernacle in order not to desecrate the Sabbath.
      Nachmanides questions <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation, saying that on the contrary, the restrictive nature of the words אך and רק, should be interpreted as lifting the normal restrictions on building activity on the Sabbath out of deference to the sacred nature of the task of building a residence for G’d on earth. In all other examples of the words אך and רק where these appear in conjunction with a Torah commandment, the commandment’s applicability is limited as a result. If we were to interpret the appearance of this word here as a limitation on the work of the Tabernacle, the result would be that it may proceed even on the Sabbath. Other examples of such a restrictive clause being applied on account of these words result in circumcision on the eight’s day overriding the laws of the Sabbath; similarly, the commandment to save a life which is in danger overrides any forbidden activity of the Sabbath, if the life to be saved is in danger on the Sabbath. The Talmud <i>Yerushalmi 8,5</i> in <i>Yuma</i> actually quotes our verse here as the source that saving someone’s life on the Sabbath when it involves violation of Biblical prohibitions on the Sabbath is not only permitted but mandatory. However, Rabbi Yochanan there adds that where the life in danger is so only marginally, violation of the Sabbath is not permitted on account of this. Mention of the Sabbath here must be viewed as the exception to the general rule in which the words אך and רק are applied, and that is why work on the Tabernacle was interrupted for the sake of observing the Sabbath.
      The plain meaning of our verse is: “keep working on the sacred project of building the Tabernacle but do not allow this project to interfere with observance of the Sabbath in any shape or form in order to complete this work sooner.”
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויתן אל משה, “He gave to Moses, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the subject of the word ויתן in our verse is the word אלוקים, although it appears only at the end of our verse. The construction is similar, in a sense, to Exodus 20,1 where the lineוידבר אלוקים את כל הדברים האלה , “G’d said all these words, etc.,” refer to what is yet to come, instead of to something that preceded it. The same is true in connection with the Tablets, where the Torah describes these Tablets as having been made by the Lord and inscribed by the Lord only in The handing over of the Tablets to Moses certainly preceded the end of G’d’s dialogue with Moses as is evident from
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   קום עשה לנו אלוהים, ”rise up and make for us gods, etc.” Nachmanides writes that there is no question that the Israelites did not demand or expect Aaron to make idolatrous images for them, as the people most certainly believed in a living G’d Who had taken them out of Egypt, and Who had performed all the miracles for them which the Torah has recorded. It is clear that the Israelites did not for a moment believe that Moses had performed all these miracles on his own. This is why, when referring to Moses, they described him as someone who had led them, “walked in front of us, etc.” Seeing that apparently Moses would not return from the Mountain, they asked for a substitute who, with the guidance of G’d, would henceforth be their guide through the desert still to be traversed before they would come to the land of Canaan. They did not refer to a power which would enable man to live in the here and now as well as in the world of the future. They were fully aware that all the journeys thus far had been על פי ה' ביד משה, ”at the command of <i>Hashem</i> transmitted by Moses.” All they expected of the substitute was that ילכו לפנינו “walk in front of us.” When they referred to Moses having העלנו מארץ מצרים, “raised us up from the land of Egypt,” this is not to be confused with אשר הוצאתנו מארץ מצרים, “who has taken us out of Egypt,” i.e. “who redeemed us from bondage.” It is quite clear from what Aaron answered Moses who had accused him of making a golden image for them, that he had never for a moment understood the people as reverting to idolatry. Otherwise, instead of repeating what the people had said to him as proof of his innocence he would have had to either misquote them or to confess his guilt. Aaron’s reply to Moses’ accusation is most certainly not an apology! On the contrary, if he had been guilty, he would have added more guilt upon himself by his very words. (verses 22-24) 
      If Moses were to return unexpectedly, the people were most certainly prepared to accept his continued leadership, as they proved when no one opposed either Moses’ burning of the golden calf, or the measures he introduced to punish the few people who actually did dance around the calf and revered it as a deity. If the people, i.e. the multitude, had really believed that this calf possessed any divine powers, they most certainly would have protested Moses destroying their deity. It is true that it was Aaron who had produced this calf, not because the people had demanded this particular image, or any other image for that matter. This is what the sages had in mind when they interpreted the people’s wishes as their wanting multiple images, as they had no idea of what to choose. Aaron’s intention was that seeing the people were at Mount Chorev, in a desolate desert, and waste and destruction have traditionally been perceived as originating in the north, (compare Jeremiah 1,14) and Jeremiah did not only refer to the King of Babylonia who threatened the kingdom of Yehudah from the north, something that is clear to all those who read that chapter, Aaron assumed that the spiritually negative forces are strongest in the north, and that is why they are perceived as attacking from the north. He meant to counter this by specifically addressing the G’d of Israel in a festivity aimed in a northerly direction to counter such forces and to harness the spiritually positive forces, as a counterweight, especially seeing that the people would celebrate a festivity in honour of <i>Hashem</i>. He had hoped, by means of the offerings, to transfer the power associated in people’s minds with the astrological symbol ox to the Master of all oxen, i.e. <i>Hashem,</i> and to set in motion celestial forces against this type of idolatry.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   פרקו נזמי הזהב, “remove the rings of gold, etc.” Aaron selected gold and no other material,l seeing that the appearance of gold is reminiscent of the Attribute of Justice, something symbolized by fire. This is also the reason why all the furnishings in the Sanctuary were constructed of gold, as well as the altar for incense in the inner Sanctum. The likeness of the calf being made of gold, therefore resembled fire more than silver would have done.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   אלה אלוהיך ישראל אשר העלוך, “these are your leaders o Israel that have led you out of Egypt.” These words of the onlookers are further proof that the golden calf was not intended to serve as a deity, as there could not have been any person foolish enough to credit the gold from their earrings with having orchestrated the Exodus from Egypt. What the people meant was that the mystical power represented by gold in the present shape was the major factor which had enabled Moses to lead the people out of Egypt. Never, in connection with the golden calf, did any part of the people ever say the words אשר הוציאוך ממצרים, “who have initiated your departure from Egypt,” a formulation which would have credited the golden calf with divine powers. They only credited the power inherent in this gold as facilitating the auxiliary aspects of the Exodus, such as drying out the bed of the sea through which the Israelites walked when crossing the Sea of Reeds.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   וירא אהרן, “now Aaron realized, etc.” The Torah did not complete the sentence about what it was that Aaron “saw,” i.e. that the people were bent on crediting the golden calf with much more than he had thought at first. In order to head off a major spiritual and subsequently physical disaster, Aaron now proclaimed the following day as a festival in honour of <i>Hashem,</i> and he proceeded to build an altar to accommodate the offerings to <i>Hashem</i> which he intended to sacrifice at that feast. By doing this he felt he would forestall people building altars on which they would offer sacrifices to this golden image of a calf. By temporizing he felt and hoped that Moses would return from the Mountain before a calamity would occur. However, seeing the people on whose behalf he was going to offer these sacrifices intended them for the golden calf, they would have turned them into פיגול unacceptable sacrifices. At any rate, the people preempted Aaron early on the following morning. 
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויעלו עולות ויגישו שלמים, “they burned up burnt offerings, and they presented peace-offerings. It is noteworthy that the Torah does not mention in whose honour these offerings were presented, i.e. we would have expected the Torah to write ויעלו לו עולות, “they burned up burnt offerings in its honour.” The absence of the word לו, shows that some people did indeed offer their sacrifices to <i>Hashem,</i> whereas others meant to honour the golden calf when presenting their offerings. The offering of any sacrifice, which even though technically corresponding to <i>halachah</i> in all its visible details, would become פיגול, totally rejected, and the owner guilty of death at the hands of heaven, merely because it had not been addressed to <i>Hashem</i>.
  
     וישב העם לאכול ושתו, ”the people sat down in order to eat and drink, etc..” They all sat down to eat in order to still their hunger, and to drink in order to become inebriated as they were in the habit of doing on festivals. The reason that the Torah bothered to record these details is to show that although Moses, upon his return from the Mountain, found the people in such a state of mind that they danced around the image of the golden calf, he summoned the spiritual fortitude that enabled him even in such circumstances to act as a true servant of <i>Hashem</i> to seize this very calf in front of their eyes and to utterly destroy it by burning it.
      The Torah now completes recording the entire episode involving the golden calf, before resuming with recording what had transpired between G’d and Moses after G’d had informed him of what was going on down below, and Moses had descended hurriedly to rejoin his people. Chronologically speaking, we must presume that the conversation between G’d and Moses on the Mountain took place early in the morning, when he was told by G’d that the people had become corrupt and had even made for themselves a cast image in the shape of a golden calf, an image before which they had prostrated themselves. By the time Moses reached the camp the people had already sat down to eat and drink. G’d had waited with telling him to descend until after some people had already actively worshipped the calf as a deity.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   כי שחת עמך אשר העלית, “for your people, the ones you brought up from Egypt, etc.” Seeing that after the crossing of the Sea of Reeds, the Torah described Moses as making the people take a turn toward the desert, [apparently without consulting G’d, Ed.] G’d now describes the calamity as having befallen “Moses’” people, as distinct from their being “G’d’s people,” seeing he had led them into the desert on his own authority. as distinct from their having remained “G’d’s” people. (compare Exodus 15,22)
      Alternatively, G’d took a leaf out of the people’s book, seeing they had described Moses as the man who had brought them out of Egypt. (verse 1) In Deuteronomy 9,12 Moses quotes G’d as having said to him: שחת עמך אשר הוצאת ממצרים, סרו מהר ,” your people, the ones you took out of Egypt have become corrupt and departed quickly from the path I commanded them.” Moses rejected this accusation, replying that G’d had taken the people out of Egypt. Compare Deut. He did not even agree that he had played any substantive part in the Exodus. [The Israelites had been expelled by Pharaoh, did not leave at Moses’ bidding. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ועתה הניחה לי, “and now, desist from Me, etc.” Nachmanides writes that it makes no sense to understand the words ועתה הניחה לי, as meaning that Moses should not try to interfere with G’d’s anger, seeing that He had not yet displayed any sign of such anger, as G’d Himself is about to say. Moreover, how could G’d become angry after Moses had already appeased Him? The plain meaning of the words in question must be understood as a prelude to what G’d adds immediately after referring to His anger when He announces that He will wipe out the Jewish people instantly and would replace them with a new Jewish nation based on Moses as their founding father.
      Alternately, G’d told Moses not to appeal to His attribute of Mercy in order that He could give free rein to His attribute of Justice, as a result of which the people would be annihilated.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   למה ה' יחרה אפך בעמך, “to what purpose, o <i>Hashem,</i> should Your anger flare against Your people?” Nachmanides writes that in light of this great sin by the Israelites, it would seem to have been appropriate for Moses to plead Israel’s case by commencing with a confession, as in the formula “אנא חטא העם הזה וגו', “indeed this people have committed a grievous sin, etc.” [as he did when he ascended the Mountain again in verse 31. Ed.] Our sages have distinguished themselves in citing reasons why what appeared at first glance as a terrible sin, was in fact much less serious than it appears at first glance.
      The proper way to understand Moses’ words at this juncture is: ”why would You give permission to the Attribute of Justice to assume control of the fate of Your people when You had led the people out under the banner of the Attribute of Mercy, while at the same time reserving Your Attribute of Justice for dealing with their enemies?”
      Some commentators explain Moses’ question as being simply: “why not direct Your anger at the instigators of this sin, the mixed multitude, who had joined the Jewish people at the time of the Exodus?”
      This prayer, in which Moses describes that by doing away with the Jewish people <i>Hashem</i> would ultimately diminish His own image, which He had built up while performing the miracles in Egypt, is repeated in Deuteronomy. The only difference is that here Moses is described as offering this plea before descending from the Mountain, whereas in Deuteronomy it is described by Moses as having taken place after he had descended from the Mountain. (Deut. 9,26)
      Ibn Ezra feels that Moses refrained from pleading on behalf of the people as long as the symbol of their sin was still among them. He could not hope to have his prayer answered until after every vestige of the golden calf had been destroyed. Seeing that G’d had said to him that he should desist from pleading, and he realized that the matter depended upon him, he hastened to come up with some cogent reason why G’d’s anger, if it were to result in the people’s destruction, would be counterproductive from G’d’s own vantage point. [Ibn Ezra does not view our verse as a prayer on behalf of Israel, but on behalf of G’d’s image among mankind. Ed.]
      Personally, I do not agree. (Nachmanides speaking). Nachmanides argues that if indeed Moses had not prayed while on the Mountain for the first time, and all his entreaties (according to some scholars 40 days’ worth of them) were a single prayer, why would the Torah have divided them into what is reported here and what Moses added in Deuteronomy? I believe therefore, that we are dealing with two distinct prayers. When G’d told Moses to desist so that He could proceed with what He had in mind, Moses prayed immediately, instead of desisting. He formulated the prayer quoted in our verse. He was far too worried that if he were to wait it would prove too late, as G’d’s anger would have been translated into disaster for the Jewish people. His prayer proved effective, at least sufficiently to suspend execution of G’d’s plan at this stage. It did not mean that G’d had been mollified, how could He have been, when no remedial action both in word and deed had yet been taken? Seeing that G’d had granted Moses a stay of execution, he descended and immediately proceeded to destroy the golden calf, to sprinkle the penitent people with water containing the ashes of that cast image, and authorized the execution of the active participants who had danced around the calf proclaiming it to be a deity. Having done all this, he felt that he could ascend the Mountain again and plead for forgiveness, not only a delay of the punishment for what the people had become guilty of. On that occasion, the confession of the people’s guilt did not ring hollow, as he was able to point to the remedial action he had taken and the people having demonstrated sincere penitence.
      As to the reason why Moses related the sequence differently, 40 years after the event, when he said that as soon as G’d told him to desist so that He could destroy the people he descended the Mountain, (Deut. 9,14-15) this was because Moses was in the process of reminding the people [who were still alive, i.e. below the age of 60, Ed.] of a whole litany of sins committed by their fathers. In order not to interrupt the continuity of his recital, Moses did not mention what he had said to G’d in our verse at that time. He preferred to tell of what precisely had happened at hat time as well as Aaron’s role in all this. [remember that the great majority of the people whom Moses addressed at that time had not even been alive when all this happened. Ed.] After he had concluded by reminding the people that they had a long history of being rebellious against G’d, (Deut. 9,24) he came back to his prayer on behalf of the people and reminded them that he had spent an entire 40 days on the Mountain pleading the cause of his people. He wanted his audience to know that their existence at this time was not a natural event, but that G’d had initially meant to kill all their fathers, so that most of them would never have been born even, if not for his insistent prayers over a period of so many days when he did not even enjoy food and drink. He did not have to list all the details of his prayers as a list of 40 days of continuous prayer would have resulted in the Torah being an interminably long book, and the people reading it would have gone to sleep from boredom. When Moses mentioned that he had also prayed on behalf of Aaron at that time, he made clear that Aaron had been in need of his prayer at that time. He did not mention this in our verse, as it would have been embarrassing to have done so while Aaron was still alive. In Deuteronomy, a speech by Moses several months after Aaron had already died, he could mention this without fear of embarrassing him.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   והלוחות מעשה אלוקים המה, “the Tablets had been made by G’d.” Nachmanides writes that it would have been more appropriate to describe the details of these Tablets in 31,18 where we first hear about them, and where we have been told that they had been written with a “finger” of G’d. The reason that this was written at this juncture was to impress upon us that in spite of the Tablets being G’d’s personal handiwork, Moses did not let this stop him from smashing them as he was so upset when he saw what was going on in the camp.
      An alternate reason for why Moses smashed the Tablets, a thought expressed by our sages, is that when Moses realized that the letters on the Tablets had already flown away, so that the sanctity of the Tablets had departed, he took this as a signal to also smash the body which had hosted the letters while the people were a holy people. He would not demean the work of G’d to be brought within the boundaries of a camp which had become totally defiled.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   קול ענות אנכי שומע, “I can only hear a sound of distress.” Nachmanides writes that what Moses said was not based on factual evidence, -after all he had not yet seen what was going on with his eyes, and we do not judge on the basis of what our ears hear.- In fact, technically speaking, Moses was out of order in telling Joshua his conclusions which incriminated his people on the basis of not even having seen the evidence. We must therefore interpret what Moses is quoted as saying to mean that he voiced the opinion that what he heard sounded like revelry.
      In the <i>Midrash</i> Moses’ words are understood as a rebuke to Joshua, his mentor saying to him that someone who will one day become the ruler of this people cannot afford to make judgments based only on what he thought he had heard. (<i>Midrash Rabbah Kohelet</i> 9)
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   וישלך מידו את הלוחות, “he threw down the Tablets from his hand.” The Torah does not use the verb ויפל, which would have meant that the Tablets fell directly in front of his feet, but it uses a verb indicating that Moses flung the Tablets as far away from him as he was able to. 
     וישבר אותם, “he shattered them. According to the plain meaning of the text, the reason why Moses made a point of smashing the Tablets was that these Tablets which had inscribed on them that Israelites must not make a cast image of anything in heaven or on earth, would, if allowed to remain intact- serve as testimony against the people who had so grossly violated what was written upon these Tablets.
  
  Verse 20
  
     וישרוף באש, “he burned it by fire.” Gold is normally worked only when it has been made red hot, when it is cast in a mould. Therefore, just as the calf came into existence by means of fire, it had to be destroyed by means of fire.     Ibn Ezra writes that there are elements (or additives) which when mixed with gold, not only have the same effect as melting it, but make it incapable of being reconstituted. Moses used such a solution. 
  
  Verse 21
  
   מה עשה לך העם הזה? ”what have these people done to you?” <i>Rashi</i> understands this question as meaning: “how many tortures have these people inflicted upon you that you became instrumental in making this calf?”
      Nachmanides has difficulty in accepting this interpre-tation, as Moses implied that Aaron’s action was excusable, whereas when it comes to idolatry we have an ironclad rule that one must be prepared to sacrifice one’s life rather than lend a hand in such a nefarious scheme. He therefore prefers to understand Moses’ question to Aaron as: “how much did you hate this people that you were willing to become the instrument which would lead to their destruction?” He said this as it had been Aaron’s task to be their remonstrator, castigator, not their assistant and abettor when they were bent on committing a sin. Nachmanides adds that actually, Moses should first have accused Aaron of his sin, before mentioning the people’s sin. Only then should he have mentioned that Aaron had been guilty in causing them to commit this sin. He refrained from accusing Aaron to his face of causing the people to sin, out of respect for him.
      Alternatively, the reason why Moses did not reprimand Aaron was simply that he was one hundred per cent convinced that Aaron could not have harboured any thought that deserved criticizing from an <i>halachic</i> point of view, but that Moses’ words referred exclusively to the sin committed by the people, and that Aaron should have remonstrated with them. Aaron replied simply that the people had deliberately misled him.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   אתה ידעת את העם כי ברע הוא, “you know what the people are like once they are bent on an evil path.” Aaron did not want to dwell at length on how the situation had deteriorated, and the people’s having planned this, but he shouldered part of the blame saying that he had misled them by throwing the gold they had brought into the crucible, as an unexpected result of which this calf emerged. The people had made him believe that they wanted a temporary substitute for Moses until Moses would return. It had neither occurred to him that this calf would emerge from the crucible, nor that they would worship this calf by prostrating themselves in front of it
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   וירא משה, “Moses saw, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> says that even though Aaron had made excuses for the people, Moses, in his heart, did not accept this.” [I have not been able to find this remark by <i>Rashi</i> in our editions of <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary. I believe this is an error, and should be attributed to Nachmanides. Ed.]
  
     כי פרוע הוא, “that the inner motivations of the people had become revealed,” i.e. that they were innately wicked, they were a nation that had completely lost its spiritual directions, pursuing a totally destructive path. (similar to Deut. 32,28 גוי אובד עצות ואין בהם תבונה)
  
     כי פרעה אהרן, “for Aaron had exposed them.” Aaron was responsible for depriving the people of their normal intelligence and moral scruples. Moses said this as he realised that the people had become so confused that they imagined that this golden calf could serve them as a guide on their journeys through the desert. Anyone confused to such an extent must be considered as having completely lost his senses. As a result, some of the people, though misguided, entertained worthy thoughts, whereas others, entertained completely idolatrous thoughts.
  
     לשמצה בקמיהם, “as a disgrace among those who would rise up against them.” Even the portion of the people whose intentions were perfectly innocent will become the pretext for others to point at the disgraceful conduct of the Jewish people for all future generations. [as their intentions were not clear, seeing they had not voiced opposition to those who were bent on idolatry. Ed.] The historians would conclude that all the Jews had been of one mind at that time. The accusations labeled against all the people on that account would give Satan a valuable tool to use against the Jews.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, the word שמצה, derived from שמץ, something minute, means that as a result of this episode, the Jewish people had forfeited their image of being a unique and spiritually superior people, and they would henceforth be considered in the eyes of the nations as of very small stature. (compare for the meaning of שמץ Job 4,12 ותקח אזני שמץ, “my ear caught a whisper” something barely audible) of it. Or, in the sense of Israel losing its accumulated merits in the Book of G’d, [ספר זכויות as in the אבינו מלכנו prayer. Ed.] our positive balance in that book would shrink to zero. This would be most harmful whenever we would face enemies in battle.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ויעמוד משה בשער המחנה, “Moses stood at the entrance gate to the camp.” Seeing that Moses had seen that the people’s conduct had resulted in their disgracing themselves, and being guilty of a public desecration of the name of the Lord, Moses took up position at the gateway to the camp and called out in a loud voice that all those loyal to <i>Hashem</i> should come forward and publicly execute all those guilty of acts of idolatry, in order that this would become common knowledge and no one would be able to use the fact that idolatry had been tolerated among the Israelites as a weapon against their reputation of being G’d’s nation. The public execution was an act of sanctification of the Lord’s name that would even the score.  
  
  Verse 27
  
   כה אמר ה' שימו איש חרבו על ירכו, “thus has the Lord G’d of Israel said: “every man put his sword on his thigh, etc.” Nachmanides writes that what occurred here is not related to Exodus 22,19 זובח לאלוהים יחרם בלתי לה' לבדו, “anyone who offers sacrifices to <i>elohim,</i> (other gods) other than to <i>Hashem</i> will be destroyed.” Here only the people whom G’d had told Moses about, were to be executed, the others were not guilty of a capital offence. The Levites were aware of who had offered sacrifices to the golden calf, and, seeing that it was physically impossible to bring all these people to trial and they had not been warned, the procedure is not recorded here in writing in detail. Time was of the essence, if a greater calamity was to be avoided. By doing what they did, the Levites helped Moses to turn the temporary stay of execution G’d had promised Moses before he descended into a permanent stay of execution. (compare 32,14) We find that almost 40 years later, when the people at <i>Shittim</i> became sexually and ritually involved with the Moabite women (Numbers 25,4-9) similar emergency measures were employed.
  
     שימו איש חרבו על ירכו, (see above) Nachmanides writes that there were so many people who worshipped the calf that it was impossible to bring all of them to a tribunal, and moreover, there had not been anyone who had warned these people in accordance with normal judicial requirements. This is why G’d had told Moses to use emergency measures. Our sages, go further and state that the method of execution was also changed, as normally stoning would be the order of the day for convicted idolaters, and all who had witnessed such a deed had to participate in the execution. [This comment does not agree with the Talmud in <i>Yuma</i>, although according to Maimonides <i>hilchot avodah zarah 3,1</i> it seems clear that stoning is the penalty when proper warning has been administered. Ed.]
      According to the scholars who hold that warnings had been issued to the people whom the Levites executed on this occasion by qualified witnesses, we must interpret Moses’ instructions to the Levites as having included this proviso. Those who could not be convicted on that basis, instead of being stoned, were executed by the sword.
      The correct interpretation is according to the scholar who holds that slaughtering animals to idols or burning incense is punishable by death through the sword, whereas other forms of worship such as kissing the idols is punishable by the kind of death preferred by the victim. This is so because the latter type of practicing idolatry has not been punished by death by the Jewish courts throughout the ages. [it was left to the heavenly tribunal to take care of the sinner. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   אם תשא את חטאתם ואם אין מחני נא מספרך, “if You will forgive their sin…., and if not please blot me out from Your Book.” According to <i>Rashi,</i> Moses wanted to have his name removed from the whole Torah.
      Nachmanides finds this difficult, as in his opinion G’d’s reply that He would remove the sinners’ names from His Book and not those of the ones free from sin, would not be comprehensible. Who else was there whose name could be erased, seeing that we have not heard about the names of any of the sinners? He therefore concludes that Moses’ request must be understood thus: “If You will forgive them in Your Mercy, o.k, if not, I prefer that you wipe me out from among the living i.e. the Book of Life, and let the people continue living in my place. G’d’s reply that He will punish the guilty and not the innocent instead of the guilty, makes perfect sense then. He had no reason to erase Moses from the Book of the Living.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   ועתה לך נחה את העם, “and now, go and lead the people!” G’d meant that now that He had reconsidered His initial plan and had desisted from destroying the people, it was up to Moses to continue to lead them.
  
     אל אשר דברתי לך, ”to where I have told you.” G’d did not want to be more specific, as He was still angry and He wanted Moses to know that the people’s continued existence was not due to His having forgiven them, but to the high regard in which He held their leader, i.e. Moses. Whenever He would have an occasion to visit some punishment on the people for a different sin, He would add some extra punishment in partial discharge of what they had become guilty of during this unhappy episode. This would continue even after they would come to the Holy Land. This is a veiled hint that they would at some time be exiled from that land. This is why our sages have taught us that there is no historical disaster which befalls the Jewish people that does not include part of the punishment for the unexpurgated guilt of the sin of the golden calf. (<i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 43,3)
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  ויגוף ה' את העם , “<i>Hashem</i> smote the people.” In this instance the Torah did not reveal how many of the people were smitten with this fatal plague, as distinct from the people who had been executed by the Levites or the plague that killed the people participating in Korach’s uprising, or the people who died as a result of the encounter with the Moabite women at <i>Shittim</i>. Perhaps the reason why here we have not been told numbers is that these people did not die all simultaneously, so that the cause of their deaths would be obvious, but the “plague” that struck them meant that they died prematurely.
      Alternatively, the Torah did not bother to inform us of their number, just as it has not informed us of the number of people who died at <i>Taveyrah</i> (Numbers 11,1) or at <i>Kivrot Hataavah</i> (Numbers 11,35) The principal reason why the number of people executed by the Levites are mentioned, is to give credit to the Levites who carried out G’d’s instructions in spite of the large number of people involved. They trusted in G’d’s protection and were not afraid of their victims resisting and possibly killing them.
  
     אשר עשו את העגל, “who had made the golden calf.” This is mentioned to tell us that the people who were struck by the plague were not the ones who had actively prostrated themselves and worshipped the golden calf. Their sin consisted of ganging up on Aaron and demanding that he make for them a substitute for Moses. Seeing that the Torah first said that they were punished for making the golden calf, something not quite accurate, as Aaron had taken the gold and thrown it into the crucible, the Torah now had to add: אשר עשה אהרן, that actually it had been Aaron who had “made” the calf.
  
     אשר עשה אהרן, “which Aaron had made.” The reason the Torah had attributed the making of the calf to the people whom G’d subsequently struck with the plague, was that Aaron had acted only as their שליח, as their proxy. Had they not demanded it of him by adopting a threatening posture, he would never have dreamt of undertaking such a project. This plague only commenced after the Levites, at the command of Moses, had executed the people who had actively worshipped the calf. After that Moses had prayed to G’d on behalf of the people, and had received instructions to lead the people toward their goal, the Holy land. At that point G’d had said that He would send along one of His angels. In order to justify His doing so, He had to reduce the level of unexpurgated sin still amongst the people. Striking the instigators of the whole episode with the plague accomplished that purpose. Now G’d was able to say to Moses to proceed. [verse 34 was only preparatory, and did not contain the command to proceed forthwith. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   עלה מזה אתה והעם, “move forward from this place, you and the people!” G’d now indicated that although He had forgiven partially, the people were not on a spiritual level which enabled Him to make His presence manifest among them again, and therefore He would content himself by assigning an angel as their escort representing His <i>Shechinah,</i> instead. G’d made mention at this point of  
     הארץ אשר נשבעתי, “the land which I had promised on oath” (to the patriarchs’ descendants) G’d hinted that on account of the people who had died by the plague, and their having thus been partially rehabilitated, it was possible for Him to once more mention the merit of their ancestors. He added:     
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש, ”to a land flowing with milk and honey.” G’d meant that the land itself would not become ruined by their inhabitants nor as a result of the sins of their inhabitants, but neither would the land condone the sins of its inhabitants and G’d would expel the six tribes as mentioned previously. G’d added, as an expression of His goodwill, 
     כי לא אעלה בקרבך, “for I, in My capacity of My essence, will not go up amongst you.” This was not a description of the Israelites’ unworthiness at that time, but was meant as a protective device. In the event that the Israelites would sin again, in spite of being in the presence of G’d’s manifest <i>Shechinah,</i> He would be forced to react in a manner that would spell their destruction. As a result of the golden calf episode Israel suffered two major setbacks. 1) the absence of the <i>Shechinah</i> from the camp; 2) leadership by means of an angel until the destruction or expulsion of the Canaanites from their land. Once this promise to the patriarchs had been fulfilled, they were not even promised the presence of an angel as visible evidence of G’d’s continued personal interest in their fate. To make this point clear, G’d described the terms of reference for His angel as being limited to בדרך, “while on the way,” Concerning all this the Torah continues with: 
  
  Verse 4
  
   וישמע העם הדבר הזה ויתאבלו, “when the people heard this they went into mourning for themselves.” When <i>Hashem</i> observed that the people now mourned their fate, He switched to the Attribute of Mercy, [note that the Torah refers now to ויאמר ה' instead of וידבר ה' and instead of speaking אל העם He addresses the בני ישראל, a complimentary term. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   אמור לבני ישראל, “say to the Children of Israel, etc.;” G’d now explains that the absence of His essence in their midst would be to their advantage, not as they had thought that it would be a sign of estrangement. Nonetheless, they had done well in considering themselves as in mourning and not wearing any decorative jewelry. They should always react to their own sins by observing a state of mourning, i.e. demonstrating that they were ashamed of their conduct. G’d would then take note of their penitence and react in accordance with the sincerity of their remorse.
  
     הורד עדיך מעליך, “remove your jewelry from yourselves!” 
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויתנצלו בני ישראל את עדים, “The Children of Israel divested themselves of their jewelry.” Even though we had already read in verse 4 that the people did not put on their jewelry, some commentators understand the words ולא שתו to mean ולא הסירו, “they did not remove,” i.e. until ordered to do so they did not remove the jewelry they had been in the habit of wearing.
      Other commentators claim that every Israelite would normally be adorned with two crown-shaped pieces of jewelry. Removing, or better, not adorning themselves with jewelry as mentioned in verse 4, referred to only one of these two crowns. Now they were commanded to strip both crowns from themselves.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ומשה יקח את האהל, “and Moses would take the tent, etc.;” <i>Rashi</i> writes that what is described in our verse did not happen until after the Day of Atonement, when Moses had returned from the Mountain for the third and last time. Moses continued pitching his camp outside the people’s camp until after the Tabernacle had been assembled and inaugurated. [based on <i>Tanchuma.</i> Ed.]
      Nachmanides writes that he cannot agree with the above. He feels that there would have been no point in mentioning this at this juncture, seeing that Moses had not even ascended the Mountain for the second time as yet. Moreover, according to our sages, the only reason why Moses removed his tent from the camp was that the people were in disgrace, and just as G’d had seen fit to remove His presence from the people, G’d’s pupil, disciple, merely emulated his Master. After the Day of Atonement, when the people’s sin had been forgiven, what would be the point in positioning his tent outside the boundaries of the camp at that time? 
      Following his reasoning, Nachmanides therefore feels that Moses on the 17th of <i>Tammus</i>, the day he had returned from the Mountain for the first time and had smashed the Tablets, he also burned the golden calf, instructed the Levites to execute active idol worshippers. On the following day he told the people that he would ascend the Mountain again and pray there for forgiveness. He did so and offered a short prayer. This was the occasion when G’d told him that He would not accept his offer to save the people and to die in their stead and to have his name blotted out from the Book of Life. He told the people that he had been told that G’d would punish the guilty and not be content with their leader assuming their guilt and punishment. He then instructed them to remove their jewelry, telling them that the process of mourning would be drawn out, and that forgiveness, if at all, would not be instant, and he told the people to observe mourning.
      Moses moved his own tent to an area that was not spiritually contaminated by the people’s sin, and in this manner he hoped to maintain his ability to communicate with the <i>Shechinah</i> on a reciprocal basis. This could not be expected within the camp, as the spiritual contamination caused by the golden calf episode had not yet been cleansed. In fact, the Torah itself testifies that until after the inauguration of the Tabernacle Moses could not communicate with the <i>Shechinah</i> while within the camp. [(compare Exodus 40,34-38 and Leviticus 1,1) (compare also Moses’ comments in Leviticus 9,7-24) In all these verses the return of the <i>Shechinah</i> to the camp is illustrated. All of this took place only at the beginning of <i>Nissan</i> of the second year, [some eight and half months after Moses smashed the Tablets. Ed.]
      Concerning <i>Rashi’s</i> statement that Moses burned the calf on the 18th of <i>Tammuz</i> and that on that same day he executed the people who had been actively engaged in worshipping the calf, and that on the 19th he ascended the Mountain again, this is difficult, for if we do not consider the day of his ascent as a day belonging to the forty days, seeing that this day did not have the preceding night with it, as Moses had still been in camp then, (compare Talmud <i>Shabbat</i> quoted by<i> Rashi</i>) we will be left with two days missing, if according to tradition Moses was supposed to have returned on the 10th day of <i>Tishrey</i> from his last ascent and stay on the mountain. Even if we were to assume that Moses ascended again already on the 18th day of <i>Tammuz</i>, we are still short a day if he spent 40 days on the Mountain and returned on the 10th of <i>Tishrey.</i> Unless the actual daylight hours of Moses’ ascending or descending the Mountain are counted as whole days, the calculations do no jive.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ויהושוע בן נון נער, “Joshua son of Nun, a lad,” Ibn Ezra writes that seeing that we know that Joshua lived to the age of one hundred and ten, and we have a tradition that he spent seven years conquering the land of Canaan, and seven more years settling the people on their respective portions of that land, he was 96 years of age at the time the Israelites crossed the Jordan. This means that at this time he was already 56 years of age. We must therefore wonder at why the Torah describes him as נער, “a (mere) lad.” He therefore understands the verse to mean that Joshua, who was the personal valet of Moses, was charged with the kind of errands one charges a lad to do for one.
      Nachmanides writes that there is no need to resort to this explanation of the word נער in our verse, as there are many instances when a person who performs valet service for others is referred to as נער, and this in no way poses a problem. The person for whom the service is performed is known as איש, which automatically makes the one performing the service a junior to the איש, i.e. a נער. 
      As to the unusual vowel <i>chirik</i> instead of the usual <i>segol</i> under the letter ב in the word בן נון, Nachmanides explains this as a mark of distinction for the bearer, meaning that there was no one who could match Joshua in wisdom and understanding. [an allusion to בינה understanding. Insight. Ed.] An alternative explanation is that the subject here is that בינה מוליד נון reminiscent of Psalms In that verse ינון is a reference to the Messiah, and future Jews are credited to the Messiah as if they were his biological offspring (including the people being resurrected in due course) all on account of the meritorious deeds performed by the Messiah (Alshich)
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  ויאמר משה ראה אתה אומר אלי , “Moses said: “See, You say to me: “take up this people, etc.” The instructions which Moses claimed to have received at Mount Sinai occurred on the 19th of <i>Tammuz</i>. The Torah did not have to write at that time that Moses ascended the Mountain, seeing that as long as the glory of G’d hovered over the Mountain, it was clear that G’d spoke to Moses from that location. 
   ואתה לא הודעתני את אשר תשלח עמי, “yet You have not told me whom You will send to be with me.” <i>Rashi</i> understands Moses as referring to G’d’s having said that He would send an angel along (compare 32,20) as something which he was not even willing to consider as a הודעה, an “official information.”     Nachmanides claims that this is not the correct meaning of what we read here at all. It does not jive with the syntax employed by the Torah. Furthermore, if correct, why would Moses say this to G’d at this juncture instead of in 32,20 when he had been told to get moving with the people? Did he then intend at this point to gain some advantage of what had happened on account of the golden calf?     I believe (Nachmanides speaking) that what happened was as follows: G’d had told Moses that He would send an angel ahead of the people, to which Moses replied that he had not been told the “name” of that angel, i.e. the category of that angel and his terms of reference. He wanted to know if that was the same angel that had traveled with the Jewish people before the unhappy events with the golden calf, an angel who was high up in the celestial hierarchy, so that our sages describe him as an angel אשר שם ה' בקרבו, who clearly represented <i>Hashem,</i> the essence. as G’d Himself had said at the time כי שמי בקרבו, for My name (essence) is within him.” (Exodus 23,21) This is what Moses meant when he continued in a plaintive voice ואתה אמרת ידעתיך בשם, “and You Yourself have said to me that You had become as intimate with me as is possible, i.e. You expressed Your approval of me.” Moses indicated that he would not settle for anything less at this time. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   פני ילכו והנחותי לך, “My Presence will go and put your mind at rest.” Nachmanides writes that the commentators agree that G’d agreed that His essence would go with the people. We find similar words with the same meaning in Samuel II 17,11 פניך הולכים בקרב, when Chushai advises Avshalom to personally lead his troops against his father David. [the word פניך, meaning that Avshalom would prove that he was serious in his rebellion, that his innermost self was involved, and knowing this his supporters would not need to fear that he might change his mind at the last moment, leaving them to appear as the rebels and having no longer a cause to fight for. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   אם אין פניך הולכים, “If Your essence will not be going…” according to <i>Rashi</i> these were the terms under which Moses was willing to settle for the presence of an angel. He did not mean that his previous words should have been understood as a kind of ultimatum to G’d, seeing that G’d had already assured him with the words פני ילכו, that He, personally, would accompany the people [or Moses, as became clearer in Joshua 6,14 when the angel that had first been appointed here, replaces the one whose stature had been approved by Moses who had remained with the people as long as he lived. Ed.]
      Ibn Ezra explains that the initial promise by G’d to personally come with him was addressed only to Moses, but not the people as a whole. Moses, in remonstrating, had in mind the people whom he also wanted to benefit from G’d’s personal Presence, rather than that of only an angel of relatively low standing in the celestial hierarchy. This is why he said to G’d: אל תעלנו מזה וגו', “do not lead us up from here” (in the plural mode). Nachmanides rejects this interpretation also, seeing that in his opening remarks Moses had spoken in the singular mode: לא הודעתני את אשר תשלח עמי, “You have not informed me whom You would send with me.” Besides, the whole argument of distinguishing between the angel being for the sake of Moses or the people respectively, is not valid, as in better times before the sin of the golden calf, in 32,20 G’d had said to Moses:הנה אנכי שולח מלאך לפניך לשמרך בדרך, “here I will send an angel ahead of you (sing.) to watch over you (sing.) on the way, etc.” If Ibn Ezra were correct in his distinction between angels for the benefit of Moses and the people, respectively, why did Moses not protest G’d’s promise already in 23,20? This whole paragraph in the Torah is so fraught with mystical aspects which only selected few are privy to, that it is not appropriate to comment on them here in such a public forum. Thus far Nachmanides.
      Seeing that I have not attained such insights as are required, I have only touched on the subject ever so slightly, limiting myself to the plain meaning of the text.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  ויאמר, הראני נא את כבודך. “I said: please reveal to me Your glory.” Moses requested that G’d show him His true face in a vision, something our sages are in the habit of referring to as אספקרלריא המאירא, “a clear, unambiguous visual image.” G’d answered him that what He would do was to parade before him a number of phenomena, each of which represented some of the ways in which He demonstrated His earnest desire to be of benefit to His creatures; as a result of viewing these phenomena one after another, he, more than any other human being, would develop an appreciation of what G’d’s essence was all about; however, it was impossible to do more without terminating Moses’ life, as it was not given to mortals to get a still deeper insight into what an Eternal G’d, the Creator of the universe, was truly like. 
  
  Verse 19
  
   וקראתי בשם ה' לפניך, “I will proclaim the name <i>Hashem</i> before you.” I will let you hear My ineffable Name, seeing that it is not given mortal man to view a visual imagine of My essence.
  
     וחנותי את אשר אחון ורחמתי את אשר ארחם, “I will show grace to those to whom I choose to show grace, and I will treat with mercy those whom I deem fit to be treated with mercy.” By means of My proclaiming My Name, you will realize something about the facet of Me known as חנינה and the result of the exercise of this facet of My various characteristics you will know who has been the recipient of חנינה and who has been the recipient of mercy.
      The meaning of the line ולא יראני האדם וחי, is not- as many misunderstand- that as a result of man being granted a visual image of the essence of <i>Hashem</i> that he would die; rather, the meaning is that before a living human being would attain the spiritual capacity to view such an image his soul would depart from his body, for we know that even angels cannot experience the kind of visual image Moses requested, to wit: (Daniel 10,16) במראה נהפכו צירי עלי, “in the vision my joints shudder.” [Daniel who was shown the vision of an angel who experienced the overwhelming awe with which that angel related to his own vision. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  ואיש לא יעלה עמך, “and no man may ascend with you.” Unlike the first time around, this time the elders were no to accompany Moses even part of the way. 
     וגם איש אל ירא בכל ההר, and also no man is to be seen in the entire area around the Mountain.” Even at the base of the Mountain, unlike the first time when the Israelites had stood at the base of the Mountain. 
     גם הצאן והבקר אל ירעו אל מול ההר ההוא, “neither sheep no cattle are to graze opposite that Mountain.” On the occasion of Moses’ first ascent the warning had only been not to touch this area by hand on pain of death. The reason why so many new restrictions had been added was to make plain to the people that there had been a change in their status. On the first occasion Moses, as their representative, went up to the Mountain to receive the first Tablets after the people had been considered fit to witness the revelation. They were all on a spiritual “high.” This time only Moses remained on such a level, and G’d wanted them to realize that it was only because Moses was highly regarded by Him, and this is why his prayer would be welcome. Seeing that the glory of G’d had remained hovering above the Mountain all this time, unworthy people would be highly at risk if they ventured too near. 
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ילך נא א-דוני בקרבנו כי עם קשה עורף הוא, “may my Lord walk in our midst because they are a stiff-necked people.”
      Nachmanides in interpreting the word כי as “because,” i.e. according to the unadorned text, explains the psychology underlying Moses’ argument. G’d had warned Moses that if the people were to rebel against the angel’s instructions, he would make short shrift of them and destroy them. An angel would interpret any display of stubborn behaviour as completely negative. When, after the people had regained their grace in the eyes of <i>Hashem,</i> and they would meticulously, i.e. ”stubbornly,” observe all the laws of the Torah, G’d would realize that their stubborn streak had been turned to constructive use. If a relapse would occur, as was possible, G’d knowing that their stubborn streak had also been employed constructively, would look at this as making them deserve another chance, something an angel could not be expected to do. Hence, Moses argued, the very stubborn streak of the people is what made him ask to have G’d in their midst, instead of merely a proxy, an angel. G’d’s relationship to the Jewish people was that they were “His people.” No angel could relate to them as such.
      Other commentators view our verse as meaning almost precisely the opposite. Moses, admitting that the people‘s Achilles heel was their stubborn streak, their rebelliousness, argues that because of this inherent weakness they needed the Presence of the attributes of <i>Hashem,</i> Who is kind, patient, makes allowances, etc. Such a combination of attributes within one camp would mitigate the negative impact of the negative aspect of Israel’s stubbornness.
      Still other commentators interpret Moses’ reference to the people’s stubbornness as such that it results in their defying even death rather than violating G’d’s Torah. This is why they bend over backwards to keep His commandments, even risking their lives to do so. They treat the laws of the Torah as a burden which they are willing to carry under any circumstances, as they feel that they must do so in order to show that they appreciate G’d’s glory sufficiently. Seeing that this is their general attitude, it behooves G’d to forgive them for their grievous error in the episode of the golden calf.
  
     וסלחת לעונינו ולחטאתינו, “and You will forgive our deliberate as well as our inadvertent sins.” Moses did not ask G’d to forgive also פשענו, “our sins committed out of the desire to show defiance of G’d’s legislation.”
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויאמר הנה אנכי כורת ברית, He said: “here I am about to conclude a covenant.“ G’d announced to Moses that He would make a covenant with him, and perform special distinctions with him and His people as Moses had requested. He added:
  
     נגד כל עמך אעשה נפלאות ...וראה כל העם אשר אתה בקרבו, “the distinctive acts which I will perform in sight of the whole people that you are amongst, etc.” G’d says that whatever wonderful acts He would perform henceforth would be on account of His special relationship with Moses, and the people would be beneficiaries seeing that they are included in this covenant. It is not possible to explain this verse as meaning that G’d would perform even greater miracles for the people than He had performed in the past, as we can search the whole Torah and not find any evidence of this having been the case.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   שמר לך את אשר אנכי מצוך, “Beware of what I command you today.” Nachmanides writes that it is clear that concerning commandments the Israelites had already violated, G’d would not say “the ones I command you this day.” Therefore, G’d must be referring to commandments that He is about to announce, and He warns the people not to disregard them as they had done with other commandments that had been issued in the past. At that time, by violating the commandment concerning idolatry they had in effect violated the whole of the Torah legislation that set them apart from other nations. When G’d had promised to expel the nations inhabiting the land of Canaan and to replace them with the Israelites, this had been due largely to the idolatrous ways of the members of those tribes. The Israelites are therefore warned at this time not to have any track with those nations, as they would lure them into worshipping their traditional deities, especially if there would be intermarriage between the two peoples. The absolute prohibition of making a cast image is therefore repeated here once more. As a corollary, and as if to underline how the pilgrimages three times a year to Jerusalem i.e. to the Temple would help cement the close relations between the average Israelite and his G’d, this legislation is repeated here once more also.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ואכלת מזבחו, “and you would eat from what he had offered as a sacrificial offering to his deity.” Cultural relations with the nations now in the land of Canaan would inevitably lead to intermarriage and to idolatrous practices. [Jewish history, alas, is full of examples of the truth of the fears expressed here by the Torah. Ed.] The first step in such a chain is concluding of a non aggression pact with any remnants of the Canaanites allowed to continue to live there.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   בחריש ובקציר תשבות, “you are to abstain from work on the Sabbath both at seeding/ploughing time and at harvesting time. According to Nachmanides, the simple reason why periods of the year during which ploughing and harvesting proceeds have been singled out for a reminder to observe the laws of the Sabbath, is that the farmer is under greater pressure at that time to complete his work on schedule. If, due to atmospheric conditions, he feels under special pressure, he is warned not to let such considerations deter him from resting on the Sabbath. The reason why-surprisingly- the Torah interrupts aspects of the laws to make the pilgrimage to the Temple on the three holydays named, is that ever since the Exodus the Sabbath is no longer only a reminder of G’d’s creative activity, but it is a reminder of how He relieved the pressure on the Jewish people who slaved in Egypt. The G’d Who gave us relief from pressure in Egypt will not let us succumb to what we perceive to be pressure by atmospheric conditions when the weather seems to make agricultural pursuits more difficult.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ראשית בכורי אדמתך, “The first of your land’s produce, etc.” The reason why mention of not boiling milk and meat appears here next to the legislation of bringing the first of one’s produce to the Temple, i.e. the priests, is that at the same time the farmer will presumably also bring the first of the young born by his animals, seeing that on the way the young lambs and kids are still suckling at their mother’s teats, and once in Jerusalem these animals will be slaughtered to help the owners enjoy the festival. Using the milk of the mother animal with which to cook the young, is therefore not something far-fetched. On the other hand, in Deuteronomy 14,21 when the same legislation is repeated in connection with forbidden foods, the emphasis is placed on the eating of the product of such boiling of milk and meat together.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   כתב לך את הדברים האלה, “make a written record of these words for yourself;” G’d commands Moses to write the ספר הברית, “the Book of the Covenant,” so that the people would accept it with same enthusiastic נעשה ונשמע, “we will perform, now let’s learn the details,” as they had accepted what was written on the Tablets at the first covenant. Seeing that the people had violated what was part of the first covenant, a new covenant had become necessary. In order to prevent another violation of a covenant, this covenant had to be recorded in writing, the “Book” being mute testimony to its validity. Moses, of course, carried out G’d’s instructions, although the Torah, as on many occasions, did not bother to spell this out for us.
  
     אתך ברית ואת ישראל, “the covenant includes both you and Israel.” The reason why the Torah singles out Moses, i.e. עמך here, is because the entire new covenant G’d renewed only on account of His feelings for Moses, as we mentioned previously. As to G’d’s relations with Israel, G’d’s pardon for the people had to precede His concluding a new covenant with them. [This is why the cumbersome wording כרתי אתך ברית ואת ישראל is used instead of the straightforward כרתי עמכם ברית, “I concluded a covenant with you.” (as for instance in Deut.5,2) Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   ויהי שם עם ה' ארבעים יום....ויכתב על הלוחות את דברי הברית, עשרת הדברים. “He remained there with <i>Hashem</i> for forty days<i>….</i>and He (G’d) wrote on the Tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.” 
      The subject of the word ויכתב is <i>Hashem,</i> for G’d Himself testified (Exodus 34,1 וכתבתי על הלוחות, “I Myself will inscribe on the Tablets, etc.”) The forty days mentioned by Moses here were the last forty days he spent on Mount Sinai. Prior to this he had spent another forty days on the Mountain, devoted entirely to prayer on behalf of the Jewish people, beseeching G’d to forgive the people. He referred to those forty days in Deuteronomy Moses did not spell out how many days he had been on the Mountain on that occasion now as everybody knew, as opposed to the people whom he addressed in Deuteronomy, most of whom had not been alive yet at this time. The reason the Torah, i.e. Moses, emphasized that he spent 40 days on the Mountain even on the last occasion was to remind the people how difficult it had been to obtain atonement for them. He certainly had not needed all that time to learn the Torah, as he had learned that on his previous stay on the Mountain.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   וידבר משה אליהם, “and Moses would speak to them.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that this is phrased in the present tense, as was the entire episode.
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ואחרי כן נגשו, “after that they approached.” This was after Moses had taught the Torah to the elders.
      Nachmanides writes that this is not correct, but that the words ואחר כן refer to what happened after the people had scattered, being afraid to approach Moses until he had placed the scarf around his forehead which prevented the rays of light emanating from his face. He then called upon them to approach, whereupon Aaron and all the princes did approach and speak to Moses. Moses welcomed them with the good news that the people’s sin had been forgiven, and he showed them the second set of Tablets to prove it.
      At that point the ordinary Israelites realized that when Moses spoke to the princes everything appeared normal, and they too approached Moses unafraid. Moses then told them that G’d had commanded him the second version of the Ten Commandments, the ones which He had inscribed on the second set of Tablets which he had brought down with him. Moses told the people everything from שמר לך in verse 11 onwards until the end of the whole <i>Parshah</i> for He told the people that G’d had commanded a new covenant. The Torah only summarises here, giving us a synopsis of all that G’d had told Moses to tell the people at that time. Having realized from the people’s retreat that it was caused because of the rays his forehead emitted, he proceeded to cover his forehead with the מסוה, his mask-like scarf. It is also possible that the people had told him that they could not face him on account of the rays his forehead emitted, so that Moss made it a practice to be without that mask only when he went to communicate with G’d or be communicated with by G’d.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויקהל משה את כל עדת בני ישראל, “Moses assembled the entire community of the Children of Israel. The comprehensive term עדה includes both men and women. Seeing that both the men and the women had contributed of their belongings for the work on the Tabernacle they were all entitled to be addressed here directly. The assembly mentioned here, occurred on the day after Moses had returned from his last trip to the Mountain on <i>Yom Kippur</i> and had informed the people that the instructions to build a Sanctuary for G’d were living proof that they were back in G’ds favour. While it is true that Moses himself had already received such instructions on his first ascent to the Mountain, to wit chapter 25,8 ועשו לי מקדש, seeing that the sin of the golden calf had intervened, and G’d’s manifest Presence had withdrawn in the interval, these instructions now had to be renewed.
  
     אלה הדברים וגו', “these are the things, etc.” Some commentators feel that the words אלה הדברים focus on the Sabbath legislation which follows immediately. The reason the Torah used the plural mode אלה instead of זה הדבר, is to make the point that the Sabbath and all it entails is a commandment that is considered as weighty as the remainder of the laws of the Torah. [Deliberate violation of the Sabbath makes one a heretic, even if one conscientiously observes all the other commandments. Ed.]
      Alternatively, the fact that the Sabbath legislation includes the prohibition of 39 categories of activities known collectively as אבות מלאכות, makes the plural mode אלה perfectly appropriate.
      Nachmanides writes that the words אלה הדברים refer to the instructions relating to the building of the Tabernacle, and its various components. The reason why the Torah mentioned the sanctity of the Sabbath before proceeding with the details of the Tabernacle, was to stress that the work for the Tabernacle was not to override the laws of resting on the Sabbath.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   כל העושה בו מלאכה יומת, “anyone performing forbidden categories of work on that day deserves to be executed.” Even if the person concerned was busy doing work sanctioned by heaven, it does not take precedence over the legislation governing the rules of the Sabbath. One of these rules, for instance, is what follows:
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   לא תבערו אש בכל מושבותיכם, “do not kindle any fire in any of your dwellings;” we find a disagreement between the scholars of the Talmud (<i>Shabbat</i> 70) concerning this particular verse. Some hold that the reason why this particular work prohibition is the only one specifically mentioned in the Torah, is to place it in a different category from the other prohibited categories of activities, i.e. all the others are subject to the death penalty, whereas this one is punishable only by thirty nine lashes, (according to <i>Rashi,</i> not even that<i>)</i> as are most other negative commandments when violated deliberately. [the technical term for this view by Rabbi Yossi is ללאו יצאה, “it was singled out as a lesser transgression.” The other opinion views this prohibition as an example, לחלק יצאה, “singled out, [as representative of the rules applying to all thirty nine categories. Ed.] The thirty-nine categories themselves are based on activities without which the work on the Tabernacle could not have been carried out successfully; hence they are appropriate as guidelines as to what is and what is not prohibited on the Sabbath. Some scholars feel that the reason why kindling a fire had to be mentioned especially, is that the general public does not view this activity as “work,” seeing that it is permitted on the festivals when used to prepare food. Still other commentators feel that a basic activity, such as kindling a fire, is so necessary that people could not have imagined that it was forbidden on pain of death if the Torah had not spelled it out for them specifically.
      Nachmanides writes that seeing the Torah does not add here that anyone performing forbidden work will be put to death, we might have thought that when this kindling of fire is performed in order to enable us to have hot meals on the Sabbath, that this is not forbidden, just as it is not forbidden on Passover or the other festivals, although the Torah writes that no work may be performed on those festivals. By specifically stating that lighting a fire on the Sabbath, for whatever reason, is forbidden, we are reminded that the Sabbath is different from the festivals in this respect.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   יביאה את תרומת ה', “he shall bring it as his contribution to <i>Hashem.”</i> The meaning is the same as if the Torah had written יביא, without the letter ה at the end. It happens quite frequently in Scripture that the pronoun is used, as in this case, prematurely, and only afterwards does the Torah explain to what this pronoun [in this instance the letter ה for “it” referred. Another such example is found in Exodus 2,6 ותפתח ותראהו, “She opened it and saw him, את הילד, “the boy.”
      Moses now proceeds to tell the entire congregation all the details of the work to be performed, not because all the people would participate in it, but to make them aware of the gigantic nature of this project, undertaken in the desert in the absence of workshops, etc. It was also to bring home to them that substantial contributions were required to ensure the successful conclusion of the project. 
      Interestingly, when referring to the Tabernacle as well as to its furnishings, Moses uses the definitive article, i.e. the letter ה, making it sound as if all these phenomena were already familiar to the people whom he addressed. By use of this definitive article, he intimated that the details would be conveyed to the artisans commissioned to actually carry out the work.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויבאו כל איש אשר נשאו לבו, “Every man whose heart inspired him came;” Nachmanides draws our attention to the change in expression here. In connection with the donations, (25,2) the Torah had described the individual’s motivation with the words אשר נדבנו לבו, “whose heart motivates him,” whereas here we are told about a different level of generosity, enthusiasm, i.e. אשר נשאו לבו, “whose heart inspired him.” Men who had no training in performing any of these tasks were inspired and suddenly were able to perform tasks they had never considered themselves capable of performing. Artisans who were skilled in performing tasks but had never trained others to do so, now became skilled at teaching their art, and men or women who had never displayed skill with their hands were suddenly inspired to do so. They came to Moses volunteering to perform the tasks that were required.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויבאו האנשים על הנשים, “The men came together with the women;” the meaning of the word על הנשים is that the men “played second fiddle” to the women, who had been the primary movers in getting the whole project off to a flying start. One of the reasons the women were so quick in contributing, was that they had plenty of jewelry with which they were in the habit of adorning themselves. They did not have to go searching for things to contribute. All they had to do was to take off part of their jewelry and to hand it to Moses.
  
     וכל איש אשר הניף תנופת זהב לה', “and any man who raised up an offering of gold for G’d.” Seeing that the Torah had already reported that all kinds of golden vessels had been donated, here we must think in terms of either gold coins or remnants of golden vessels that had somehow disintegrated.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   וכל איש אשר נמצא אתו תכלת וארגמן, “as well any man in whose possession there was blue wool and purple wool.” Finding such cloth dyed in the required colours was more difficult, as not many people owned such. We find a similar expression later when people who happened to own <i>shittim</i> wood for the beams of the Tabernacle are described as אשר נמצא אתו, “who possessed such.” On the other hand, when speaking of contributions of metal such as silver and copper, the Torah uses the word כל “all,” as if to hint that everyone possessed such metals in abundance, so that there was no problem in raising the contributions necessary in the required quantities or even more than that. This expression כל had not been used when the Torah spoke of contributions of gold, seeing that the gold was primarily donated by the women who had golden jewelry, but who did not own silver and copper in their own right. [they could not legally donate what belonged to their husbands. Ed.]
      In <i>Parshat Pekudey</i> the Torah refers to both gold and copper as תנופה, “a raised up” offering. The reason for this may be the absence of any reference to a donation, i.e. תרומה[the word תרומה from the root הרים, to elevate something, obviated the need for reference to תנופה when gold was mentioned earlier. Ed.] Silver donated is described there without being defined as either תרומה or תנופה, presumably because the half shekel silver coins contributed by all the males above 20 years of age were mandatory contributions, not the result of any feeling of generosity on the part of the donor who had to atone for a serious sin he had been guilty of. [seeing that there is a confusion in the text of the author’s manuscript about this, I have substituted my own interpretation. The Torah, after all, did write that the silver was the proceeds of the people numbered. (38,25,) Ed.] Copper may have qualified for a distinctive adjective as it was not common and much in demand, so that giving it away represented an act of special generosity.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   והנשיאים הביאו, “and the princes had brought (gemstones).” According to Ibn Ezra when the people at the time of the Exodus asked their Egyptian neighbours for valuables, each person asked for things commensurate to his station in society. The princes therefore had asked for jewels, which they now contributed for use in the breastplate of the High Priest. According to a comment by the Targum Yonatan ben Uziel, and a note in the <i>Tanchuma</i>, the word נשיאים here is rendered as ענני שמיא, “celestial clouds,“ i.e. a kind of angel? And these angels came and contributed these jewels for the breastplate and <i>Ephod</i> of the High Priest. In <i>Yuma</i> 75 the word נשיאים is also used in that sense. (based on Proverbs 25,14 )
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויקחו מלפני משה, “They took from Moses’ presence, etc.” The people had brought their contributions to Moses’ tent from where the artisans had taken whatever it was they required on the day that he had received them. He had given orders immediately to transfer the various materials to the artisans qualified to convert them into parts for the Tabernacle. Upon receiving these contributions the artisans sent word to Moses immediately that they had received more than they needed for their part of the work. The Torah did not spell out the amount of the excess materials donated. It was not of historic significance for subsequent generations to know the margin by which the contributions to the Tabernacle had been oversubscribed. Neither was it historically interesting to record what had been done with the excess materials. Possibly, they were used in repairs from time to time, and possibly some materials were used as auxiliary sacred vessels.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   מרבים העם להביא, “the people are bringing too many contributions.” The Torah records this fact in order to flatter the people who had contributed so generously, and in order to praise the honesty of the artisans who, instead of pocketing the excess received, drew attention to it and thus enhanced their reputation as being honest. The person in charge of counting all these contributions also deserves praise for preventing the people from bringing more than was needed, as he was not interested in accumulating the people’s gold and silver.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   איש ואשה אל יעשו עוד מלאכה, “man and woman shall not do more work;” in this instance, as in some others, the word מלאכה refers to money. Another example of this meaning comes to mind in Exodus 22,7 where the words אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו mean “that he had not laid a hand on his fellow man’s money (possessions).” In this instance, the women were also stopped from spinning and weaving materials for use in the coverings of the Tabernacle.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויעשו כל חכם לב, ”the wise-hearted among those doing the work, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the Torah repeats the expression מלאכת המשכן no fewer than five times during the stage where the carrying out of these instructions is described. In two instances the operative instruction is in the singular mode ועשית, i.e. 25,23 and In 25,10 the Torah uses the plural mode, indirect speech, i.e. ועשו, whereas in 31, 6-7 the plural mode indirect speech is used again although the directive is addressed primarily to <i>Oholiov</i>. The reason for all this is that initially, Moses, at the command of G’d, instructed the main architects and supervisors of the work, <i>Betzalel</i> and <i>Oholiov</i>, respectively, whereas these two experts instructed the various artisans working under them in their individual duties. None of these workers had become capable of performing these tasks until the holy spirit had descended on <i>Betzalel</i> through his being instructed and charged by Moses, personally. In chapter 35 the directive to make coverings as a portable roof for the Tabernacle was given, but only at this stage some details such as the need to make 10 carpet-like coverings, and the length and width of each of these, were revealed. As a general rule, although Moses had received detailed instructions in chapter 25-27, all the details were revealed to the people concerned as and when the time had come to commence work on them. The artisans already understood that in order to link two large carpets such as described one to another, they had to fashion loops and clasps in order to join them in such a fashion that they could easily dismantle the structure. The artisans had been granted sufficient insights by G’d to enable them to spontaneously attend to the details described in <i>Parshat Terumah and Tetzaveh.</i>     When the Torah in chapter 36,8 first mentions ויעשו in the plural mode, this includes all the people previously described as חכם לב, “wise-hearted.” The subsequent use of the singular mode ויעש, describes individuals of this group of artisans fashioning certain parts of the project. When, in chapter 37,1 the Torah attributes certain furnishings as having been made by <i>Betzalel,</i> mentioning him by name, the Torah tells us that the work of making these furnishings required additional skill, skills not possessed by the חכמי לב. After all, he had been described as מלא רוח אלוקים, “filled with the spirit of G’d.” However, the Torah then reverts to the anonymous ויעש, in order for us to understand that he word ויעש, “he fashioned,” refers to one of the artisans filled with חכמת הלב in the paragraphs dealing with the fashioning of the Table and the <i>Menorah,</i> the golden altar and the copper altar, as well as the basin and the courtyard in all its details.     Ibn Ezra, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the “anonymous” ויעש continues to describe work performed by <i>Betzalel</i> personally, so that that all the sacred vessels would have been attributed to him by the Torah. Nachmanides does not agree, pointing out that the same word ויעש in 38,10 introduces the construction of the courtyard around the Tabernacle, and it is most unlikely that this part of the project required the kind of holy spirit possessed only by <i>Betzalel.</i> The Torah, at that point or even earlier, reverts to the people endowed “only” with חכמת לב. Just as the actual making of all these components of the project “Tabernacle” are described both in general terms as well as in its specifics, the presentation of the work to Moses is also described both in general terms as in specific terms, i.e. only the finished product was brought to Moses.     It is noteworthy that during the report of the construction of the Tabernacle and its auxiliaries, we do not find the recurring sentence כאשר צוה ה' את משה, “as <i>Hashem</i> had commanded Moses,” whereas in <i>Parshat Pekudey,</i> in connection with the garments of the Priests, this sentence recurs no fewer than eight times. The reason, presumably, is that when constructing the Tabernacle the Torah sums it all up in the 38,22 when the Torah writes that “<i>Betzalel,</i> son of <i>Uri,</i> son of <i>Chur,</i> had completed all that G’d had commanded Moses.” It is possible that the reason why the Torah repeats these matters in different ways is due to changes in the order of construction having taken place. The Torah, i.e. G’d, wanted to signal that in spite of <i>Betzalel</i> having changed the order in which the Tabernacle and the furnishings respectively were constructed, G’d had approved the changes so that whatever he had done was considered as complying with what “G’d had commanded Moses.”    
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  ויעש את שמן המשחה קודש, “He made the oil of anointing, holy;” the reason why the Torah adds the adjective קודש when describing the making of this oil, is because it was used to sanctify the Tabernacle, its furnishings, both Aaron’s and his sons’ garments. The incense, on the other hand, is described as being טהור, pure, to tell us that it is subject to being contaminated ritually.     Nachmanides writes the reason why the Torah did not spell out the components that the oil of anointing consisted of as it did when Moses was commanded to make it in chapter 30, was that even when Moses was commanded about the making of the oil of anointing and the incense, the Torah did not furnish a complete list of the ingredients. The Torah had contented itself with mentioning “מעשה רוקח,” the work of perfumers. If it was in order to be brief at that time, it was in order to be equally brief when it reports the compliance with the directive.  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   במראות הצובאות, “using the mirrors of the legions.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the expression is to be understood literally. As to his comment that Moses was first appalled at the thought of using them for sacred purposes, this does not refer to the mirrors, but to the jewelry described as כומז, seeing that this jewelry is worn on the private parts of a woman’s body. 
      Nachmanides explains that there (when the כומז is mentioned) this was one of a number of types of jewelry which the women donated for the use in building the Tabernacle (35,22) He therefore fails to understand how such jewelry could have been described as piling up at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Perhaps what is meant is that the women brought this jewelry to the tent of Moses [still outside the boundaries of the Israelites’ camp at that time, and appropriately called “tent of meeting.” Ed.] Moses personally accepted this only at the express command of G’d. At that time there was no Tabernacle, i.e. the Tabernacle whose alternate name was אהל מועד. [i.e. after the reconciliation between G’d and His people, it became known as such, as G’d’s Presence again was manifest within the camp. Ed.]
      Onkelos translates the words above as דאתין לצלאה בתרע משכן זמנא, “the women brought the mirrors (in a manner corresponding to their modesty) to the side of the entrance of Tabernacle.” His words tend to agree with those of Ibn Ezra who describes the women who gave up their mirrors as doing so from a sense of piety, preferring to come to the Tabernacle daily to offer prayers there or near there to admiring their reflection in a mirror..
      It is also possible to understand the whole verse to mean that the basin and the stand supporting it, was constructed of the mirrors which the women had contributed in masses,הצובאות. These mirrors were made of polished copper and as such singularly suited for the purpose for which they were donated.
      Still other commentators understand the wordsמראות הצובאות not as referring to the “what” these mirrors were made of, but to the location. The women, who were not normally admitted to the courtyard of the Tabernacle, and who were anxious to observe some procedures, such as the woman suspected of infidelity drinking the מים המאררים, the waters designed to reveal her guilt or innocence, wanted to watch the proceedings by means of the mirrors reflecting same over a distance.
      Still another explanation understands that the basin was constructed from these mirrors as those priests who offered sacrifices on behalf of women had to be conscious of doing so on their behalf. By looking at the material this basin was made of, they would be stimulated to keep their donors, i.e. women, in mind. It was forbidden for the priests to look directly at the faces of the women on whose behalf they offered their sacrifices, both mandatory ones and voluntary ones. The woman would stand fairly close to the basin, and her image would be reflected in the mirror-like polish of the copper basin. This would enable the priest to obtain a visual image of the woman on whose behalf he was performing his task, so that he could do so with the proper concentration on the donor personally.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   אלה פקודי המשכן העדות, “These are the reckonings of the Tabernacle of Testimony; when the word משכן appears without further details, such as משכן העדות, it refers to the carpet-like coverings forming the roof of that structure, i.e. the lowest layer of these coverings. In order to make sure that we understand that all parts of the structure are meant, the Torah wrote משכן העדות. The idea is that this was the structure that housed (within the Ark) the Tablets that were testimony to the revelation at Mount Sinai.
      Nachmanides writes that many commentators take the view that the words אלה פקודי refer back to the section which described the making and assembling pf the Tabernacle, its furnishings, and its surrounding courtyard, as well as the tasks which the priests and Levites were to perform in connection with this Tabernacle, and the sacrificial service. According to their view the tasks over which the son of Aaron, Ittamar, presided, are all included in the פקודים referred to in our verse.
      Nachmanides does not accept this approach, saying that if it were so, why are the tasks that Eleazar, the elder son of Aaron presided over, not included? Therefore, Nachmanides is of the opinion that the words אלה פקודי וגו' do not refer to what had been written before, but to what follows, namely details of the totals of the donations which had been collected for the project, especially the amounts of silver, gold and copper. The Torah describes the use that was made of the 100 talents of silver contributed for the sockets of the beams of the Tabernacle, the hooks by which the curtains of the courtyard were fastened to their pillars, etc., the copper most of which was used as overlay of the altar in the courtyard, as well as for the various tools used in servicing the fire on the altar, keeping it going around the clock, the vessels needed to remove ashes, etc. All the items that were made of copper and that weighed 70 talents, were under the supervision of Ittamar, son of Aaron. The reason that Eleazar’s name is not mentioned here is that all these items were not handed to him at this time for supervising their transport during the journeys. At this point we are told the amounts of metal used and Ittamar had been entrusted with supervising this. While it is true that the copper altar is mentioned here also, and this was within the domain of Eleazar, so much so that mention had to be made that it was constructed from the donations of copper which, as we already stated, deserved special recognition seeing that this metal was scarce and therefore much in demand. The details of how much gold had been used for that were not mentioned here as some gold was used in furnishings under the supervision of Eleazar, whereas other quantities of gold were used in overlays of the beams which were the mainstays of the Tabernacle, etc. It is completely possible that no one kept track of exactly how much gold was used up in each overlay of wooden furnishings, beams, etc. The basin and its stand have also not been enumerated here as it was not known precisely how much copper was used from the copper mirrors the women had donated for this purpose. Possibly, these vessels were not part of what belonged to the domain of Ittamar
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ובצלאל בן אורי...עשה, “and <i>Betzalel</i> son of <i>Uri</i> fashioned, etc.” Seeing that <i>Betzalel</i> was the chief architect, and supervised all the people working on the project “Tabernacle,” the Torah accords him the credit as if he personally had done all this with his own two hands.
      Our sages deduce from the words את כל אשר צוה ה' את משה, “everything that <i>Hashem</i> had commanded to Moses,” instead of “everything he had been commanded by Moses,” that even items which Moses had forgotten to tell him about, he divined as things G’d had spoken to Moses about, and he proceeded to include these items in his project. The wording of the Torah proves that changes in the order of what was to be constructed first and what last were what G’d had told Moses, although Moses had not related this in the same order.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   וכסף פקודי העדה מאת ככר, “and the silver contributed by the men of the congregation who had been mobilized for military duty,…amounted to100 talents.” Some commentators, basing themselves on the failure of the Torah to describe this silver as a “תרומה,” or a similar expression as used with the gold and copper contributions, that a great deal of silver was donated, and the reason why the total was not revealed here was that here we are only interested in how much of it was used in the actual construction of the Tabernacle. The balance was given to the Temple treasurer for use directly or indirectly in maintenance work, as and when necessary, as well as in the purchase of the animals of the mandatory communal offerings, especially at times when there was a dearth of voluntary offerings. If so, the scholar who holds that the tribe of Levi was also counted at the time of the first census is correct, as the shekel contributions of these Levites would make up the surfeit handed over to the trustee in charge of the Temple treasury.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   וירקעו את פחי הזהב, “they hammered out the thin sheets of gold;” Nachmanides comments that nowhere has this process of turning gold into sheets been described in the whole Torah except here. It is quite possible that the Torah here reports on a new discovery of how to make golden threads. Subsequently, these golden threads could be interwoven as easily as linen and wool. It had not occurred to anyone to do this prior to the making of the priestly garments.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויעשו על שולי המעיל, “on the hem of the robe they made, etc.” Nachmanides writes that these pomegranates were not integral parts of the robe, but were attached from underneath the hem.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויתנו את הפעמונים בתוך הרמונים, ”they placed the bells amid the pomegranates.” This was done before either of the decorative appendages (in lieu of tassels) were connected to the robe. The bells were inserted within the pomegranate-shaped knobs. The Torah repeats the words בתוך הרמונים a second time, to inform us that not only did the artisans insert the bells inside the pomegranates before suspending the pomegranates from the hem of the robe, but they remained in place also afterwards.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   ויעשו את הכתנות שש מעשה אורג.לאהרן ולבניו, “they made the tunics of the fine linen of weaver’s work, for Aaron and his sons.” This means that these tunics and the headdresses as well as the sash for Aaron and his sons were made of the same material.
      The Torah, describes the sash, and the trousers as being made of שש משזר, linen woven of twisted (multiple) threads as well as blue wool, red and purple wool, something that had not been mentioned in the instructions. We must assume therefore that the difference between the two kinds of headgear מצנפת and מגבעת respectively, was not in the materials used, but in the manner in which they were worn. Moreover, when three kinds of thread, i.e. תכלת, ארגמן תולעת שני, are used, the method of combining them is known as מעשה רוקם, embroiderer’s work. 
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   ויביאו את המשכן אל משה, את האהל וגו', “They brought the Tabernacle to Moses; the tent, etc.;” according to Nachmanides the words את האהל have to be understood as if the Torah had written: ואת האהל, “and the tent.” The reason that this is not strange is that the term משכן whenever it appears without further adjective, refers only to the coverings of the Tabernacle, the various layers of it, the lowest one, the one that formed the ceiling visible from within. Compare Exodus 26,1:ואת המשכן תעשה עשר יריעות, “and the <i>mishkan</i> you are to construct of ten carpet-like curtains.” It also is written there that upon joining these ten “curtains,” the משכן will become a single unit. The second layer of coverings made of the skins of goats was known as אהל. Finally, the upper covering consisting of the skins of rams was known as מכסה. (compare 26,7 and 14 respectively.) There are occasions when the entire structure is referred to as אהל מועד, as in ועשית את אהל מועד כאשר צויתיך, “you are to construct the Tent of Meeting as I have commanded you “ A similar description is found is found in verse 40 of our chapter.
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
   את נרותיה נרות המערכה, ”its lamps the ones of the prescribed order,” Nachmanides writes that it is possible that generally speaking, candelabra were equipped with lamps whose light-giving mechanism was adjustable so that depending on the need for more or less light, the wicks and their supply of oil would be regulated. To reflect this mechanism, the Torah may have added the expression נרות המערכה. The singular mode used in this expression is to inform us that the <i>Menorah</i> in the Tabernacle did not have such a mechanism, but that the oil supply to the wicks was maintained at a constant rate. [Except for the light on the center shaft, the other lamps were lit in the evening, and the oil supply allowed for the length of the night. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
   כן עשו בני ישראל את כל העובדה, “so did the Children of Israel perform all the labour.” Nachmanides writes that all labour, work performed in connection with the Tabernacle, is called עבודה, “service,” by the Torah. This reflects the fact that all these activities were performed in order to serve the Lord, to honour Him. By doing so the people fulfilled the commandment (Exodus 23,25) ועבדתם את ה' אלוקיכם, “you are to serve the Lord your G’d.”
      Alternatively, the word העבודה refers to the sacred vessels used in performing these various tasks. These vessels have been referred to on a number of occasions as כלי עבודת הקודש, i.e. due to their designated purpose the vessels themselves acquired an elevated status, as “sacred vessels,” although they only served a sacred purpose. [this latter explanation would account for the Children of Israel, collectively, being mentioned in our verse rather than either the artisans or the priests. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ביום החודש הראשון באחד לחודש תקים את המשכן, “on the day of the first month, on the first day of it, you shall erect the Tabernacle.” On this occasion only, Moses himself was to erect the Tabernacle. From now on, during their journeys in the desert, the Levites would dismantle it as well as reassemble it at the next location.
      The meaning of the word תקים is equivalent to “putting the finishing touches to it.” The reason this is so, is because according to tradition Moses practiced assembling and dismantling the Tabernacle every single day during the 7 days of the inauguration of the priests. Now, on the eighth day, the first of <i>Nissan,</i> when he assembled it for the last time, the heavenly cloud, signifying the Presence of the <i>Shechinah,</i> materialized and took up its position above the Tabernacle, as we know from 40,33 ויכל משה את המלאכה, “Moses completed the work.” This is followed by ויכס הענן את אהל מועד, ”the cloud enveloped the Tent of Meeting.” Clearly, if the Torah inserted this verse at this point it means that prior to this the cloud was not in evidence. At any rate, on the first day (40,18) of the inaugural sacrifices Moses was told of all the portions in the Book of Leviticus up to and including the last verse in <i>Parshat</i> Tzav. Nonetheless, in spite of having this oral communication from G’d, the cloud had not been in evidence. G’d, as opposed to communicating with Moses from the Holy of Holies, had spoken to Moses directly from heaven, as He had done during the many months since the Exodus.
      However, in the <i>Midrash Chazit,</i> we have a statement saying that the opening line of <i>Parshat Shemini,</i> i.e. the words ויהי ביום השמיני, “It occurred on the eighth day, etc.” was fit (from a chronological point of view) to have been written at the very beginning of the Book of Leviticus, but seeing that the Torah is not bound by such considerations, it considered it more appropriate to write that paragraph adjacent to the legislation not to enter the holy precincts while in a state of inebriation. In other words, the opening lines of the Book of Leviticus were spoken by G’d to Moses after the paragraph in Leviticus 9,23 where the glory of G’d appeared for all the people to see, and after the death of the two sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu in Leviticus
  
     תקים את משכן אהל מועד, “assemble the Tabernacle including the tent which makes it the Tent of Meeting.” Nachmanides writes that this is the directive the execution of which is reported in 40,18 where the sequence of the assembly of different parts of the Tabernacle is reported. Seeing that Moses had already been shown a preview of the Tabernacle during the time he had spent on the Mountain, he had no difficulty in carrying out the directive. No directive was given where to place the Holy Ark, seeing that the very name ארון העדות, “Ark of Testimony,” contains the hint where it must be placed within the two parts of the Sanctuary. Moses certainly did not need to be told that the Tablets were to be put inside the Holy Ark. He only needed to be told that the first order of business when furnishing the Tabernacle was to place the Holy Ark inside. The Torah was similarly brief in its references to the Table and the <i>Menorah, o</i>mitting the precise location of either of these two items within the Sanctuary. This had all been explained to Moses on a previous occasion. The Torah is also brief concerning the donning of Aaron as well as his sons of their priestly garments, not repeating the name of each garment. Mention of these garments here is made only to indicate at what stage of preparation for Temple service these garments had to be donned. They were not to be dressed in their priestly garments until after the Tabernacle in which they would perform their duties would have been assembled.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   והיה המזבח קודש קדשים “the altar will become holy of holies.” Although the copper altar was standing in the courtyard of the Tabernacle, the Torah refers to it as “holy of holies.” The reason is that also the kind of offerings which are categorized as קדשי קדשים are being offered on it. (Compare <i>Zevachim</i> 7,1) The reason why the Torah wrote of the Tabernacle that it was קודש, holy, was to remind us that that the only part of the Tabernacle that qualified for the description קודש קדשים, holy of holies, was the section west of the dividing curtain. Possibly, the reason why the altar in the courtyard is called קודש קדשים, “holy of holies,” was because of its capacity to make people who came into direct contact with it “holy.” Compare (Exodus 29,37) כל הנוגע במזבח יקדש, “whoever or whatsoever touches the altar will become sanctified.” [This means that it becomes subject to far more stringent regulations governing what is sacred and what is profane. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויקם משה את המשכן, “Moses assembled the Tabernacle.” Nachmanides writes that it is remarkable that in the following the Torah describes how Moses assembled the Tabernacle step by step, without making any mention of the anointing of either the Tabernacle itself or its furnishings. Nor does the Torah here mention the anointing of Aaron and his sons, or the inaugural offerings, even though all these details have already appeared in the commandment given to Moses.
      The reason for this omission appears to be that we have already been told in verse 17 that (apparently, i.e. <i>hukam</i>) the Tabernacle had erected itself (without the help of Moses) on the first day of the inaugural offerings, on the 23rd day of <i>Adar.</i> During the days between the 23rd of <i>Adar</i> and the first day of <i>Nissan,</i> Moses himself would erect and dismantle the Tabernacle every day, and during these trials he did not perform any anointings whatsoever. The command about anointing was repeated on that occasion, similar to what had already been reported in <i>Parshat Tzav.</i>
      It follows that when the Torah writes here that Moses arranged the show breads on the Table, that he lit the lamps of the <i>Menorah, (</i>verses 22-23) he did all this after having performed the anointing necessary, as it was forbidden to perform these acts of temple service unless the vessels involved had been consecrated by means of anointing. When the Torah in Leviticus chapter 8, describes Moses as performing Temple service (normally reserved for the priests) he did all this after having consecrated with anointing oil all the parties involved and al the vessels involved.
      Personally, I do not understand how Moses would be presumed to have repeated the same procedures with Aaron and his sons for seven days consecutively, without having already anointed them.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויקח ויתן את העדות אל הארון, “He took and placed the Tablets inside the Holy Ark.” The word ויקח means that he took the Tablets out of a wooden box where they had been kept since Moses brought them from the Mountain with him on the Day of Atonement and transferred them to the Holy Ark constructed by <i>Betzalel</i>      
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  ,ויקטר עליו קטורת סמים “he burned up incense on it.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the subject of the word ויקטר is Aaron.     Nachmanides writes that this is a scribe’s error, and it has to be Moses who offered this incense for he had been doing so for all the eight days of the inaugural rites. The same applies to such statements as (verse 23) ויערוך עליו ערך לחם, that he arranged the show-breads on the table, or verse 25) “that he lit the <i>Menorah</i>, or (verse 29) that he offered burned offerings on the altar. All the directives commencing with 40,2 were given for Moses personally to carry out. [Nachmanides is borne out by <i>Rashi</i> writing on verse 29 that Moses performed all these tasks on the eighth day just as he had during the preceding seven days. Ed.]     The words עולת תמיד לדורותיכם in Exodus 29,42 where the priests have been charged with the Temple service (commencing with 29,38) are meant to become operative after conclusion of the inaugural rites on the first of <i>Nissan.</i> Even though in the chapter commanding Moses to perform all these rights, no specific mention is made of Moses also offering the incense, he understood this to be an integral part of all the other steps of the Temple service he was to perform during these seven days of inaugural consecration rites. Alternately, the presenting of the incense is automatically included in the commandment (40,5) ונתתה את מזבח הזהב לקטורת לפני ארון העדות, וגו', “you are to place the golden altar for burning incense in front of the ark of testimony, in front of the dividing curtain.” As to Exodus 30,6 where the Torah commands Moses to place the golden altar for incense in front of the dividing curtain, and for Aaron to offer incense on it, every morning, etc., this refers to the duties Aaron is to perform on a regular basis after the conclusion of the inaugural rites. We know that Aaron’s commencing his duties began with his lighting the lamps on the <i>Menorah</i> on the evening of the 1st <i>of</i> Nissan, i.e. at the end of the eighth day. In other words, he did not offer incense before, as Moses was specifically described as lighting the <i>Menorah</i> on the evening preceding the 1st of <i>Nissan</i> (40,25) as he had been commanded in 40,4.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  ולא יכול משה לבא אל אהל מועד, “and Moses was unable to enter the Tent of Meeting.” In a different verse (Numbers 7,89) we are told of “Moses entering the Tent of Meeting in order to speak with G’d, etc.” There appears to be some contradiction here. Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text we must understand the words ובבא משה אל אהל מועד in Numbers not as Moses actually having entered the Tent, but that he heard the voice of G’d emanating from the Holy of Holies and on account of that he did not cross the threshold of the Tabernacle.   An alternate explanation of the two verses is that the meaning of the words in our verse is simply that “Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting (without obtaining express permission from G’d to do so.” Upon being invited, he would enter the tent, just as he had been invited to ascend Mount Sinai at the time of the revelation, and had not proceeded without being called upon to do so.)
   Parshat  Vayikra.
  
  Leviticus
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויקרא אל משה, “He called to Moses, etc.” Nachmanides, explaining the sequence of the portions in the Torah, writes that after having concluded with the construction of the Tabernacle, a subject which dominated the last four portions with the exception of <i>Parshat Ki Tissa,</i> the Torah now turns its attention to the legislation governing the sacrificial offerings to be brought in the Tabernacle. This is the logical corollary after we have been told that G’d’s glory manifested itself and enveloped the Tabernacle.
      Part of the legislation about the offerings, are the laws governing who has access to the Tabernacle, and who, even if basically entitled to perform service in the Tabernacle, is temporarily forbidden to do so due to his being in a state of ritual impurity or due to his being drunk. Even the High Priest himself, without being drunk or impure, is forbidden to enter certain parts of the Tabernacle except for a specific purpose on a specific day. (Leviticus,16,2). The priests not only must not be ritually impure when entering the Tabernacle, but they must sanctify themselves prior to performing their service. This additional requirement is based on the presence of the “glory of G’d” in the Tabernacle.
      Most of the Book of Leviticus deals with sacrificial offerings, the kind of people who present these sacrifices, either voluntary or mandatory, as well as the precise location where these sacrifices are to be offered. There is also a relatively short list of commandments which in one way or another are directly linked to such sacrifices, i.e. which bring in their wake the need to present such sacrifices by the individuals concerned. For instance, the Book opens with voluntary offerings by individuals, and the laws pertaining to them, necessitating the recording of the prohibition for certain fat parts of the animals, as well as all blood, to be forbidden to be eaten.
      Afterwards, as a corollary of the sin offering, parts of which are consumed by the priests, this brings in its wake the need to inform us generally about which animals may and which may not be eaten. These animals, or even basically “kosher” animals, that have not been killed by ritual slaughter, bring in their wake ritual uncleanness, and confer such on people in contact with them. We read about certain diseases that have a religious background, and therefore are not subject to treatment by physicians, but require the offering of sacrifices upon their termination. Women who have given birth are required to offer certain sacrifices, and are subject to varying degrees of ritual uncleanness for a period of time after they have given birth. The subject of ritual purity is enlarged upon by the laws about incest, and forbidden sexual unions. Women who are menstruating become ritually unclean even to their husbands, until, in due course, they have purified themselves in a ritual bath. The majority of the portions of this Book address themselves specifically to the priests in one way or another.
      <i>Parshat Kedoshim</i> contains a number of laws applying to all Israelites equally, especially laws governing inter-personal relationships, laws designed to ensure a civilization that functions with minimum inequalities.
      If the Book commences with the words “Someone called to Moses,” instead of the customary “G’d called to Moses, or similar, this is to remind us that though we are dealing with a separate Book, the train of thought with which the Book of Exodus concluded, i.e. that the glory of <i>Hashem</i> filled and enveloped the Tabernacle is continued here without a break, the Torah now detailing the service to be performed in that Tabernacle. In other words, the subject of the word ויקרא is the כבוד ה' described in Exodus
      Nachmanides also writes that our sages derive from this introductory word ויקרא, that all conversations initiated by G’d were preceded by a call to prepare Moses that he was about to be addressed by the <i>Shechinah.</i> The word appears only here, as this was the first time Moses was being addressed by a dimension of <i>Hashem</i> in His terrestrial domain, the Tabernacle. Henceforth, this was the standard procedure all the time the Israelites remained in the desert. According to our sages’ understanding, the words מאהל מועד in our context actually have to be understood as if they had been written in an earlier part of our verse, i.e. ויקרא אליו מאהל מועד וידבר אליו באהל כי משה היה שם, “He called to him from the Tent of Meeting and spoke to him because Moses was there.” 
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the meaning is slightly different. Seeing that the glory of G’d filled the Tabernacle, Moses was unable to enter it until he would be invited in, (Exodus 40,35) just as had happened at the revelation at Mount Sinai seven months earlier, when he had been invited to ascend the Mountain. Our verse then describes that on the seventh day of the inaugural rites, the day preceding the first of <i>Nissan,</i> G’d called to Moses out of the Tabernacle, the voice appearing to come out of the cloud.
      Some commentators believe that what is described here is the basis of the statement in the Talmud <i>Chagigah</i> 14 that every utterance of the Almighty creates an angel that (allegorically speaking) walks in front of Him, as would the page or standard bearer of a terrestrial king. After this angel had alerted Moses to the approach of G’d, He would commence to speak to him directly, or to anyone else whom G’d wished to speak to.
  
     אליו, “to him;” This apparently superfluous word is meant to alert us to the fact that G’d addressed Moses exclusively, and that Aaron was not included in this communication. Whenever, elsewhere, the Torah writes: “G’d spoke to Moses and Aaron,” the meaning is that Moses was to inform Aaron of what G’d had communicated to him at that time. Aaron was to be a go between, שליח, from that moment on, equal to Moses in carrying out G’d’s instructions.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   מן הבהמה, “from a category of animals,” seeing that free-roaming beasts that have the distinguishing marks that make them fit for consumption by Jews are also referred to as בהמה on occasion, [although they are generally described as חיה, or חית השדה, Ed.] the Torah had to narrow down the description further, adding the words: מן הבקר ומן הצאן, from either the category of cattle (בקר), or flock, (צאן). The reason why G’d did not include the free-roaming beasts that are listed in chapter 11 as fit to eat, to also serve as potential sacrifices, was to save the Israelites the tiresome work of catching these animals without inflicting the kind of injury on them that would disqualify them on account of their being blemished.
      Alternatively, the reason why the Torah did not command us to bring sacrifices from the free-roaming types of animals is that during the period of creation these animals had not received a special blessing. If they had received such a special blessing the serpent would have been included. That animal certainly did not qualify for a blessing. [after the statement that G’d saw that what He had created on the sixth day before reporting the creation of man was good, the blessing which followed at the end of the creative activity on the fourth day is noticeably absent. Ed.]
      The practical result of this is that the חלב, certain fat parts covering the kidneys, etc., are not included in the prohibited parts of the free-roaming beasts, and may be eaten. [King Solomon served gazelles, roebucks, etc. as a part of what he served his guests on a regular basis. He and his guests did not need to remove this part of the gazelle. Ed.] (compare Kings I 5,3). Seeing that the blood of these animals could not be sprinkled on the altar, the Torah commanded that upon slaughtering them, their blood be covered with earth, a symbolic kind of funeral. (Leviticus 17,13)
  
     מן הבקר, “from the cattle;” to exclude “<i>treifah</i>” animals, i.e. animals injured to the point where they are not expected to live for 12 months. The reason why a special word had to be written to exclude such animals, was in the event that at the time when said animal had been sanctified as a sacrifice it had been in completely good health we might have thought that the donor of the animal had discharged his duty when the animal he selected had been healthy at the time he dedicated it, The Torah teaches that what is forbidden for the Israelite to eat is likewise forbidden to tender to G’d as an offering (unless specially permitted.)
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   אל פתח אהל מועד, “to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” The Torah needs to tell us that the donor cannot ask the priest to come to his house and pick up the animal he designated as a sacrificial offering. The owner or his messenger has to bring it.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   וסמך ידו, “He shall lean his hand on it with all his strength.” Although the word ידו is spelled in the singular mode, the meaning is: “his hands.” We find elsewhere that the Torah spells this out, for instance in Leviticus The reason that here the word is spelled in the singular mode is to enable us to derive the <i>halachah</i> that the owner of the sacrificial animal personally must do this and not anyone whom he has deputized. This is an exception to the rule that normally שלוחו של אדם כמותו, “a person’s designated messenger has the same legal status as the person himself.”
  
     ונרצה לו לכפר עליו, “and it shall become acceptable for him to afford him atonement.” <i>Rashi</i> already questions where the idea of the donor requiring “atonement” suddenly comes from. He argues that surely, if the guilt of the donor to be atoned for involves capital sins for which execution or death at the hands of heaven is in order, there should have been a warning somewhere spelling out which sin this donor had committed! Even if the sin had “only” been one warranting 39 lashes as penalty, it should have been spelled out somewhere. He concludes that the only sins such a sacrifice could atone for is omission to fulfill some positive commandment, or a negative commandment which is inextricably involved with a positive commandment so that non-observance is not punishable by lashes. <i>Rashi</i> is supported by a <i>baraitha</i> in <i>Torat Kohanim.</i>
      Nachmanides questions “whence do we know that the sacrifice atones for all inadvertently committed sins which when committed intentionally carry the penalty of 39 lashes or death at the hands of heavenly decree altogether?” Perhaps we may assume that this sacrifice atones for sins that are subject to premature death by heavenly decree when committed intentionally, but which have been committed inadvertently, and the Torah had not provided atonement in such a case by a sin offering or guilt offering. as a way of atonement. Striking father or mother are an example of such sins committed inadvertently for which the Torah did not provide explicit penalties when these sins were committed inadvertently. Nachmanides suggests as a possible solution to our query that seeing that in some cases the Torah lists penalties for deliberately committed capital crimes, as well as methods of atonement when these crimes were committed inadvertently, it is reasonable to suppose that where the Torah fails to be specific on that point, the burnt offering, עולה, may well be the vehicle through which such atonement can be secured. This would make the wording of <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary more intelligible. The absence of a procedure to secure atonement for such inadvertently committed sins in cases where the Torah failed to spell this out, might otherwise have led us to believe that there is no mechanism for such inadvertently committed sins to be forgiven. <i>Rashi</i> picked the two categories of sin by omission for which the Torah had failed to specify a specific path to atonement, i.e. failure to observe a positive commandment [when it is the type which we must look for opportunities to perform, such as the <i>lulav</i> on <i>Sukkot,</i> as opposed to the building of a protective railing on one’s roof, a commandment only applicable to people who own a house. Ed.] 
      It is further possible that seeing that when the Torah lists specific voluntary offerings, without the wording specifying that such offering atones for a specific sin committed [וכפר על חטאתו אשר חטא, “it will atone for his sin which he had committed unintentionally (or similar as in Leviticus 42, and 5,2),” Ed.], it is clear that the “atonement” mentioned in our verse is for sins of omission (מצות עשה) committed inadvertently. The expression ונרצה, “it will be received with grace,” implies that the person offering this burnt offering had lacked grace in the eyes of the Lord prior to his presenting this offering. If our sages in <i>Torat</i> Kohanim interpreted the verse as the offering conferring atonement for intentionally committed sins when the sinner had repented, their reasoning is that anyone who committed inadvertent sins has not fallen out of grace with <i>Hashem</i>, so that he does not need to be reinstated in a state of grace, as is suggested by our verse. If that is so, the only deliberate sins that these burnt offerings could atone for are sins of omission, and sins of omission directly involving the transgression of a negative commandment, rather than sins of commission. [seeing, as <i>Rashi</i> pointed out, the Torah had spelled out the penalties for violating negative commandments deliberately].
      Even though we have a principle according to which if someone commits a sin of omission or one involving a sin of omission involving also a negative commandment, that repentance achieves atonement immediately, without the offering, or the act of leaning on the animal to be sacrificed, (<i>Yuma</i> 86), whereas if he offers the sacrifice without repenting, his offering is rejected as זבח רשעים, the offering of a wicked individual, we need to say that the “forgiveness” mentioned in <i>Yuma</i> is not complete until the person concerned has also offered the burnt offering discussed in our verse.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ושחט את בן הבקר, “He will slaughter the young bull, etc.” the word בן means that the bull must not be over age. The word בן is used in a similar way when the Torah refers to בני אהרן in our verse, i.e. over aged priests are not fit to perform this service in the Tabernacle.
      Alternately, the meaning of the word בן here could be that seeing that Aaron personally, as opposed to his sons, had had some active part in the disastrous affair of the golden calf, he is not now charged personally with performing this sacrificial service, and it is reserved for his sons. This led to a prayer by Aaron asking for G’d’s mercy on him. This accounts for the fact that the next portion addresses G’d’s command specifically to Aaron himself, and instructs him as well as his sons to perform the rites involving the burnt offering (as well as others).
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   והפשיט את העולה, ”he is to skin the burnt offering.” The reason the Torah spelled this out is that other sacrificial offerings that are totally burned up on the altar, do not have their skin removed before their carcass is being burned. (<i>Zevachim</i> 5,2)
  
     והפשיט ונתח, “after he skins it he cuts the carcass into its pieces.” This verse addresses itself to the owners of this offering, just as the verse speaking about the owner leaning on the animal prior to its being slaughtered is addressed to the owner, not to the priest. Seeing that this could cause some confusion, the Torah repeats in verse 7 that the functions described there are to be performed by the young priests.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ונתנו בני אהרן, ”the sons of Aaron are to place the blood, etc.” The reason why the Torah uses the plural mode, -as if one priest by himself could not perform this task- is that it is customary for the Torah when describing the functions performed by the priests in the Tabernacle, to use the plural mode. There used to be numerous priests milling around in the Temple precincts, seeing that there they would be in the proximity of the <i>Shechinah.</i> We have the principle of ברוב עם הדרת מלך, when the king is surrounded by a multitude of his subjects this reflects positively on the degree of his glory.” [<i>Menachot</i> 62 (et al) where a function is distributed amongst 3 priests although a single one could easily have performed it by himself. Ed.]
  
     והפשיט ונתח ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן על האש, “after skinning it, the sons of Aaron are to cut it up and place fire on the altar.” Nachmanides points out that the Torah does not describe these procedures in their traditional sequence. The first step in the procedure was the arranging of the woodpile on the altar on which the remains of the animal would be burned. Only after this had been put in place, was the carcass of the burnt offering cut up into pieces.
      Similarly, when the Torah, in verse 8, describes the priests as arranging the pieces in the following order: the head, the fat parts, followed by (verse 9) the innards and the feet, after the latter two have first been washed. This is incorrect, seeing that as soon as the carcass has been cut up the parts that need to be washed are being washed. The sequence reported here is not one that is mandatory. Our verse (5) was only concerned with the sprinkling of the blood being the first step in the various procedures necessary to complete the offering. The final step was the burning up of the <i>eyvarim,</i> (Talmud <i>Tamid 30)</i>. The Torah hints at this when it adds the words והקטיר הכהן את הכל, “the priest is to burn it all.” 
      The reason why the Torah repeated the command to burn up the various pieces, having first mentioned some parts being placed on the fire, is to teach that after being placed on the fire the priest must not wait until the fire has consumed it all before placing the other parts on the fire to be burned up. When dealing with a burnt offering that is a voluntary offering, there was no need to first arrange the fire properly before proceeding with other steps of the procedure. On the other hand, the daily <i>tamid</i> burnt offering, a mandatory public offering both in the morning and evening, paid for by public funds as it represented the whole nation, had to follow the sequence outlined by the Torah in every detail. The woodpile for consuming that offering was arranged meticulously every morning. (Leviticus 6,5)
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ואת הפדר, “and the fats.” Nachmanides in commenting on Onkelos translating the word פדר as meaning ”fat,” writes that this is not a generic term for all the various fat parts of the animal, but refers only to a thin fatty membrane separating between different parts of the innards. The origin of the word פדר is that it is one of the words which appear in forward and backward spelling, i.e. פרד, the same root, spelled in a different order of the letters means “to separate.” The membrane in question separates upper from lower parts within the innards of the ruminants. This is why our sages have said that the priest is to spread out this membrane above the place where the knife made the incision when it slaughtered the animal. This is a way of showing respect for the animal that becomes the instrument of the donor’s achieving atonement for his sin. Dignitaries among the nations of the world were in the habit of spreading this membrane over the part of it that they roasted. If the name פדר were to apply to fatty parts of the animal in general, this would be because the fat parts separate the flesh from the bones, etc.
      Maimonides (<i>Moreh</i>, <i>Nevuchim</i> third part chapter 46<i>)</i> writes that the underlying reason of the legislation involving animal sacrifices is connected to the practices of the Egyptians and the Sumerians. (inhabitants of Mesopotamia, the competing civilization of that of the Egyptians.) Jews who had lived within either civilization observed these people actually deifying cattle and sheep, the Egyptians worshipping sheep, and the Chaldaeans male goats, (satyrs) whereas the Indians worship cows to this day, believing them to be their reincarnated ancestors. It is forbidden to slaughter cows in India, as it is considered equivalent to murdering a god. G’d, in order to instill in us an abhorrence of such forms of paganism, demanded from us to sacrifice these animals, in order to demonstrate that we had been weaned from such mistaken beliefs. By means of these animals being sacrificed as gifts to G’d, we are absolved from deviant philosophical and theological thoughts. False philosophies represent a disease of the soul and therefore the personality, and just like any other disease, can be cured only by applying a medicine that represents the opposite of the harmful substance that causes the disease.
      Nachmanides writes that Maimonides’ writing concerning this subject are worthless, believing that if we are to look for a rationale for animal sacrifice at all, it is better to accept the view that seeing that man’s deeds are the final result of the brain’s thought, the spoken intention to do certain things, and finally, the carrying out in practice of what had been planned and discussed, G’d commanded that in order to rid ourselves of all vestiges of sin we must reverse the process, by first sanctifying the sacrificial animal in our mind, then leaning on it and expressing our remorse with words, and finally, by utterly destroying the symbol of our sin through sprinkling its blood on the altar and burning up the physical remains by fire, we rid ourselves of our having been involved in the sin that led to this process of expiation. During the procedures involving these activities of the priest with the sacrificial animal, the owner is to reflect on all that he had done wrong, as well as on the mercy of the Lord Who accepts the animal’s blood instead of the sinner’s blood. The bodily remains of the animal are accepted by G’d in lieu of our own body, and the animal’s blood is accepted in lieu of our own contaminated soul. Burning of the innards and kidneys are symbolic of the seat of the thoughts of man (according to our tradition). The gifts to the priests performing these procedures are designed to inspire them to pray on our behalf so that the bulk of the Jewish people will be spared and not become enmeshed in sin.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  ואם מן הצאן , “and if from the category of flocks, etc.” Seeing that the <i>halachic</i> procedures when offering a member of the category known as “flocks,” is the same as that for offering bulls, the only thing emphasised here is that the slaughtering will take place on the northern side of the altar. The use of the singular mode וערך הכהן, as opposed to the normal plural mode וערכו הכהנים, indicates that from an <i>halachic</i> point of view a single priest is enough to perform all the procedures listed.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   מן התורים או מן היונים, “from the turtledoves or from young doves.” Nachmanides writes that the reason the Torah selected only these two birds as suitable for bird-offerings, out of a vast amount of biologically suitable birds, [there being only 24 categories of predatory birds which are disqualified by their inherent unsuitability, the Torah referring to them as “impure,” Ed.] is that they have a degree of domesticity in common with the three categories of ruminants which are suitable for sacrifice. Any of the species mentioned can be raised by man in his backyard quite easily, and he does not have to hunt for them when he is in need of offering them as a sacrifice. (<i>Vayikra Rabbah</i> 27,6)
      The reason why, apparently, G’d prefers the fully grown turtledoves as sacrificial birds, is that these have demonstrated a degree of chastity in their sex lives, and if one loses its mate, it is a well known fact that it does not mate again ever. In this example of undying loyalty to a life’s partner, they resemble the Jewish people, who, having chosen G’d as their “partner,” will never consider trading Him for another.
      On the other hand, the young doves, יונים, are very jealous by nature, as a result of which they frequently exchange mates, more so even than other species of birds. None of the members of this species are acceptable as sacrificial birds, except the very young, ones that have not yet had a chance to display their indiscriminate sexual habits. While very young, these doves display exceptional patience in staying in their nests, not feeling the urge to explore the world around them. Chickens, though also domesticated, as they cannot fly, are rejected as potential sacrifices due to their promiscuity.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   והקריבו הכהן אל המזבח, “ the priest will present it to the altar.” This “הקרבה” consists of the priest raising the bird onto the altar before nipping its head.
  
     ומלק, “and he will nip,” והקטיר, “and cause it to go up in smoke,” ונמצה דמו, “and squeeze out its blood.” It is impossible to explain this verse in the sequence the procedures are described, i.e. to cause the head of the bird to go up in smoke and to squeeze out its blood after that, followed by the burning up of the rest of its body. We find no instance in which atonement is effected through burning up the body parts before the blood has been utilized in that process.
      Therefore, our sages (<i>Zevachim</i> 65) interpreted this verse as only drawing a conceptual link, הקש, between the performance of the nipping of the bird’s head and the procedure known as הקטרה, burning it up so that it goes up in smoke. Just as the burning up of the head of the bird and the rest of its body are two independent procedures, so the nipping of the head and the squeezing out of the blood from the rest of the body are two separate independent procedures.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, we have to understand that the nipping of the bird’s head and the burning up of it on the altar, precede one another, as the priest had already burned up the rest of the bird’s body.
      The reason why the Torah writes here: (verse 17) והקטיר אותו הכהן, [where the word הכהן appears completely redundant, Ed.] instead of writing והקטיר את הכל, as the Torah did when describing the parallel procedure for four legged beasts (verse 9), is because in this instance the parts that were to be burned up were in fact not all burned up at the same time. After having burned up the head, the priest proceeded to remove the bird’s crop with its feathers, for instance.
  
     ונמצה דמו, “having pressed out its blood.” As opposed to the burnt offerings of the ruminants, no mention is made here of the blood from the area where the slaughtering had been performed being caught up in a special pan. The reason is that the quantity of blood involved was too miniscule to be usefully accumulated within such a pan. On the contrary, this blood would stick to the walls of the pan, and there would not be any blood left to sprinkle on the wall of the altar
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   והסיר את מוראתו, “he shall remove its crop;”<i> Rashi</i> explained that seeing that this bird had consumed food which was basically stolen, [as opposed to the ruminants, which feed on grass owned by its owners or in areas which are ownerless, Ed.] this had to be removed prior to the bird being able to serve as a vehicle for its owner’s atonement. The reason why not the whole entrails had to be removed for the same reason, is that the food in it had already been digested and could not be identified as such.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ושסע אותו בכנפיו, “he is to split it with its wings (feathers);” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the priest need not tear out the feathers from the wings, literally.
      Nachmanides writes that <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation is not correct, for if it were, he did not give us an indication of where precisely the wings were to be torn off, whether at the front or at the back. Therefore, he claims that the correct interpretation of the words ושסע אותו is that the priest is to tear off the wings at the place where the feathers grow out of them. The word כנפים therefore is not another word describing the נוצה, the plume. The word means the same as every time we read about birds in the Torah when the Torah describes birds as צפור כנף, a winged bird, [one that is capable of flying. Ed.] The word נוצה describes the skin of the birds.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   וקמץ, “he shall scoop three fingers full;” this is the first part of the procedure that only the priests were allowed to perform. The procedures mentioned up until this point, i.e. the pouring of oil, the adding of frankincense to the flour before handing the mass to the priest could be performed by the owner/donor, even if he was not a priest. There is only one step in the procedure prior to the scooping up by the priest of three fingers full of the mixture, that also necessitated a priest, and this was the presentation of the mass at the southwestern corner of the altar. 
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   כל המנחה אשר תקריבו לה' לא תעשה חמץ, “Any meal-offering that you present to <i>Hashem</i> must not be made of or contain anything leavened.” This is the initial prohibition not to add any leavening to the meal offering. It is followed by a second warning that even after the priest has already scooped up the three fingers full of the meal, it must not be allowed to become leavened before being burned up, i.e. לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה'.
      Concerning the rationale of why both leavening and honey are forbidden to be part of this type of offering, Maimonides writes that it was the custom of the pagans to prepare all their offerings of this type containing leavening and some honey. (<i>Moreh Nevuchim</i> 3,46); once such materials symbolized a pagan practice, they became forbidden as an offering to the Eternal G’d. This is also the reason why private altars, known as מצבה were forbidden Seeing that the pagans never used salt in their offerings to their deities, the Torah insisted that we must always add some salt to our offerings. This was in spite of the fact that during the period of the patriarchs, private altars bearing the name מצבה were welcome in the eyes of <i>Hashem.</i>
      Some commentators hold that the prohibition of leaven and honey derives from the fact that the <i>kometz</i> had to be complete, and that, had it contained any leaven or honey, the priest’s hands would have retained some of it, or the air holes in the dough would have reduced the required of amount of meal.
  
     לא תקטירו ממנו, “you must not burn up from it.” The reason why the Torah again uses the plural mode is that both Aaron and his sons were included in this prohibition.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   קרבן ראשית תקריבו אותם, “You shall offer them as a first-fruit offering.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that for the presenting of the two loaves on the festival of <i>Shavuot</i> of the first wheat harvest, leavened loaves were in order, though on the altar no leavened products were to be presented. It was also in order to bring to the Temple honey as part of the first ripe dates of the season. The Torah writes a special dispensation for this in Leviticus The common denominator of these two offerings is that both are described as בכורים, “first fruit offerings.”
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   וכל קרבן מנחה במלח תמלח, “and you are to add a portion of salt to every meal-offering.” The reason why the Torah again reverted to the singular mode is that the command is directed at the owners presenting the offering to the priest as their deputy. You will recall that at the beginning of this paragraph, (verse 7) when speaking of מנחת מרחשת, a meal offering in a deep pan, the Torah had also used the singular mode. The reason is that the adding of the salt is something permitted to be done by the ordinary Israelite who is not a priest. The same rule applies here as it does to the pouring and mixing of the oil of the meal offering.
  
     לא תשבית מלח ברית אלוקיך, “You must not discontinue adding the salt representing the covenant with the Lord your G’d from all your offerings.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the covenant referred to is one made with the universe ever since the conclusion of the six days of creation, when the “lower” waters were assured by G’d that some of them would be presented on the Holy Altar on the festival of <i>Sukkot</i> as libations accompanied by salt.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the reason for the presence of salt is that G’d concluded a covenant with Israel that they would not offer something that is תפל, tasteless (as anything which is devoid of salt). It would be considered insulting to present such an offering.
      Nachmanides writes that seeing that salt has become a constituent covenant as far as sacrifices are concerned, it has become the basic symbol of all covenants. This surfaces in connection with the various gifts, primarily by the farmers, allocated by the Torah to the priests. The concept also resurfaces as a corollary to the Davidic dynasty, which will endure in a manner similar to that of the covenant governing the use of salt in the sacrifices. It is possible that salt is an integral part of the waters of the oceans, in the sense of being a natural process, seeing that G’d’s attribute אלוקים instead of <i>Hashem</i> is associated with it. It may have been distilled into solids due to the warming power of the sun’s rays. Water, by definition, is meant to irrigate the earth to enable it to be worked agriculturally. Once he earth has been contaminated by salt, it ceases to be a potential life-giver. In fact it destroys everything planted in its vicinity. [We observe a similar phenomenon in the earth surrounding the area from which volcanic gases escape. Ed.] Seeing that salt displays such negative influences, the Torah stresses its use in connection with the sacrifices where the presence of salt makes the flesh of the animals tasty. Assuring the endurance of the dynasty of King David throughout the generations, it is a similar promise of something positive, and salt is associated with this to demonstrate that we perceive of salt as something positive.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ואם תקריב מנחת בכורים, “When you bring a meal-offering of the first (grain) etc.” <i>Rashi</i> states that the meaning of the word אם here is the same as the meaning of the word כי, “when,” as opposed to when the same word is conditional and means “if.”
      Nachmanides writes that the justification for using this word at this juncture, [although every time the Torah used this introductory word thus far in our chapter it meant “if,” Ed.] is the fact that first ripe specimens of any of the seven categories of produce qualifying for the commandment of בכורים, are not immediately capable of being performed as one has to await the time when nature enables us to harvest such fruit. The word refers to the previous paragraph in which the meal offering in a deep pan had been discussed. The rules applying to that meal offering also apply to the offering of <i>bikkurim</i> consisting of grain products.
      Nachmanides explains in similar fashion the use of the word אם where it prefaces some of the legislation of the Jubilee year (Numbers 36,4) It cannot be translated there as “if,” as the Jubilee will occur every 50 years and is not subject to man’s whims. The verse speaks of the time after the Israelites will have taken possession of their homeland. The Torah promises that as long as the Jewish people will observe that legislation the land will remain their ancestral possession.
      Another approach to the meaning of the word ואם here, could be simply: “if” the Lord will bring you to the land and you will in due course reap your harvest and bring the first fruit offerings, then you shall do so in the manner here described. Inheritance of the land of Israel is always described as conditional on our observing the relevant legislation pertaining to the earth of that land. Failure to observe this legislation will result in our expulsion from that land.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   וזרקו בני אהרן את הדם, “the sons of Aaron are to sprinkle the blood, etc.” The Torah employs the verb זרק when describing the sprinkling of the blood of goats, sheep, or bulls because their blood is so similar to that of human beings. By employing a verb that really means “throwing,” we are reminded that seeing that this blood is so similar to ours, the animal is enduring something that the sinner offering this sacrifice was meant to endure. [I suppose that the author means that the word השליך would otherwise have been more appropriate for the blood being poured, or the word שפך, “to pour.” The verb זרק is singularly inappropriate otherwise, as animals cannot “throw.” Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   זכר או נקבה, “male or female.” In connection with the flocks the Torah writes זכר או נקבה, whereas in connection with the sacrificial animal בן בקר, a young bull, we have the wording אם זכר אם נקבה. The reason for the different wording is that the word או is necessary to include the פלגס, a sheep thirteen months old, so that a plural mode is needed here. The word אם does not allow for use in a plural mode.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   אם כבש הוא מקריב, “if he offers a male sheep, etc.” The term כשב always refers to a fully grown sheep, as we know from Genesis 30,40 והכשבים הפריד יעקב, “and Yaakov set aside the fully grown sheep, etc.” the term כבש by contrast, refers to immature sheep. The word עגל refers to a fully grown calf, whereas the term בן בקר refers to a bull not yet fully grown. The latter is so named, as it is still dependent on its mother. The term פר בן בקר refers to an animal that is more than 12 months old. The parallel term בן כבש does not occur anywhere as sheep do not become pregnant during the first year of their lives.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   חלבו האליה תמימה, “the entire tail;” Nachmanides writes that in classical Hebrew the word חלב refers to fat which is separate, not integrally attached to flesh. The fat that is attached to the flesh is called שומן. This is why in Deut. 32,15, when Moses described Israel waxing fat, i.e. becoming a victim of affluence, he writes וישמן ישורון ויבעט, “that Yeshurun put on fat as a result of which it kicked,” (became unruly and overbearing).” The prophet Isaiah 6,10 speaks of the heart of the Jewish people becoming “fat,” and uses the term השמן לב העם, “the people’s heart grows fat.” The fact is that the tail called אליה does not have any חלב, i.e. separate fat parts at all, whether in name or in substance, whereas it does have שומן, fatty tissue intertwined with the flesh, tissue which is not subject to being separated like the fat which is separated from the kidneys with the membrane which supports it. Seeing that this is so, the wording כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו, “you must not eat any fat or any blood,” does not include the fat that is part of the tail, seeing that the tail does not contain any tissue called חלב. If what we described as שומן, were forbidden under the heading of חלב, practically all the flesh of the animals would be forbidden. We must pay attention to the fact that the Torah did not writeכל חלב אשר תקריבו לא תאכלו, “any ‘fat’ which you offer as sacrifice you must not eat” (when the animal in question had not been sanctified as a prospective sacrifice, Ed.] for if so, the kidneys and the exterior parts of the lungs would be forbidden to us as food, but the Torah wrote: כל בהמה אשר תקריבו ממנה על המזבח, “that the חלב of any sacrificial animal offered on the altar is forbidden to be eaten.” As a result of this distinction, fatty tissue on the spleen, milt, טחול, is also forbidden, even though it has not been presented on the altar under the heading of קרב “innards,” as have the fatty substances enclosed by a separate membrane that was originally attached to lungs and kidneys. The reason is that it too can easily be separated from the spleen itself. The reason why the Torah writes לעמת העצה יסירנה, “the one (fat) that is opposite the flanks,” is that if the tail is removed in its entirety, תמימה, then some fatty substance which qualifies under our definition of חלב is included at its interior end.
      It is also possible to explain that just as the other verse speaks of ואת כל חלבו, “he is to remove as a sacrifice all its fatty substances from it,” (7,3) that just as in the description of the meat offerings there, [most of which is consumed by its owners, Ed.] when the Torah first uses the term את כל חלבו as a general heading, describing the organs which are covered by such substances in detail later at the same time mentioning the organs themselves, i.e. שתי הכליות, יותרת הכבד, here too the mention of the word אליה does not imply that this part of the body itself contains something defined as חלב.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ואם עז קרבנו, ”and if his offering is a goat;” according to Nachmanides the word עז describes the species, and does not narrowly refer to the female of the species only. I do not believe that classical Hebrew, i.e. the Holy Tongue, distinguishes between the male and the female of the species of animals as the Torah, generally, lumps together the males and the females, such as when speaking of the גמל, a camel, or יחמור, שפן or ארנבת or חזיר. (Deut. 14) Even those categories in which the Torah does distinguish between the males and the females, such as תיש and עז, or כבש and כבשה, the distinction is even <i>halachically</i> hard to notice such as in the legislation not to slaughter the mother animal and its young on the same day. The Torah in Leviticus 22,25 uses the masculine mode, אותו ואת בנו “him and his son,” although clearly what is meant is “its mother and her young,” seeing that no one is certain about the paternity of the young, [there not having been any D.N.A. tests in those days. Ed.] Some of our sages (Rabbi Yehudah) hold that the Torah does not worry about the semen of the male that fathered the calf or lamb. (<i>Chulin</i> 75). [This depends on the context of the <i>halachic</i> problems involved. Ed.] When the Torah has to address the distinction, for instance in connection with the burnt offering in chapter one, it adds that the gender used for this offering must be the male, i.e. the תיש, in the event the donor chose the species of goats. When the Torah does not specify, either gender of the species referred to is acceptable.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   נפש כי תחטא בשגגה, “when a person commits a sin of commission inadvertently, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah prefaced this verse with the word נפש instead of the customary איש, is that we find when a person of no particular category is meant, that sin originates in our thoughts, and the biological soul, life force, is where our thoughts originate from, the Torah implies that the source of our sins lies not in a biological necessity, instinctive behaviour, but in our spiritual part.
      The rationale for the need of the person who has sinned inadvertently to have to atone by means of animal sacrifice, is that all sins bring in their wake stains which leave their marks on our souls, something which interferes with our ability to receive beneficial Divine input from celestial sources. Our personalities are only fully receptive to divine input when we can be described as ritually pure, in the sense of being free from unexpiated sin. To impress these thoughts upon us, the Torah chose the introductory word נפש here. Interestingly, in the case of the High Priest becoming guilty of any of the inadvertent sins the Torah does not mention in connection with the atonement for his sin the words וכפר עליו ונסלח לו, “he will provide atonement for him and it shall be forgiven to him.” Perhaps the Torah here hints at a criticism directed at the High Priest concerned, who, in spite of his stature, could become guilty of a sin caused by negligence. Possibly, for such a person the sacrifice will not obtain total forgiveness. The High Priest may have to add prayers asking G’d for forgiveness and apologising for being somehow remiss in his conduct before the balance of his guilt will be forgiven. Seeing that he has been likened to מלאך ה' צבאות, “an angel of the Lord of Hosts”, he needs to –allegorically speaking- have clean hands at all times.
      Some commentators see in the absence of the words וכפר עליו ונסלח לו, an allusion to the Talmudic rule (<i>Baba Metzia</i> 33) that שגגת תלמוד עולה זדון, “errors committed by a scholar are accounted as if they were deliberate,” because their standing in the community does not permit them to be careless.”
      When speaking of the פרים הנשרפים, the sin offerings by such High Priests, (<i>Zevachim</i> 5,2) and their being burned up, the customary statements that this will be a source of pleasant aroma, ריח ניחוח for <i>Hashem,</i> is missing, also indicating that the High Priest’s negligence has not yet been forgiven completely, even though he has offered the requisite offering. 
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   אל שפך הדשן ישרף אותו, “on the place where the ash is poured and burn it.” The Torah commanded that the burning of this sin offering including its skin must be performed outside the precincts of the Temple so that it would be observed by the public at large. This would show the people that even a High Priest would acknowledge that he had sinned and ask G’d to forgive him.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ונודעה החטאת, “when the sin becomes known, etc.” Nachmanides derives from this that the sinner is not to offer a sin offering until the precise nature of the inadvertently committed sin has become known to himself. It is not unusual for the text to speak in generalities, so that we might have thought that others having heard or seen the sin committed in question is sufficient cause for the sinner to have to bring this offering. Possibly, the intent of the verse is to inform us that unless there is definitive knowledge that the sin has been committed, no sin offering is called for, or even approved.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   אשר נשיא יחטא, “when the political head of the nation commits an inadvertent sin, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that it is a happy day for the people of Israel when a political head of the nation is called upon to bring this offering [It shows that such a head does not consider that he is infallible, and that he accepts admonitions by his subjects. Ed.]
      Ibn Ezra feels that the text is inverted and should be understood as if the Torah had written; “when a political head sins, etc.” The whole verse is a continuation of what has been written before, i.e. “in the event that the entire community of Israel has committed an inadvertent sin, etc.” The word אשר, according to Ibn Ezra, is not a statement of fact, but is conditional just as the word אם.
  
     מכל מצוות ה' אלוקיו, “of any of the negative commandments of his G’d.” Although up until now the Torah also spoke of violations of G’d’s commandments, the words מצוות אלוקיו underline that even the High Priest and the king, or other political leader, who owe obeisance only to G’d and not to a terrestrial ruler, need to be reminded by the Torah that they must always remain in awe of <i>Hashem.</i> He is the Supreme authority, including that of the King and High Priest.
      4,23, או הודע אליו חטאתו, “or the sin that he is guilty of comes to his attention.” The Torah here abbreviated, seeing that earlier it had spoken of the example where the king himself had realized that he had committed an error. Here we speak about a situation where the king had been unaware himself that he had sinned, but that the fact and the nature of the sin had been brought to his attention by others. 
      Nachmanides claims that there is no need for such convoluted ways of justifying the syntax of the Torah. The matter is simple. The word אשר simply means the same as כאשר, “when, or “as soon as,” There are many examples in Scripture where the word אשר appears meaning כאשר. As a result, the words או הודע אליו חטאתו refer to what had been stated previously in verse 1, i.e. ואשם, “he was conscious of some guilt.” and he became aware that he was guilty. At that time the sinner had either not taken any action in order to deal with how to atone for his transgression, or he had brought the offering but was not sure if it had been welcome in the eyes of G’d and had atoned for him.
      Other commentators feel that the reason why the Torah had not used wording such as או הודע אליו חטאתו except when the subject is the political head of the nation, or another individual, but not in connection with the community having sinned, or a High Priest having sinned, is that both a political head and an ordinary individual bring an אשם תלוית a contingent guilt offering, which protects them against punishment as long as the nature of their guilt has not been determined with certainty. After that, another offering, אשם ודאי, is called for. Our verse, accordingly would have to be understood thus: “if the person discussed entertains some doubt as to the precise nature of his guilt, he is to bring this אשם תלוי contingent guilt offering, pending clarification of his status. On the other hand, או הודע אליו חטאתו, if he is certain that he has to bring a sin offering to expiate his sin, he is only obliged to bring one offering, i.e. the sin offering under discussion.” The same rule applies to an ordinary priest who is subject to the same law as the ordinary Israelite. However, a High Priest or a political head of the people for whom the Torah has not made any provision to bring such contingent guilt offering in the event of doubt, as we know from the rider לאשמת העם, the guilt of the people which the Torah had added in the pertinent paragraph, (4,3) is treated in the same manner as the guilt of the community.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  או הודע אליו חטאתו, “or the sin that he is guilty of comes to his attention.” The Torah here abbreviated, seeing that earlier it had spoken of the example where the king himself had realized that he had committed an error. Here we speak about a situation where the king had been unaware himself that he had sinned, but that the fact and the nature of the sin had been brought to his attention by others. 
     Nachmanides claims that there is no need for such convoluted ways of justifying the syntax of the Torah. The matter is simple. The word אשר simply means the same as כאשר, “when, or “as soon as,” There are many examples in Scripture where the word אשר appears meaning כאשר. As a result, the words או הודע אליו חטאתו refer to what had been stated previously in verse 1, i.e. ואשם, “he was conscious of some guilt.” and he became aware that he was guilty. At that time the sinner had either not taken any action in order to deal with how to atone for his transgression, or he had brought the offering but was not sure if it had been welcome in the eyes of G’d and had atoned for him.
     Other commentators feel that the reason why the Torah had not used wording such as או הודע אליו חטאתו except when the subject is the political head of the nation, or another individual, but not in connection with the community having sinned, or a High Priest having sinned, is that both a political head and an ordinary individual bring an אשם תלוית a contingent guilt offering, which protects them against punishment as long as the nature of their guilt has not been determined with certainty. After that, another offering, אשם ודאי, is called for. Our verse, accordingly would have to be understood thus: “if the person discussed entertains some doubt as to the precise nature of his guilt, he is to bring this אשם תלוי contingent guilt offering, pending clarification of his status. On the other hand, או הודע אליו חטאתו, if he is certain that he has to bring a sin offering to expiate his sin, he is only obliged to bring one offering, i.e. the sin offering under discussion.” The same rule applies to an ordinary priest who is subject to the same law as the ordinary Israelite. However, a High Priest or a political head of the people for whom the Torah has not made any provision to bring such contingent guilt offering in the event of doubt, as we know from the rider לאשמת העם, the guilt of the people which the Torah had added in the pertinent paragraph, (4,3) is treated in the same manner as the guilt of the community.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   והוא עד או ראה או ידע, “and he is a witness, either having seen or having definitive knowledge.” The Torah does not speak of three different scenarios here, for it is impossible for someone to be a witness to something that he has neither seen nor otherwise has definitive knowledge of. It must deal therefore with the case of someone beseeching his friend or acquaintance to testify on his behalf to a matter which he has definitive knowledge of by having been an eye witness of it, or having ironclad knowledge of when the matter is not subject to eyesight, such as testifying to words spoken. He may have heard a party admit owing money to another party, for instance. The presence of such a party when money changed hands, would be “seeing” something, the hearing of an admission, would be “knowing” something without the benefit of having seen it.
      It is also possible to explain the words והוא עד, to mean that this refers to knowledge which includes both having seen what happens and having understood its impact, such as having been present when the loan was handed over and receipt was confirmed by the recipient. The subsequent או ידע would then mean that although the party had been fully aware of the loan having been transacted, the recipient having acknowledged it, he had not seen the money change hands. The Torah, in this case, does not write: ונעלם ממנו, “it was concealed from him,” as it did in the next three verses, seeing that the refusal to testify is not an inadvertent sin but a deliberately committed one. If, at the time when requested to render an oath, the witness had indeed forgotten what he had known at the time, he does not need to render such an oath. 
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ונעלם ממנו והוא טמא, “but it was concealed from him,” the same applies when the party asked to swear had forgotten the occurrence which he was now asked to swear about Nachmanides writes that actually, the Torah abbreviated, meaning to tell us that the sin occurred due to the party having forgotten something of relevance. There was no need to spell out the nature of the sin, seeing it was well known (except to the party who had committed it) He would only become guilty of the “sin” of being ritually unclean if he were to enter the precincts of the Holy Temple, or he would attempt to eat sacrificial meat, before either being alerted to it, or undergoing ritual purification in order to be on the safe side. Forgetting an undertaking by an oath is culpable only if in addition to having forgotten about it he had violated the terms of the oath.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   והתודה אשר חטא עליה, “and he shall confess what he had sinned.” Nachmanides writes that the Torah does not report the correct sequence of the procedure involved here. The leaning on the animal prior to it being slaughtered has been omitted here. It was omitted as previously it has been made plain that before any sin offering is slaughtered the owner must lean his hands on the sacrificial animal and confess his sin. On the other hand, in the verses where the leaning is mentioned, no mention was made of the confession that accompanied this part of the procedure.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the reason why the confession is made a part of the procedure here is because in both instances involving the oath the sin to be expiated had been committed deliberately, as opposed to the other instances when the sin offering is offered on account of inadvertently committed sins. According to this approach no confession accompanies the bringing of ordinary sin offerings. However, our sages claim that the word והתודה concerns all the examples of sin offerings mentioned up until now including entering holy precincts in a state of ritual impurity when it occurred unintentionally. The same applies to all other sin offerings, each one requiring a confession immediately prior to the animal being slaughtered. The reason why the confession was mentioned especially in this verse, is that the news is that the sin mentioned does not carry the <i>karet</i> penalty, as do the other sins for which a sin offering if they were committed only inadvertently. How much more so would a confession be required when the sin concerned would require a definitive sin offering when committed unintentionally!
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ואם לא תגיע ידו, ”and if he cannot afford it, etc.” There are some sages who believe that the reason why the Torah showed a degree of leniency to financially strapped sinners by allowing them to bring an inexpensive guilt offering consisting of a bunt offering of one bird and a sin offering of another bird, is that in all of the examples concerned the sinner did not derive any meaningful personal advantage from the sin he had committed. On the other hand, someone eating <i>chelev</i> or eating ordinary food on the Day of Atonement, or someone performing work on the Sabbath, and a host of similar examples of sins, did derive personal satisfaction or financial benefit from them, not to mention people indulging in forbidden sexual relations, or people who have misappropriated property belonging to someone else, such sinners most certainly have to bring an offering that sets them back financially. Some of these have committed a twofold transgression, seeing that it occurred in holy precincts that were out of bounds to them. These offerings cost at least a <i>shekel.</i>
      As to the guilt offering designed to ward off punishment for transgressions of an indeterminate nature, the אשם תלוי, the conditional guilt offering, this must also be one that costs at least one <i>shekel.</i> It is relatively expensive, as people who are not sure they have committed a transgression are in the habit of giving themselves the benefit of the doubt. They must not think that they can do so with relative impunity.
      Nachmanides writes that the reason why the guilt offering for transgressions related to oaths is relatively inexpensive for people with restricted means, is that the transgressions in respect of which his offering is brought do not carry a type of death penalty such as <i>karet</i> even if they had been committed deliberately. The reason that this is so in ritual impurity related transgressions, is that the transgression itself was committed in the course of fulfilling a commandment. 
      When reflecting on his words one has difficulty in reconciling them to a situation where a father was supposed to circumcise his son after the Sabbath, and he had forgotten the correct date, i.e. the 8th day, and circumcised his son on the Sabbath instead, who is guilty, and must bring the expensive sin offering according to the opinions of all our scholars. The reason might be that seeing that the performance of the commandment was not performed at the right time, and the father had not involved himself in as many preparations prior to fulfilling this commandments, he is not entitled to the leniency shown by the Torah in the other examples.
  
     שתי תורים, “two turtledoves;” the reason this person has to offer two sacrifices (two birds) is that between them the two birds correspond in some manner to the parallel offering brought by a wealthy person guilty of the same transgression, namely offerings which contain parts that are burned up on the altar, and meat consumed by the priests. In the case of the offerings consisting of the two turtledoves, the one that is called עולה, burnt offering, is all dedicated to heaven, whereas the one known as חטאת, sin offering, this is consumed by the priests. If only a burnt offering had been sacrificed, the priest performing the procedure would not have been compensated at all. On the other hand, if only a sin offering had been presented, the altar would not have received anything as no <i>eymurim</i> of birds are burnt up on the altar.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   והביא את אשמו לה', “and he is to present his guilt offering to <i>Hashem.”</i> Nachmanides explains that the reason why this offering is called אשם, “guilt,” although it is not of the same type of animal (rather a female of the species of sheep or goats and only worth one shekel, or even less for the poor who bring birds) as the ones mentioned in our verse and worth at least 2 shekel, is that it is not the same as the sin-offering of which the Torah spoke in verse 6 and it is offered as expiation of guilt. The offering mentioned in verse 6 is actually a sin offering, and the word אשמו used by the Torah there does not refer to the name of the offering, but describes the reason, i.e. the guilt of the party who presents this offering. 
      In trying to understand why one of these types of offerings is called חטאת whereas the other is called אשם, seeing that both are designed to atone for sins committed, Nachmanides speculates that the word אשם implies a major guilt, whereas the word חטאת, related as it is to the causative החטיא, suggests that the guilty party aimed at what he should have aimed at, but he missed the target through lack of concentration or through not taking proper aim. This would explain why a more expensive offering, without allowance for sinners who are in financial distress being made is required, whereas when the basic offering is described by the Torah as a חטאת, this involves a transgression which G’d views more leniently. Misappropriating Temple property, even when using it, does not diminish its value, disregarding laws of ritual purity involving either sacred locations or sanctified food is certainly not a simple carelessness, seeing that the nature of the sites or meats demand especial care. Nachmanides continues examining all the examples of a קרבן עולה ויורד, a sin offering in which the Torah makes allowance for the economic condition of the party required to offer it, using the yardstick of the degree of negligence that is involved in the transgression. The offerings brought by a person cured from the skin disorder known as <i>tzoraat</i> are both referred to as אשם and חטאת, seeing that the afflicted person was considered as if dead, being completely ostracized from human society. The first offering sort of acts as protective shield against retribution that would have awaited him, the second as a sin-offering expiating, and paving the way for re-admission to society. The latter is to be worth at least two “regular” shekels. This is why it is called אשם instead. [I have restated some of the foregoing after comparing text in our editions of Nachmanides. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   צו את אהרן ואת בניו לאמר, “command Aaron and his sons to say”. Nachmanides writes that whereas in <i>Parshat Vayikra</i> Moses had been directed to issue laws to the Children of Israel, here the directives are addressed to the priests. The reason is that in <i>Vayikra</i> the subject is the offering of sacrifices, which are brought on behalf of the Israelites at large. Here the people who act as the Israelites’ executives in this matter, i.e. the priests, are addressed.
      In the <i>Midrash</i> we find Moses being quoted as saying to G’d: “where do we ever find that when the well, i.e. the source of the water is despised and hated that the water it produces is beloved?” Moses had referred to the fact that in all the sacrifices mentioned thus far the sons of Aaron were addressed and not Aaron himself. When G’d heard this, He immediately changed the format of the directives and included Aaron personally in them so as no to leave the impression that Aaron himself was less beloved by G’d.
       <i>Rashi,</i> quoting the words of Rabbi Shimon says that whenever fulfilling one of G’d’s commandments involves expense to the party fulfilling it, the Torah must use language which is designed to spur on the party concerned to fulfill the directive. Nachmanides writes that this <i>Rashi</i> has been printed in the wrong place seeing that here no expense is involved for the addressees, the sons of Aaron. On the contrary, the sons of Aaron benefit from all the sacrifices, including even that of the burnt offering where the priests share in the skin of the animal that is offered up on the altar. The reason why Rabbi Shimon is quoted by <i>Rashi</i> at this point, must be in order to draw attention to the difference of opinion between him and the opinion expressed in the Talmud (<i>Kidushin</i> 29) before that, that the wording is intended to teach that the directive is effective immediately and in subsequent generations. Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the principle that the wording used here generally means that the directive becomes effective immediately and remains if force throughout the generations; he only claims that in some instances this is not the reason why the Torah employed this wording, and then the reason has to do with the expense involved in carrying out G’d’s directive. One such example is the oil to be provided for lighting the <i>Menorah.</i> (Exodus 27,20) a directive that could not be fulfilled until at least 8 or nine months later after the Tabernacle had been constructed and inaugurated. Similarly, in Numbers 35,2 where the Israelites are instructed to cede to the Levites certain cities including a strip of land around these cities. Seeing that the directives of the Torah were issued before the Israelites had even crossed the Jordan, and they had certainly not yet taken possession of their own lands, the directive could not have been intended to be carried out immediately.
      Alternatively, it is possible to argue that even carrying out the present directive involved expense to the priests, seeing that immediately following this, we hear about the offerings that Aaron and his sons had to bring on their own behalf, paying out of their own pockets. (compare 12-15)
      Still another approach to the meaning of the wording of our verse is that seeing Aaron and his sons would experience considerable personal inconvenience in carrying out the instructions following, this is considered as if they had been asked to spend their own funds in performing this commandment.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   זאת תורת העולה, “this is the law concerning the burnt offering.” Ibn Ezra explains the term עולה as justified, seeing the entire animal is burnt up on the altar and the smoke rises heavenwards. The priests do not share in any of the meat of this offering.
  
     היא העולה על מוקדה על המזבח כל הלילה, “it is the burnt offering that stays on its firewood on the altar the whole night long, etc.” The Torah’s purpose in giving us this detail is to teach that this offering [as all others. Ed.] must not be slaughtered, etc., after nightfall. If it has been slaughtered, and its blood sprinkled on the altar as long as it was still daylight, the burning of the remains may take place during the whole night. Interestingly, the Torah refers to these parts of the burnt offerings a היא, i.e. “she.” in the feminine mode.
      There is a problem here for we have another verse from which we derive that the remains of the flesh of burnt offering are burnt up at night, seeing that the Torah writes: (Exodus 23,18) ולא ילין חלב חגי עד בוקר, “and the fat of My festive offering may not remain on the altar until morning.” This means that the fat must not remain below the altar until morning but must be burned up at night, but the pieces must be placed on the altar during the night. We must therefore conclude that our verse here speaks of אברים, remains left for being burned up, which though they had been placed on the altar still by day, had not been placed on the fire until after it had become night. Concerning such remainders of a burnt offering, [generally one offered on weekdays, not like the example in Exodus Ed.], the Torah writes the somewhat superfluous word היא. In other words, the Torah refers to something that had already been on the altar, but had not yet had the final procedure performed upon it. We must also consider that the Torah uses three (זאת, היא, העולה) expressions known as מיעוטין, words or letters that limit the applicability of something previously understood to apply generally. In this instance, the word היא forbids the throwing back onto the altar of any parts of the bones or flesh that had fallen off the altar while they were burning up.
  
     ואש המזבח תוקד בו, “and the fire of the altar should be kept burning on it.” According to Nachmanides the Torah here issues a command that the fire on the altar be kept going all night long, seeing that it commands that a great deal of firewood be put on the pile by day so that there is no danger that all of this wood will be consumed by the fire during the daylight hours. As to the words ואש תמיד המזבח לא תכבה, “that the fire on the altar not go out,” (6,5 and 6,6) this means that it must be kept going on a year round basis, and it is the task of the priests to see to it that it is kept going. The Torah simply repeats, in order to underline what it had said in verse 5 ובער עליה הכהן עצים בבוקר בבוקר, “the priest shall kindle it every morning,” this is a reminder to see to it that enough firewood is always on hand on the large מערכת, woodpile, to ensure that the fire on the altar never goes out completely. Our sages derive from the impersonal styling of this command, i.e. the Torah warns of what should not happen, not only instructing the priest what to do, that if any person would extinguish a single coal of that fire it would be considered a violation of a negative commandment. [a <i>Midrash</i> even makes a calculation that this fire, started in the second year of the Israelites in the desert was kept going without interruption for 116 years. Ed.] The whole reason why there was a secondary smaller woodpile on the altar was to act as insurance in the event that due to some negligence by some priest, the primary woodpile had been allowed to become extinguished. The sages derive the negative commandment here from the words [not really needed. Ed] והאש על המזבח “and the fire on the altar.” Although they say that this results in the penalty of lashes when committed deliberately, I do not believe that there are separate lashes on account of each coal that was allowed to go out or was extinguished deliberately.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ולבש הכהן מדו בד ומכנסי בד, “the priest is to don his linen tunic and his linen trousers.” The Torah mentions the tunic and trousers in connection with the procedure of removing the ashes, although according to Nachmanides, [alluded to here by the author not by name but uncharacteristically as “ה'הג” הרב הגאון, Ed.] needs to wear all four of his priestly garments as there is no kind of Temple service that may be performed with fewer than four garments. The reason why only two of these garments were mentioned here is, that they both have a feature we did not hear about previously. The Torah, by writing מדו, indicates that these garments were not of standard measure but were fitted according to the size of the individual priest who would wear them, both the tunic and the trousers. It was important that nothing should separate the garments from the skin of the wearer.
      Nachmanides refers to Onkelos who translates מדו, as לבישין, writes: it appears that he understood the word as the name of a comprehensive garment, something we would refer to nowadays as the “uniform” worn by liveried people, for instance. The expression מדיו, in Samuel I 17,28 where Saul gave David his uniform also refers to a uniform tailored for him especially, [which because David was much shorter would have been a hindrance rather than a help to David in his fight against Goliath. Ed.] In Samuel I 4,12 we read about ומדיו קרועים ואדמה על ראשו, “the torn uniform and the earth on his head described the state of mourning of its wearer who brought news of the capture of the Holy Ark by the Philistines”, not to mention the thirty thousand men who had fallen in that battle.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ופשט את בגדיו ולבש בגדים אחרים, “the priest will divest himself of his clothes and shall don other garments.” <i>Rashi</i> writes that this language does not make this procedure obligatory. (although it is good manners to do so, so as not to soil the special garments he wears during performing other duties)
      Nachmanides writes that he does not know of any reason that would indicate that what is written here is not obligatory. Surely it is a duty for the priest not to wear the regular priestly garments while engaged in a task that would soil those garments, such as when he removes the ashes. Even when engaged in just הרמת הדשן, the removal of the ash, or incompletely consumed incense, from the golden altar in the Sanctuary itself, an activity that is rated as part of the Temple service, priestly garments must be worn, though they may be of an inferior quality.
      There is an opinion according to which the word אחרים that we understood as “alternate, others,” but sacred garments, does not refer to inferior priestly garments, but to ordinary garments such as the ones worn by non-priests. The carrying of the ashes outside the Temple precincts was simply not considered as part of the Temple service.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   חלקם נתתי אותה מאשי, “I have presented it as their share from My fire-offerings.” The meaning of the entire verse, which on the face of it contains nothing new, is that none of the remains becomes the property of the priests until all the parts of the sacrifice slated for burning up have done so. From this verse we derive the rule that what applies to the three fingers full of the <i>minchah</i> offering applies to all the offerings, seeing that the Torah adds the words קודש קדשים היא כחטאת וכאשם, i.e. the meal offering is just as holy of holies to G’d as are the sin and guilt offerings.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה, “and every meal offering offered by a priest must be complete, (not just the three fingers full) none of it may be consumed by the priests. 
      Maimonides (<i>Moreh Nevuchim,</i> 3,46<i>)</i> explains that the reason for the above is simple, i.e. that the priest cannot consume his own offering. Were he allowed to partake of it, the impression would be created that he had in fact not brought an offering to G’d at all. After all, the altar receives only three fingers full of any meal offering, pus a small amount of frankincense. By legislating that the entire meal/oil mixture is to be burned, the priest will be seen to have brought an offering of his own. The treatment by the Torah of the meal offering differently from the sin offering, for instance, is that in the case of the latter, substantial parts of the sacrificial animal are burned up on the altar in addition to the parts that the priests may consume.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   וזאת תורת החטאת, “and this is the law of the sin offering.” Nachmanides points out that in <i>Parshat Vayikra</i> the order in which the various sacrifices are listed is: עולה-מנחה-זבח שלמים חטאת, אשם, the reason being that the Torah first wanted to deal with all the voluntary offerings, followed by the list of mandatory sacrifices, offered in order to expiate various types of sins, transgressions. In our <i>Parshah</i> the Torah first lists all the sacrifices described as קדשי קדשים, holy of holies, before listing sacrifices known in the Talmud as קדשים קלים, “sacred things of a lower level of holiness.” Many additional rules have been revealed in this <i>Parshah,</i> so that we do not only deal with the same list of sacrifices presented in a different sequence. I have not set myself the task of explaining the rationales behind the various sacrifices; I only attempt to explain what is behind the order in which these various verses have been recorded in the written Torah.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   וכל חטאת אשר יובא מדמה, “any of the types of sin-offering whose blood brought into the Sanctuary, etc.”
      <i>Rashi</i> comments that if the priest brought blood from a sin offering whose blood was not destined for sprinkling on the corners of the golden altar, such as the blood of the sin-offerings Aaron offered on the Day of Atonement, into the Sanctuary, then the offering is retroactively invalid. According to this the meaning of the words לכפר בקודש in our verse cannot be understood literally, as the wording assumes that it is capable of securing atonement. On the contrary, it even nullifies what otherwise would have been atonement. The meaning of the words לכפר בקודש must then be “with the intention of achieving atonement in the Sanctuary.”
      There is a sage who holds that the sin offering of which our verse speaks becomes invalidated only if the priest had sprinkled some of that blood on the golden altar, not if he had merely brought it within the confines of the Sanctuary. 
      There is yet another sage who understands our verse as speaking of the type of sin offering whose blood is meant to be sprinkled inside the Sanctuary on the golden altar in the Sanctuary, and that the Torah merely informs us that it is forbidden for the priests to consume any parts of that type of sin offering. We can therefore understand the meaning of the words לכפר בקודש as quite literally: “the one that requires to be brought into the Sanctuary in order to achieve atonement, etc.’
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   עור העולה אשר הקריב, לכהן לו יהיה, “the skin of the burnt offering which he presented shall belong to the priest who performed this procedure.” Although this legislation is spelled out only in connection with the burnt offering, the same rule applies to the skins of sin-offerings or guilt-offerings. However, the skin of peace-offerings,זבחי שלמים, belong to the respective owners of the sacrificial animals, not to the priest.
      Some sages claim that there had been no need for the Torah to spell out that the skins of sin and guilt offerings also belong to the officiating priest, seeing that even a substantial part of the meat of these offerings belongs to the priests. It is natural that the skin, something secondary, always belongs to the party to whom the flesh belongs. Seeing that no meat of the burnt offering belongs to the priest, the Torah had to specifically state that at least the skin does belong to the officiating priest.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   וכל מנחה אשר תאפה בתנור, “and any meal-offering that is baked in the oven, etc.” Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text it appears that our verse speaks of someone who had made a vow to bring one of three types of meal offerings, anyone of which is baked in an oven, תנור, a deep pan, מרחשת, or in a shallow pan, מחבת. Either of these meal offerings would belong totally and exclusively to the priest who performs the procedure. In order to avoid errors, the Torah continues with other types of meal-offerings saying that these are shared out equally among the roster, בית אב, of priests performing their duties on that day or during that week.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   וכל מנחה בלולה בשמן וחריבה, “and any meal-offering that is mixed with oil, or that is dry, etc.” this refers to a meal offering consisting only of fine flour mixed with oil, or even a totally dry meal offering, one that does not fit into any of the three categories mentioned in the earlier verse. The reason why the three categories of meal offering mentioned in verse nine belong exclusively to the officiating priest is that the preparation of such baked goods requires a great deal more work on the part of the priest, and the Torah rewards him for that work.
      However, our sages do not accept this kind of reasoning, as they interpret the statement וכל מנחה בלולה בשמן, וחריבה as including every possible category of meal offering baked or not, seeing that every meal offering is either mixed with oil or is dry, and the Torah writes that all the male priests may share in it equally. They therefore understand the words לכהן המקריב אותה לו יהיה to mean that any priests who are qualified to present such an offering, i.e. they are not in a state of ritual impurity are called מקריבים, as they always act as the appointees of the owners, the ones who themselves, personally, are prevented from performing this service due to their not being priests. What is written here concerning who participates in the consuming of the meal offerings, applies equally to the priests who may partake of the meat offerings, i.e. the members of the roster of priests on duty on that day.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   והקריב על זבח התודה, “he shall offer with the meat part of the thanksgiving offering, etc.” The thanksgiving offering consists of several parts, a peace offering described as זבח השלמים, breads, both unleavened and leavened. He will bring it all to the (side of) the altar and the leavened loaves will be considered the major component [although they are 10 loaves out of a total of forty loaves. Ed.] The reason that the Torah uses the word עליו, “in addition to it,” stressing that the leavened loaves are the principal component, is because the unleavened loaves outnumber the leavened loaves and we would otherwise have thought that they outrank the leavened loaves in that offering.
      Nachmanides writes that he is amazed that the Torah did not exclude the thanksgiving offering as one to which the prohibition of bringing it to the altar is applied, just as it did state this in connection with bringing of the בכורים, the first fruit offerings. [I suppose the references are to Leviticus 2,12 where no mention of exceptions are made at all, and Leviticus 23,17 where the Torah specifically exempts this offering by writing it is to consist of leavened loaves. I have not yet found where Nachmanides writes what our author attributes to him. Maybe Nachmanides’ comment on verse 14 is meant. Ed.]
      Nachmanides poses a problem that is no problem at all, seeing that in the prohibition of leavened products for the altar, the Torah stresses that bringing leavened products to the altar is prohibited. Seeing that the loaves of these offerings mentioned here are not presented on the altar, they are in a different category and cannot be lumped together with the firstling offerings mentioned elsewhere. The loaves of the thanksgiving offering are only heaved by the priest, but not deposited on the altar. Seeing they are all being consumed, what would be the point in depositing them on the altar where things are deposited for burning up? Nachmanides also suggests that seeing that the ריח ניחוח, pleasant fragrance, enjoyed by G’d, is not an issue in these offerings, the donor not having to restore himself in G’d’s grace, there was no need at all to refer to the admissibility or not of leavened products.
      Perhaps there was not even any cause for the Torah to mention any of this dispensation of the restriction on offering leavened products on the altar, seeing that this offering was accompanied by animal sacrifices which achieved the ריח ניחוח status through the parts of it which were burned up on the altar. At any rate, -Nachmanides- speaking, I have already pointed out earlier that the need for ריח ניחוח is not an issue in voluntary offerings at all, as the people presenting those had not fallen out of grace with G’d, and would not regain their grace except by presenting something described as ריח ניחוח. 
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  ויאכל, וממחרת, והנותר ממנו יאכל, “it shall be consumed, and on the day following; any leftovers may be consumed;” <i>Rashi</i> writes that the letter ו in the word והנותר is superfluous. Nachmanides, on the other hand, writes that he understands as follows: Seeing that the Torah had written that the thanksgiving offering may (or must) be eaten on the same day or the day following, I might have thought that it is a <i>mitzvah</i> to spread the eating of this sacrifice over two days, i.e. the donor eats some of it on each of these days. This is why the Torah refers to the נותר, to any part that had not yet been eaten as a “leftover,” so that we understand that permission to eat the leftover on the second day has been given, but it is certainly not mandatory to keep some of that meat for the second day. At the end of the second day, if there is still some leftover it must be burned.
  
  Verse 17
  
   והנותר מבשר הזבח ביום השלישי באש ישרף. “And what is left over of the meat of the sacrifice on the third day must be burned.” This does not mean that this meat is permitted to be eaten during the night between the second and the third day, seeing that the Torah had already said that it must be eaten during the day on which it was slaughtered or the day following. (verse 16) The meaning of the directive is simply that any sacrificial meat from that offering which has not been consumed during the permitted time must be burned on the third day. The reason the Torah had to be so specific is to teach us that the burning of sacred meats that have not been consumed must only take place by day, not by night. This is so, in spite of the fact, that those remains no longer are fit to be eaten.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   כי כל אוכל חלב מן הבהמה אשר יקריב ממנה קרבן לה', “for any one who eats of the fat parts of the animal which he offers to <i>Hashem</i> as a sacrifice, etc.” The verse does not refer to the actual animal that has been offered as a sacrifice, so that it would exclude animals that have not been sanctified as offerings from this prohibition, but to the categories of animals which may potentially be offered as sacrifices on the altar. The fact that the fat of an animal that has already been offered as a sacrifice is forbidden on pain of the <i>karet</i> penalty when it is done deliberately, certainly does not need to be mentioned here. Even in <i>Parshat Vayikra</i> (3,17) the verse כל חלב... לא תאכלו would not have been necessary seeing that the Torah had already commanded that it be burned up on the altar. The principal reason for our verse here is to indicate that the fat parts of free roaming animals such as gazelles, deer, etc., which basically are allowed to be eaten, although capturing them unblemished may be difficult, are excluded from the prohibition. We might have thought that the categories of animals referred to as חיה that is a sub category of the ruminants described by the Torah as בהמה are included in this prohibition. By ”repeating” something we knew already, the Torah by emphasizing the words בהמה and יקריב, makes clear that free-roaming ruminants that do not qualify for יקריב are also not subject to the restriction of חלב. In order for us not to think that the חלב of an animal that died of causes other than ritual slaughter, i.e. a נבלה or an animal that died from some disease or injury, i.e. טרפה, is excluded from the legislation mentioned here, the Torah writes that although these carcasses may be used, they must not be eaten. (verse 24)
      The complete meaning of our verse is: the חלב of any category of animal from which a sacrifice on the altar may be presented to <i>Hashem</i>, including those which have become disqualified before reaching the altar, must not be eaten on pain of the severe penalty known as <i>karet</i>.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
   אשר צוה ה' לתת להם ביום משחו אותם, “which <i>Hashem</i> has commanded to give to them on the day of His having anointed them, etc.” The meaning of the words is: “which on the day He ordered them to be anointed, He made their appointment permanent, hereditary, throughout the ages.”
      Ibn Ezra understands the words ביום משחו as if the Torah had written מיום משחו, “from the day He had anointed them onwards.”
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
   אשר צוה את משה בהר סיני, “that He had commanded Moses at Mount Sinai.” Nachmanides writes that this is to be understood in accordance with the view of our sages that all commandments had been commanded to Moses at Mount Sinai, but that some of them had been repeated to him when G’d spoke to him from above the Holy Ark in the Tent of Testimony.     It is possible that the reason why the Torah emphasized “at Mount Sinai,” especially in this instance, is that on this occasion, when the Israelites were still camped around the mountain, speaking to Moses in the Tent of Testimony was basically equivalent to speaking to him from Mount Sinai. This is not the only time when the Torah uses the expression בהר סיני when it does not literally man that the command was (only) issued while Moses was on the mountain. In Numbers 28,6 we find the line עולת תמיד העשויה בהר סיני, “the permanent, (daily) burnt offering presented at Mount Sinai.” [This verse follows the appointment of Eleazar as his father Aaron’s successor as high Priest and a report of his having performed his duties for the first time. well into the 40th year of the Israelites in the desert. Ed.] Performance of this offering could not have commenced at the time Moses received the Torah at Mount Sinai, as it was offered in the Tent of Testimony only close to eleven months after the revelation. The Tent of Testimony had not begun operating until the month of <i>Nissan</i> in the second year. The reason why this slightly misleading wording was chosen, was that at the time when this offering was first introduced as a daily offering the Israelites were still encamped around Mount Sinai [until the 20th of the month following. Ed.] The people were commanded to divide their encampments according to the “flags” of the various army groups of three tribes each in the second year, and only then was the Tabernacle, Tent of Meeting, moved from a location close to where they had encamped ever since the time they arrived near the Mountain, between 3 and 6 days before the revelation. In order to make this distinction even clearer, the Torah writes: (7,37) זאת התורה לעולה, למנחה, ולחטאת ולאשם ולמלואים ולזבח השלמים אשר צוה ה' את משה בהר סיני ביום צוותו את בני ישראל להקריב את קרבניהם לה' במדבר סיני. “This is the law of the burnt offerings, the meal offerings, the sin offering, and the guilt offering, and the inauguration offerings, and the peace offerings on festivals, which <i>Hashem</i> commanded Moses on Mount Sinai, on the day He commanded the Children of Israel to bring their offerings to <i>Hashem</i>, in the wilderness of Sinai.” The Torah makes the point that the location of the Children of Israel at the time was the desert of Sinai, after they had moved away some distance from Mount Sinai. The tent of Meeting therefore was located in “the desert of Sinai,” not next to Mount Sinai. When the Book of Leviticus had commenced with the words: “the Lord spoke to Moses from the Tent of Testimony,” the meaning is that this conversation took place not at Mount Sinai but in the desert not far from Mount Sinai. We had not known the precise location of the Tabernacle at that time until we came to this verse    
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   קח את אהרן, “take Aaron, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the chapter introduced here was said by G’d to Moses seven days prior to the erection of the Tabernacle.     Nachmanides takes issue with <i>Rashi</i>, asking why he takes such liberties with the Divine words of the Torah by editing their sequence. Furthermore, he (<i>Rashi</i>) claims that on that first day of <i>Nissan</i> G’d told Moses all about the erection of the Tabernacle, the inaugural consecration offerings, the garments of the priests and their having to be being clothed in them, etc., but reporting only about what Moses had done during the seven days following without mentioning anything about what Aaron and his sons had done until this moment. How would <i>Rashi</i> explain that in this instance an event has been reported in two entirely different contexts? When we encounter the Torah reporting matters not in chronological order, at least the same subject is not torn asunder by some parts being reported in one Book, in one context, and the other part in a different Book in another context?     Therefore, the correct interpretation of what happened must be that Moses was indeed commanded concerning all of the foregoing on the occasion when he put up the Tabernacle for the first time, on the 23rd of Adar. After having succeeded in putting it up completely on that occasion, G’d called to him, and instructed him concerning all the various offerings which we have read about ever since the beginning of <i>Parshat Vayikra,</i> because He wanted Moses to be familiar with all of them before the time came to make this part of the daily routine and before he would offer up any of them during the days that he would act as High Priest pro temp. After all, the consecration offerings consisted of burnt offerings, sin-offerings, and peace offerings. The priests were not familiar with the laws governing all of the offerings until they had learned what has been written in the Torah from the beginning of <i>Parshat Vayikra</i> until here.     After having made Moses familiar with these laws, G’d told Moses to take Aaron, (8,2) to “take Aaron, etc.,” and to exercise speed and dedication when performing these various procedures. G’d repeated, to a certain extent, what He had told Moses וזה אשר תעשה להם וגו', (Exodus 29,1) when he had been commanded about the inaugural consecration offerings of the priests. Moses conveyed these laws to the priests as and when their performance became imminent, after they had been informed that G’d had selected them to their new status as a status transmitted by heredity based on paternity. The only thing that has been added in our verse is that this consecration took place in full view of the entire congregation. (Verse 3) Thus far Nachmanides.     We are able also to explain what <i>Rashi</i> has said by following the same approach. What <i>Rashi</i> meant when he referred to the seven days prior to the erection of the Tabernacle simply refers to the period before the Tabernacle had been erected permanently, i.e. was not taken apart again every evening. The “final” erection of the Tabernacle occurred only on the eighth day of the inaugural consecration rites, on the first day of Nissan. Days during which the Tabernacle was alternately put together and taken apart were not considered as “after the erecting of the Tabernacle.” 
     ואת כל העדה הקהל אל פתח אהל מועד, “and assemble the entire congregation to the entrance of the tent of Meeting!” Even though the Tabernacle had been erected on the first of <i>Nissan</i>, and this occurred on the 23rd of Adar prior to that, according to the opinion that during the first seven days of the Tabernacle it was erected and taken apart by Moses on a daily basis during those days, seeing that during these seven days the Tabernacle was in position during the day, it is quite appropriate for the Torah to refer to an entrance of the “Tent of Meeting.” 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   וירחץ אותם במים, “he immersed them in water.” Nachmanides writes that he believes that most likely Moses immersed all of them (Aaron and his four sons) in a ritual bath; however, he did not immerse them in such a bath simultaneously, but he first immersed Aaron and then dressed him in the appropriate priestly garments; anointing him. Following this, he performed the same procedure on each of Aaron’s sons.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויתן עליו את הכתונת ויחגור אותו באבנט, “he placed the tunic on him and girdled him with the sash.” Nachmanides points out that when Moses was commanded to dress Aaron, the Torah writes:והלבשת את אהרן את הכתונת ואת מעיל האפוד, “you are to dress him in the tunic and the robe with the<i> ephod,”</i> whereas here no mention is made of the robe and the <i>ephod.</i> The reason may be that actually Moses followed the normal procedure. It is customary that after putting on the tunic that one girdles oneself with a belt. Seeing that the Torah had wanted to include all the garments in a single instruction, the belt had been mentioned last on that occasion, including both Aaron and his sons in the instruction to belt their garments. Nevertheless, the normal sequence was that reported here, i.e. donning a tunic followed by tightening it with the belt, followed by donning the robe. Moses was well aware of these procedures, but in this instance it was of importance that the <i>ephod</i> and the breastplate attached to it, also had to be somehow attached to the belt. The Torah, during its instructions concerning these garments, and the sequence in which they were to be donned, describes this in the second half of chapter 28 in Exodus, and makes these connections fairly plain. [I have abbreviated here, as without an illustration this is not easy to follow. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   [This apparent error in the sequence (we already had reference to verse 12) is not an error on my part, but I am copying the sequence as printed in my version of the <i>Tur,</i> where this does not appear in the corrections at the end as an error. Ed.]    ויז ממנו על המזבח, “he sprinkled from it on the altar, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> claims that he does not know whence Moses had been instructed to do this.     Nachmanides feels that it is possible that this was included in the verse in which the altar had been sanctified, i.e. in the instructions commencing in Exodus According to verse 10 of that chapter, the altar was to be both anointed and sanctified, as a result of which it would become “holy of holies.” The implication of the wording is that the additional sanctification may have been achieved through the sprinkling of this blood on the altar seven times. The sanctity status of the altar exceeded that of the rest of the Tabernacle because the altar had not only been anointed with the special oil, but had also had sacrificial blood sprinkled on it. It is no more than logical that the “additional” sanctity achieved by the altar was the result of it having been treated like the people who actively presented the offerings in the Tabernacle, i.e. by being anointed also with the same oil. 
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויצוק על ראש אהרן, “he then poured it on the head of Aaron, etc.”
      Nachmanides writes that in this instance too, Moses performed the procedures in the correct order, as he had been commanded to perform these steps in this order when first told about the oil of anointing (Exodus 30,26-30) This was the reason that Moses did not want to anoint the Tabernacle itself until he could immediately thereafter anoint Aaron and his sons and their garments. The entire procedure of anointing took place as a continuous sequence. This was all necessary to enable the party who offered the sacrifices to be invited into the Tabernacle to perform the duties that could be performed only inside the Sanctuary, such as lighting the <i>Menorah,</i> burning the incense, and sprinkling the blood of certain of the sin-offerings on the golden altar. In those verses Moses had been told to first anoint he Tabernacle followed by the command to anoint and thereby to sanctify Aaron and his sons. [No mention is made in the text of the sons of Aaron having been anointed with oil. Ed.] Aaron and his sons were also to be sprinkled with some of the blood from the altar of the inaugural consecration offerings that had been presented by Moses as the High Priest prior to Aaron’s induction. Normally, [i.e. when the occasion should arise again to anoint a Tabernacle or Temple, I presume, Ed.] this would not take place until after the priests had already donned the garments in which they would perform their service. Anyone perusing the text of Nachmanides as we have it nowadays will note that it is substantially different from that which had been at the disposal of the <i>Tur</i>. It is not my task as a translator to reconcile these versions, and if the reader on comparing texts, finds fault with my translation this may be due to my following the <i>Tur’s</i> quote of Nachmanides, as he had it. Ed.]
      Personally, I am nonplussed why the anointing of Aaron’s sons is mentioned here at all. [An alternate version adds the word “not” i.e. why the anointing of the sons of Aaron was not mentioned here at all. Ed.]
      Nachmanides writes [in our versions on verse 11. Ed.] that there was no need for mentioning the anointing of the sons of Aaron at all, as it is clear from the tenor of the text that the sons underwent the same procedures as their father. After all, the Torah wrote when detailing the instructions to Moses: ומשחת אותם, “you are to anoint them.” (Exodus 28,41) The fact that Moses had carried out these instructions is confirmed when the Torah writes that Moses carried out the instructions G’d had given him. (End of verse 13)
      It appears to me (Nachmanides writing) that the anointment of Aaron’s sons was not performed by pouring oil of anointment on their heads, seeing that this detail has not been mentioned except in connection with Aaron himself even in the instructions to Moses, (compare Exodus 29,7) whereas in that verse the Torah does not mention anointment of his sons at all. It is therefore possible that the sons were not anointed with oil at all, but that they were only sprinkled with some of the blood and the oil of the inaugural offering as described in Exodus 29,21 [a sprinkling which stained their garments, not their bodies. Ed.] In that paragraph no mention is made of either pouring oil on the sons of Aaron or of anointing their heads with it. However, in the paragraph dealing with the erection of the Tabernacle in <i>Parshat Pekudey</i> (40,15) the Torah does speak of Moses having to anoint Aaron’s sons with the words: “as you have done to their father.” On that occasion no mention is made of their being sprinkled at all. No mention is made of this anointing with oil of the sons of Aaron in the paragraph dealing with the oil of anointing and its subjects, either. This leads me to believe that the sons were only sprinkled with oil.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויחטא את המזבח, “he enabled the altar to dispense atonement.” According to <i>Rashi</i> this was done by removing its former status as being profane, making it sacred.
  
     ויקדשהו, “he sanctified it;” by means of the service performed on it now, for the future also.
  
     לכפר עליו, “to provide atonement on it.” For all subsequent generations.
      We learn from here that the fact that the meat of the inaugural offering which had not yet been consumed by the flames on the altar, did not hold up the altar’s ability to confer atonement on the people who had so far presented an offering on this altar.
      In a תוספתא discussing the subject of מלואים, it is stated that if someone donates anything against his better judgment (not from free volition) this gift may act as advance protection for him so that he will not become guilty of bringing stolen goods to the Temple, something of which G’d is on record as saying שונא גזל בעולה, “He hates it if the burnt offering had been obtained unlawfully.” (Compare <i>Sukkah</i> 30) [I do not know of a “<i>Tossephta miluim,</i> but I found something similar to this in the <i>Sifra</i>.קפ Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ואת הפר ואת עורו ואת בשרו ואת פרשו, “and the bull with it hide, flesh and its waste.” Even though the Torah had already mentioned the hide, the flesh and the waste separately, the Torah still wrote “and” the bull, thereby including bones, tendons horns and hooves that had not been spelled out.
      Alternately, the ו in the word ואת preceding the word עורו is extraneous, similar to Numbers 19,5 ושרף את הפרה לעיניו, את עורה ואת בשרה ואת דמה על פרשה ישרוף, “Someone shall burn the cow before his eyes, its hide, and its flesh, and its blood, with its dung, shall he burn.”
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויקטר משה את הראש ואת הנתחים ואת הפדר., “Moses burned up the head, the various parts, and the fat parts to go up in smoke.” The meaning is not that Moses burned up all these parts separately at different times, but it means that when the time for burning up these parts had arrived he proceeded to do so, as instructed.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   את האיל השני איל המלואים, “the second ram, the ram representing the inauguration;” Nachmanides writes that all of these offerings were inaugural offerings; we know this already from Exodus 29,1 “and this is the matter that you shall do for them to sanctify them, etc.” Why then was the second ram only referred to here as the “ram of the inaugural offering?” The reason this expression “inaugural” was applied here to the second ram is because it was the last of the series of inaugural offerings. The same adjective would, of course, have been applicable to all of them. Each one of the offerings in the series is מעכב, indispensable, in order for the people concerned to become sanctified in their new role as priests.
      It is possible that the bull of the sin-offering here was meant to atone for any infringement of the laws concerning the altar, as a result of which atonement it could be sanctified, just as the purpose of the burnt offering was to gain grace in the eyes of <i>Hashem. The shlamim,</i> peace<i>-</i>offering on the other hand, was an expression of gratitude by the newly appointed priests that G’d had granted them such a distinction to have such unrestricted entrance to the holy precincts. In other words, the real “consecration” offering was only this peace offering; the other two offerings were preambles. Seeing that they were necessary preconditions, all of these three types of offerings are called מילואים, (plural mode 
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   ויקח משה משמן המשחה ומן הדם אשר על המזבח, “Moses took from the oil of the anointing, and from the blood on the altar, etc.” Nachmanides writes that it is not clear to him why the procedure of sprinkling the oil and blood on Aaron and his sons was delayed until after the burning up of the מילואים offerings that required this. When you compare the directives Moses had received concerning these offerings, you will find that the sprinklings are mentioned prior to the burning up of the parts on the altar that required this. (Compare Exodus 29,21). Possibly, the reason is that during the directives the Torah speaks of the priests and their garments becoming sanctified as a result of this sprinkling. From this wording Moses might have concluded that the final stage in the sanctification of the priests and their garments would not be attained until then. It is a fact that during the directives in chapter 29 of Exodus no mention is made of sanctification. [I believe the author means that no procedure there is described as specifically designed to sanctify the priest, as for instance portions of the meat of the איל המילואים are specifically described as undergoing sanctification procedure (verse 27.] In connection with putting the blood from the sacrifice on Aaron’s right ear or big toe, we also do not encounter the word קדוש at all. When we read in verse 12 of our chapter וימשח אותו לקדשו, that Moses anointed him in order to sanctify him, we must assume that this was only a partial sanctification, and that the procedure would only be completed with ויקדש את אהרן את בגדיו ואת בגדי בניו אתו , “he sanctified Aaron, his garments, and his sons and their garments at the same time.” Sanctification of father and sons was described as being complete as a result of these sprinklings.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   והנותר בבשר ובלחם, “and any leftover of either the meat or the bread, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the letters ב in front of the words בשר and לחם have to be understood as if the Torah had written מבשר ומלחם, i.e. “leftovers from.” The meaning of the word נותר does not mean something left over until the morning, seeing this had already been written in Exodus
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   ופתח אהל מועד תשבו יומם ולילה שבעת ימים, “at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting shall you dwell day and night for seven days.” We are taught in <i>Torat Kohanim</i> that this is not a prohibition not to leave this spot during the entire seven days, but the meaning is that during the daylight hours when Temple service may be in progress, Aaron and his sons are not to leave that location. We derive the rule from this verse for all future generations that any priest who abandons his station during the hours that Temple service is ongoing is guilty of death 
  
  
  Verse 36
  
   את כל הדברים אשר צוה ה' ביד משה, “all the matters which <i>Hashem</i> had commanded through Moses. Nachmanides writes that the reason the Torah does not use the customary wording of כאשר צוה ה' את משה, is because Aaron’s sons did not do exactly as G’d had commanded Moses, by adding strange fire, i.e. fire that did not originate in heaven. They had not been instructed to do this.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהי ביום השמיני ...ויאמר אל אהרן וגו', “It was on the eighth day…he said to Aaron, etc.” Up until now the Torah did not spell out which of the sacrifices mentioned had been commanded to Moses in which order, and the Torah contented itself with writing: זה הדבר אשר צוה ה' תעשו, “this is the matter which the Lord has commanded you are to do,” and the sacrifices mentioned here in our portion had not been recorded as being specifically commanded to Moses to command to Aaron and the Children of Israel respectively. Now- as opposed to the seven days previously when Moses had been offering the מילואים inaugural sacrifices,- Aaron and his sons, and subsequently he and his sons on behalf of the people at large, will perform these procedures. The sacrifices mentioned here served as consecration sacrifices for the people. 
      The מנחה gift offering that Aaron was to bring with the sin offering and the burnt offering was the חביטים offering he was required to offer every single day of the year.
      The <i>Midrash</i> suggests that the calf that Aaron was instructed to offer here served as a sin offering for his share in the sin of the golden calf.
      Nachmanides writes that Aaron’s sacrifice here was no different in nature from his personal sin offering on the Day of Atonement, and the sin offering on behalf of the people also corresponded to the sin offering he brought on behalf of the people on the Day of Atonement, when he offered a he-goat as their sin offering. It would appear therefore that seeing that the reason for Aaron’s sin-offering corresponded to his sin offering on the Day of Atonement, he burned it, just as he burned the one on the Day of Atonement. This was so, in spite of the fact, that this sin offering was offered on the large altar in the courtyard of the Tabernacle, and part of such sin-offerings are usually consumed by the male priests within the holy precincts. (Zevachim, chapter 5) Though we do not hear that Moses had instructed him to burn this sin offering, it is possible that he had received such instructions and the Torah did not bother to inform us of this. There was no need for the Torah to mention the directive, as clearly, Aaron would not proceed on his own initiative to offer an offering he had not been told to offer.
      There is a further statement in the <i>Midrash</i> to the effect that the שור, bull, was intended as atonement for the Israelites’ share in the sin of the golden calf, and that the reason that here a male goat was added was to atone for the brothers having dipped Joseph’s coloured tunic in the blood of a male goat at the time, a sin which had not yet been atoned for. [According to an ancient version of the <i>Tanchuma,</i> this was to reassure the Israelites that the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ואל בני ישראל תדבר לאמר, “and to the Children of Israel say as follows:” Moses told Aaron to speak to the Israelites directly and command them in the name of the Lord. This was meant to enhance Aaron’s status among the people seeing that it was he who performed all these rites on behalf of the people. 
      If not for this reason it would have been appropriate for Moses to also include the elders in his address to Aaron, seeing that the elders had been mentioned in verse one as having been called to Moses’ presence also. But Moses was anxious for the people to be addressed by Aaron separately, independently of the elders. When the people had been instructed that each Israelite householder was to secure a lamb for the Passover, (Exodus 12,21) Moses had allowed all the elders to convey that directive. [The latter paragraph is phrased in a manner that could suggest that it is a retreat from the author’s first interpretation. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  ויקרב אהרן אל המזבח וישחט, “Aaron approached the altar and slaughtered;” Nachmanides writes that in his personal view, the plain meaning of the words קרב אל המזבח is that Aaron is to approach the north side of the altar where he is to perform the procedures involving the sin offering and the burnt offering, seeing these two types of offerings need to be slaughtered on the north side of the altar. (<i>Zevachim</i> chapter 5<i>)</i> The catching of the blood of these offerings must also be carried out on the north side of the altar in the appropriate vessels. Moses recorded this in abbreviated form as Aaron was already familiar with the procedure.     According to a <i>Midrash,</i> seeing that Aaron was a קדוש ה', someone sanctified by <i>Hashem,</i> his life having been stained only by one marginal sin, his involvement in the sin of the golden calf, this sin was something which preyed on his mind constantly, similar to David’s remark וחטאתי נגדי תמיד, “and I am constantly conscious of my sin against You.“ (Psalms 51, 5) He felt that the image of the golden calf constantly intruded upon his imagination and interfered with the proper concentration required when presenting sacrifices on behalf of others. This is why Moses tried to restore his mental equilibrium by telling him not to be depressed, that G’d had already forgiven his involvement in that sin.     Some commentators think that it had been Satan that had shown Aaron these images of the golden calf, and that Moses told Aaron that in spite of he fact that as far as G’d was concerned, his sin had been forgiven, he also had to do something to shut up Satan so that the latter would not be able to upset him at the crucial time when he would perform sacrificial duties. This is the approach taken to our verse by <i>Torat Kohanim.</i> 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויקרב את המנחה, “he presented the <i>minchah</i> offering.” Although in the directives, he had first been told about offering a bull and a ram, followed by the gift offering mixed with oil, he offered the gift offering first, because Moses had told them all the meat offerings in one directive followed by the instruction about the gift offering. Aaron actually offered the gift offering in the proper order simultaneously with the meat offering.
  
     מלבד עולת הבוקר, “in addition to the daily burnt offering which was presented each morning.” Nachmanides writes that the Torah had to record this additional detail (about the daily burnt offering in the morning) in order to teach us that an offering brought on behalf of the whole people, such as here- cannot replace the daily mandatory communal offering known as <i>tamid.</i> (Called here עולת הבוקר). Not only this, but the daily <i>tamid</i> is offered before any other offering, communal or private. Actually, if not for teaching us this aspect of the daily communal <i>tamid,</i> there was no need to make special mention of this during the days of the inaugural offerings, seeing those were not communal offerings but private offerings, which had been designed to serve as the introduction of the priests to their position as the people’s intermediary between themselves and G’d. Therefore, there had not been the slightest reason to assume that their offerings could replace the daily <i>tamid.</i>
      This may be the reason why in the <i>Torat Kohanim</i> the reference is understood as pertaining only to the libation offering, מנחת נסכים, which accompanied the daily <i>tamid,</i> and which was considered a private offering, the wording here teaches that both these libation offerings were presented.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   והמכסה, “and the covering fats;” <i>Rashi</i> claims that this abbreviated reference refers to the fat membranes covering various innards.”
      Nachmanides queries this interpretation, asking why this fat part should be singled out for special mention? He therefore explains that the word המכסה sums up all the fat parts which cover the innards, be it kidneys, parts of the liver, etc, Any fat part offered on the altar and burned up there is included in the term המכסה. Whereas a distinction is made between חלב על and חלב המכסה, when it comes to its function on the altar, there is no such distinction. Basically, our verse refers to what has been written before beginning with the words וימציאו in the middle of verse 18. From the word ומן האיל (המציאו) in verse 19 what is written belongs to what follows in the text. In other words, the parts mentioned after ומן האיל were all burned up on the altar.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   וישימו את החלבים על החזות, “they positioned the fat parts on top of the breasts;” The fat tail, the kidneys and the attachment to the liver would be placed below; above that would be placed the various parts of fatty substance; both of these would be placed above the breasts of the animals From the outside only the fatty membranes would be visible; this was out of consideration for the “dignity” of the remnants of the animals.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   וישא אהרן את ידיו אל העם ויברכם, “Aaron raised his hands toward the people and blessed them.” <i>Rashi</i> says that he blessed them with the standard blessing of the priests, the verses 24-26 in Numbers chapter 6.
      Nachmanides comments that if this were so then the paragraph in Numbers must have been inserted in the Torah out of turn. It is quite possible that this is indeed so, seeing that the paragraph following the blessing there dealt with events which occurred on the day the erecting of the Tabernacle was completed, i.e. the 1st day of <i>Nissan</i> of the second year, the day when the inaugural offerings were completed also. It is quite possible that Aaron raised his hands heavenwards, as did King Solomon when he blessed the people when the Temple was inaugurated (Kings I 8,22) If Aaron used the standard blessing used by the priests, this would account for the fact that we did not hear Moses instruct him to bless the people.
  
     וירד מעשות החטאת והעולה והשלמים, “he descended from having performed the sin-offering, the burnt offering, and the peace-offering.” The Torah does not mention Aaron having also performed the <i>minchah,</i> gift offering. Some commentators claim that seeing that the gift offering is only an offering preparatory to ensuring that the major part of offering is acceptable to <i>Hashem,</i> there was no need to mention this. We must assume that the Torah only bothered to mention the animal sacrifices.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויבא משה ואהרן, “Moses and Aaron came (to the tent of Meeting);” According to <i>Rashi,</i> the reason Moses entered was to teach Aaron the details of the presentation of the incense. All the commentators wonder why Moses delayed this part of Aaron’s instructions until this late stage, seeing that the offering of the incense is slated to take place between the sprinkling of the blood and the burning up of the portions of the daily <i>tamid</i> sacrifice that needs to be burned up on the altar? The answer given is that up until his point the heavenly fire that was to consume this offering had not yet materialized. Moses wanted to await that happening.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ותצא אש מלפני ה' וגו', “fire came forth from <i>Hashem</i>, and consumed the burnt offering on the altar.” According to the sages who accuse the sons of Aaron Nadav and Avihu of having entered the holy precincts while in a state of inebriation, although no decree had yet been issued to forbid this, and we have a rule that no death penalty is applied unless the guilty party had first been warned that what he was about to do would carry such a penalty, one must assume that they were punished for something for which punishment had been withheld thus far, and now that the opportunity of further indictment presented itself, the penalty for prior misconduct was enacted. This answer would also explain why the method of their death was by burning, seeing that the death penalty for entering the holy precincts in a state of intoxication would be punishable by a different death penalty.     Nachmanides argues that they were not punished because they were intoxicated, but hat it was their intoxication which led them to commit an error that carried the death penalty. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  הוא אשר דבר ה' לאמור, “of this did G’d speak, saying:” <i>Rashi</i> claims that G’d referred to Exodus 29,43 ונועדתי שמה לבני ישראל ונקדש בכבודי, “I shall set My meeting there with the Children of Israel, and I will be sanctified with My glory.”     Some commentators hold that G’d referred to Exodus 19,22 וגם הכהנים הנגשים אל ה' יתקדשו, “even the priests who approach <i>Hashem</i> shall sanctify themselves lest He burst forth against them.”     Nachmanides writes there is no need to search for relevant verses, for G’d can issue decrees at any time in any place, such as when the angel speaking through the mouth of Bethuel announced (Genesis 24,51) “let her become the wife of your master’s son.” [This is strange as Nachmanides does not offer this comment in his commentary on that verse. Presumably, the fact that a man such as Bethuel quoted G’d as having said this, showed that he was being manipulated by G’d. Ed,. The expression כאשר דבר ה' in the mouth of Bethuel means “as G’d has decreed.” Here too Moses means to tell Aaron that what happened was nothing else but a decree of <i>Hashem.</i> He softens the blow by saying that G’d, by killing the sons of Aaron at this stage, had tried to prevent them who are so near to Him by dint of being priests, i.e. בקרןבי, from becoming guilty of an unforgivable trespass, i.e. their ruining His sanctity. 
     ועל פני כל העם אכבד, “so that I will be honoured in full view of all the people.” In order that the people will treat My Residence with the proper reverence in future. 
     וידום אהרן, “Aaron remained silent.” Nachmaides writes that Aaron wept aloud, after which he remained silent. We find the same meaning of the word וידום in Lamentations 2,18 אל תדום בת עיניך, “give your eyes no rest (from weeping)!” 
  
  Verse 4
  
   ויקרא משה אל מישאל ואל אלצפן, “Moses called upon Mishael and Eltzafan, etc.“ <i>Torat Kohanim</i> derives from here that priests are forbidden to defile themselves ritually on dead bodies, seeing that neither Ittamar nor Eleazar, the brothers of the deceased, were allowed to perform burial rites on them. This statement raises questions seeing that the Torah specifically permitted priests who are brothers of the deceased to defile themselves, compare Leviticus In view of this, why were Eleazar and Ittamar not permitted to defile themselves here? We need to answer this by saying that even an ordinary priest, on the day when he has been consecrated, is treated as if he were a High Priest who is not allowed to defile himself for the sake of next of kin, except if a deceased has no one else who can attend to his interment, and this tragic death occurred on the very day that Eleazar and Ittamar had been anointed as priests. In light of this, we can now also understand why the Torah (verse 6) here commands both Aaron, Elezar, and Ittamar must not leave the hair of their head unshorn nor rend their garments as a sign of mourning even though elsewhere we do not know of such a restriction applying to ordinary priests.
      Nachmanides writes that what took place on that occasion was dictated by extraordinary circumstances. There is no question that the High Priest is enjoined not to leave the hair of his head unshorn and not to rend his clothing as a sign of mourning, as he is not allowed to leave the precincts of the Temple during a period when he is supposed to perform his duties in the Temple, in order to attend the funeral of his next of kin. By doing so, he would desecrate the sanctity of the Temple. The reason is that his appointment, i.e. appointment to his position as High Priest, is a round the clock position seven days a week, and this is demonstrated by the Torah demanding that even when in a state of <i>aninut,</i> the period between the death of a near relative and the burial of that relative, a period when performance of the מצוות, commandments is temporarily suspended, he must not abandon his post in the Temple. 
      Ordinary priests, by contrast, are not allowed to perform their duties in the Temple when in such a state of pre-burial mourning for their relatives, the state we call <i>aninut.</i> Seeing that their duties in the Temple are temporarily suspended, they are obligated to attend to the needs of the relative about to be buried. This, obviously, requires that they defile themselves ritually in the process of attending to the needs of the deceased.
      In this special situation the Torah instructed more distant relatives, uncles, to perform these rites for Nadav and Avihu, This is the meaning of verse 6:ואחיכם כל בית ישראל יבכו את השרפה, “your brethren the whole house of Israel are to weep for the conflagration which <i>Hashem</i> has ignited.” Moses warned Eleazar and Ittamar concerning their ritual status on this exceptional occasion. The dominating consideration on this day was to maximise the joy over G’d’s <i>Shechinah</i> finally having become manifest again among the camp, for the first time since the sin of the golden calf. The sons of Aaron therefore were forbidden to take a leave of absence from their duties in the Tabernacle on pain of death.
      It is possible that Moses received a direct command from G’d for this special occasion, and did not improvise, even though the Torah did not see fit to record this in our text, which, after all, contains only material the relevance of which transcends time and space. He may also have learned what to do from the more general statement in Leviticus 8,35: ושמרתם את משמרת ה' ולא תמותו, “you shall observe the ordinances of the Lord so that you will not die.” It was clear to Moses that what are referred to there as משמרת ה' also applied to this eighth day of the inaugural offerings. Clearly, it had not been a secret for G’d that the day would come during these eight days when two sons of Aaron would be in the state of <i>aninut,</i> for their two older brothers. In spite of having anticipated this, G’d had formulated at this time already a statute according to which these sons of Aaron were not to leave the holy precincts, even temporarily, were not to observe the rites appropriate for brothers who are in such a state of <i>aninut.</i> They were not to observe any rite that reflected to the outside that they were in a state of mourning. At this particular time, on this special date, they were subject to the same rules as was the High Priest himself. It is even possible that during all the years when Eleazar and Ittamar performed their duties as priests, before they became physically too weak to do so, they conducted themselves exactly as if they had both been Hugh Priests, a good reason being the fact that they had both been anointed with the special oil, just as had their father, but not like their sons who were priests from birth and did not need anointing.
  
     קרבו, “approach!” <i>Torat Kohanim</i> quotes two contradictory opinions, one of which holds that the sons of Aaron died without the boundaries of the holy precincts, whereas the other opinion claims that they died within those boundaries and their bodies had to be dragged out by rope or something similar, in order not to violate the stern prohibition for a non priest to cross that boundary. The first opinion is based on the word קרבו in our verse that suggests that there was no ritual impediment to Eltzafan and Mishael taking hold of these bodies. The other opinion bases itself on the Torah describing the death of these two sons of Aaron as having occurred לפני ה', “in the presence of the <i>Shechinah,”</i> an expression referring to holy precincts. According to this latter opinion, the bodies were either dragged by rope, or by a long wooden lance, at any rate both expressions in the Torah are not irreconcilable. When it comes to the need to avoid ritual contamination through a dead body, there are no different rules for Levites, such as Eltzafan and Mishael, and for ordinary Israelites. Both are charged with removing ritual impurity from the holy precincts especially when no priest is available inside.
      According to the view that these two brothers died within the holy precincts, their bodies conferred ritual impurity on the entire Tabernacle and its contents, and in the absence of priests, anyone could have removed these bodies. However, seeing that it could be done without more ritual impurity being incurred by anyone, this is the preferable method. If anyone had had to incur ritual impurity on that account, he would have required seven days of purification rites with sprinkling of water containing the ash of the red heifer both on the third and on the seventh day during these seven days. The Tabernacle would have had to undergo a similar purification rite involving immersion in a ritual bath, <i>mikveh</i>, seeing that linen shrouds, sheets etc., are all subject to ritual contamination with the dead. Seeing that we do not hear about service in the Tabernacle having been interrupted at that time, nor that the Tabernacle was taken apart as a result of the death of the two sons of Aaron, we may assume that the deaths did not occur within the holy precincts.
      On the other hand, seeing that the rule for the Tabernacle was על פי ה' יחנו ועל פי ה' יסעו, that the people were to both encamp and start moving only at the express command of G’d, this implies that no other occurrence would demand the folding and dismantling of the Tabernacle, i.e. that it was immune to the laws of ritual purity and impurity.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ועל כל העדה יקצוף, “and He would display His anger against the entire community.” This was because the priests acted as delegates of the community, and when such delegates do not discharge their duties properly the anger against them is also transferred at least partially against the ones who delegated them.
      Some commentators understand the reference to the “entire community,” as a reference to the offerings that were brought on behalf of the whole community. The Torah would be saying that “if you the priests make any changes from the directives you have received and you eat from these sacrifices this will provoke the Lord’s anger. The sacrifices will prove unwelcome in the eyes of <i>Hashem,</i> and you as the originators of these offerings will be suffering the consequences.”
  
     ואחיכם כל בית ישראל, “and your brethren the entire house of Israel, will weep.” This verse teaches that the death of a Torah scholar is to be treated by the entire people as if they had been bereaved of a relative. 
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   יין ושכר, ”wine and strong alcoholic drink,” according to <i>Rashi</i> the Torah speaks of wine when drunk in a manner which will induce intoxication. [The word שכר referring to the effect of the wine. Ed.]
      Maimonides feels that the prohibition recorded here applies as such only to wine, and we know this from the Nazirite whom the Torah only forbade wine and grape and derivatives. According to Maimonides, other alcoholic drink is forbidden to the priest who enters the holy precincts. Being drunk on wine is punishable by premature death at the hand of heaven, whereas drunkenness incurred through other intoxicant carries the 39 lashes penalty. (Maimonides <i>Sefer Hamitzvot,</i> negative commandment #73
  
     בבאכם אל אהל מוע<i>ד,</i> “when you enter the Tent of Meeting.” <i>Torat Kohanim</i> writes that the death penalty applies only if the drunkenness occurs while the priest in question is performing his duties at the time. The meaning of the word שכר is perceived as its face value, i.e. “alcoholic, potentially intoxicating drink.”
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   שוק התרומה וחזה התנופה, “the thigh of the heaving, and the breast of the weaving.” <i>Rashi</i> already questions why the Torah describes the “raising” of the thigh with the verb רום, whereas for the raising of the breast the verb הניף is chosen. Whereas the first refers to an up and down motion, and the second refers to a sideways motion, the reason for these different motions for different parts of the animal is not clear.
      Nachmanides writes that it seems to him that during the inaugural offerings the thigh represented a תרומה, “heaving” to <i>Hashem,</i> which was burned up together with the loaves and the fat parts. The parts of the peace-offerings which qualified for this treatment were known as תרומה, “heaving,” as we know from 7,14 והקריב ממנו אחד מכל קרבן תרומה לה', “from it he shall offer one from each as an offering (heave offering) for <i>Hashem.”</i> If that was so in the case of the peace-offerings, of which only a small part is given to the priest, (as a symbolic gift to <i>Hashem)</i> the bulk of the meat being consumed by the owner of the animal, how much more so would the thigh of this inaugural offering qualify, -seeing that all of which (except the parts mentioned which were consumed by the priest) was intended for <i>Hashem</i> directly, i.e. it was consumed by the altar,- for such a procedure, and it would qualify for such a description. Although the breast and thigh were also subjected to this heaving in a vertical motion, the Torah did not mention this specifically (in addition) and preferred the description שוק התרומה, and חזה התנופה, as this was the first occasion on which this procedure with this offering occurred. The occasion was notable because on that day the priests were inducted.
  
     על אישי החלבים יביאו להניף תנופה לפני ה', “they shall present on the fat parts as a wave offering before <i>Hashem</i>.” Nachmanides explains that this verse is not the verse in which this command has been issued, but in this verse the above statement is recorded only as the reason why it was possible for the donor-Israelite to consume the remainder of the meat of these peace offerings. The reason was that prior to this the priest, as the representative of <i>Hashem,</i> had received his designated share. The words (verse 13) כי חקך וחק בניך הוא מאישי ה', “for it is your portion and the portion of your sons from the fire-offerings of <i>Hashem,”</i> set the tone for the entire subject of the peace offerings, שלמים. Once the portions to be eaten by the priests had been sanctified by this symbolic procedure of heaving and waving, the way was clear for the donors to eat the share allocated to them by the Torah.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ואותה נתן לכם לשאת את עון העדה לכפר עליכם, “seeing that He gave it to you to bear the guilt of the community, and to obtain atonement for them!” The wording here proves that the sacrificial animal of which Moses spoke was the male goat offered as sin offering on the day of the New Moon. (Compare Numbers 28,15) The function of that offering was to obtain atonement for trespasses committed involving entering or being in the holy precincts while in a state of ritual impurity, or trespasses involving consumption of parts of such offerings which had become ritually impure for some reason after their being slaughtered. Although the expression לכפר, which means “to initiate an atonement process,” is mentioned here in conjunction with the daily communal sin offering,” it occurs also with the sin offering on that occasion (Leviticus 9,7), (וכפר בעדך ובעד העם) and it also occurs in connection with the he-goat offered in order to mark this day, seeing that the atonement spoken of in the he-goat offering of the New Moon is something that repeats itself month after month throughout the ages, our sages preferred to draw upon that verse for their interpretation.
      Alternately, the additional words לכפר לפני ה', “to initiate atonement before the Lord,” suggest that the subject must be sins committed in connection with the holy precincts. [After all, any atonement is automatically one in which our ability to stand and face of <i>Hashem</i> again is involved. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   הן היום הקריבו את חטאתם, “was it they that offered their sin offering on this day?” Both the Talmud’s references to this verse, as well as those of <i>Rashi,</i> allow us to read this as a question, i.e. Moses expressing amazement to his brother Aaron that his sons, while in a state of <i>aninut,</i> had seen fit to perform their priestly duties in the Tabernacle. 
      Nachmanides claims that no <i>aninut</i> was involved, as all the duties that Eleazar and Ittamar had performed had been completed before they became bereaved of their elder brothers. In other words, the question of performing priestly duties while in a state of <i>aninut</i> did not even arise. He derives this from the verse in which Aaron is described as descending from the altar after having performed all his duties for that forenoon. (Compare 9,22) Aaron and his sons then entered the Tabernacle, and offered a prayer, and only subsequently did heavenly fire descend on the offerings presented and consumed them. After that had occurred Nadav and Avihu offered incense, using man made fire. Only then did heavenly fire descend and killed the two older sons of Aaron, Nachmanides answers the problem by saying that possibly Moses had not seen what the sons of Aaron had done, and he assumed that they might have found some blood from the he-goat which had not yet been sprinkled, and they had proceeded to sprinkle that blood.
      My sainted father of blessed memory the <i>R’osh,</i> said that what Nachmanides poses as a problem is no problem at all. The verse (9,22) describing Aaron descending and subsequently blessing the people referred only to his having completed the specific offerings of that particular day of the inaugural offerings; it did not say that Aaron had already offered the male goat as a sin-offering on account of the day being the New Moon. This offering, being a <i>mussaph</i> offering, was not yet due to have been offered, and was therefore not included in the report of Aaron having concluded his duties, in other words, the reason it had not been mentioned at all was that it had not been offered as yet.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וידבר ה' אל משה ואהרן, “<i>Hashem</i> spoke to Moses and Aaron,” even though the section commencing now applies equally to Israelites and priests, in some respects the priests are affected by it more than the ordinary Israelites, as some of the forbidden foods are apt to confer ritual impurity on the priests upon physical contact, and the priests are under constant constraints not to allow themselves to become ritually impure. Whenever the priests are in a state of impurity they cannot eat any sacrificial meat, nor may they enter the holy precincts, etc.
      Furthermore, if, inadvertently, the Israelites would commit a trespass against the legislation in this chapter, they would require the services of a priest to offer a sin offering on their behalf so as to re-establish themselves in good standing with <i>Hashem.</i>
      In addition to that, the chapter concludes (verse 47) with the need to distinguish between what is ritually pure and what is not, and it is the task of the priests to educate the Israelites at large in the laws of ritual purity. This is the reason why this legislation is included in the Book of Leviticus, a Book that deals largely with the duties and privileges of the priests.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   מכל הבהמה אשר על הארץ, “from among all the animals that are on the earth.” According to the plain meaning of the text our verse refers to animals everywhere. According to the <i>Midrash</i> the words אשר על הארץ, are intended to exclude animals whose habitat is in the waters, in the sea, as these are not subject to the identifying marks of the mammals described here.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   מבשרם לא תאכלו, “you must not eat of their flesh. According to <i>Rashi</i> this line refers to animals not listed here by name that have no distinguishing marks making them fit for consumption by Jews. We arrive at this by simple logic, seeing that the Torah forbids the eating of animals that possess only one of the two distinguishing marks.
      Nachmanides writes that if that were so we could not administer the penalty of 39 lashes to anyone eating animals that lacked both distinguishing marks, as such a penalty cannot be administered to prohibitions not specifically spelled out in the text. He claims that the ability to administer the penalty of 39 lashes to people eating animals which have neither of the two distinguishing marks is derived from the שפן, hyrax, concerning which the Torah emphasizes that though it chews the cud, it does not have split hooves, and on the other hand, the Torah spells out that the pig is forbidden though it does have split hooves because it does not chew the cud. From these two verses it is clear that any animal not possessing split hooves or/and is chewing the cud is forbidden for Israelites on pain of the penalty of 39 lashes. There is no need to apply logic, as mentioned by <i>Rashi.</i>
  
     ובנבלתם לא תגעו, “and you must not touch their carcasses.” This is not phrased as an outright prohibition, but it means that touching such a carcass confers ritual impurity on the person doing this, with all the consequences that follow, such as the inability to consume any parts of sacrificial offerings, inability to approach the consecrated ground of the Temple Mount. Our sages (<i>Rosh Hashanah</i> 16) understand the verse as a warning that one must purify oneself before the festivals requiring one’s presence in Jerusalem for offering the requisite sacrifices. At any rate, they view this as a אסמכתא, a Biblical support for a Rabbinic injunction. 
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   וכל אשר אין לו סנפיר וקשקשת, “and any fish that has neither a fin or scales, etc.” Nachmanides, in speculating on the significance of these features, claims that any creatures inhabiting the waters that possess fins and scales, are always found in the upper regions of the water. They therefore use the air above the surface of the water to promote their growth. They also benefit from a degree of warmth provided by the sun. The effect on their general well being is similar to the effect of the wool on the well being of sheep, or as human hair and nails act as protection against excess moisture. He reasons that the creatures which are not equipped with such protective, life extending, armour-like scales, are too cold and are too wet to enjoy an existence of any duration, are constantly on the threshold of death. Nachmanides speaks primarily of creatures found in lakes and ponds, no one in his time having much knowledge about creatures at or near the bottom of the ocean. He describes the death of these creatures in the lakes as largely due to some kind of pestilence, the waters at that level being polluted and the fish not having anything to fight off the disease with. The reason why the Torah does not list any fish as having names may be that Adam had never given them any names either. [perhaps this very fact accounts for fish being considered as inferior forms of life. Ed.] 
     מכל שרץ המים ומכל נפש החיה, “from all that teems in the water, and from all living creatures in the water, etc.”     Nachmanides writes that according to Ibn Ezra שרץ המים refers to the tiny living parasites that are spawned by the waters, whereas the expression נפש החיה refers to creatures which mate with one another, there being males and females of these species.     Nachmanides’ own view is that the expression שרץ המים includes the fish that swim on the surface of the water, seeing that whenever we encounter the term שרץ it refers to mobile creatures. On the other hand, the expression נפש החיה in his view, refers to the creatures which make the water their habitat, but are equipped with feet that they move on, not fins. Regardless of all this, they are all subject to the same rule, unless they have both fins and scales they are not “kosher.” 
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ואת אלה תשקצו מן העוף, “and these are the species of birds which you are to abominate;” Nachmanides writes that only the species named hereafter are forbidden, as well as their sub species where the Torah adds the word למינו or למינהו, to indicate that there are such sub species.
      Our sages have provided us with physical peculiarities of the forbidden categories of birds, seeing that not all of us are familiar with all these birds by name, and some may be known by different names in different parts of the globe. The most easily recognizable physical abnormality of these forbidden birds, something they all have in common, is that they are predators. In fact, if we encounter a bird that attacks other birds or even larger animals, it is certain that it belongs to a forbidden species regardless of any other marks of identification to that effect. These birds are hot blooded especially when they are on the attack, and consuming such victims. While engaged in attack, their blood turns black from the cruelty with which they kill their prey. This cruel streak leaves it mark on its heart, i.e. its personality. However, the only such birds in the whole globe are the ones mentioned by name in our chapter here. When we encounter a species of bird with which we are not familiar, but we are sure that it is not a bird of prey, we can be certain that it belongs to the large majority of “pure” birds, and that after the proper procedures we may eat it. There are only two species of the forbidden birds listed here that are not birds of prey, and they are not found in parts of the globe inhabited by man. They are the פרס and the עזניה. Possibly, the nature of their habitat, a primitive, creature-hostile environment, left its marks on the blood of these two creatures so that the Torah forbade them in spite of the fact that neither category of bird fits the description דורס, bird of prey. The underlying reason for the 24 species of birds which the Torah singled out as forbidden for the Israelites is the fact that we observe that they transmit their cruel streak also to their offspring. The reason why the Torah chose seven categories of mammals that chew the cud and have spilt hooves as acceptable for consumption by Israelites, is the fact that none of them feed on live creatures. All the others look for living creatures to become their source of sustenance. Our sages, (<i>Avodah Zarah</i> 35), as well as Maimonides <i>maachalot assurrot</i> basing themselves on empirical; knowledge, state that milk from animals not permitted to us is easily distinguishable by the fact that the milk of all the forbidden animal does not curdle, and even when mixed with milk of “kosher” animals does not lose its characteristics. He speculates that milk of the ritually forbidden animals may have a negative influence on the semen of the person consuming it, thus making him less likely to produce sperm that develops normally. When the infant would drink the milk of a mother who had born a child by a father who had eaten ritually unclean mammals, her milk would be affected. This would be in addition to the health and growth promoting nutrients provided by the milk and meat of the ritually clean mammals.
      I have personally read in a number of medical; textbooks (Nachmanides writing) that children raised on pig’s milk are liable to be afflicted with <i>tzoraat,</i> a terribly serious skin disease.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   וכל שרץ העוף, “every flying teeming creature etc.,” <i>Rashi</i> explains the term שרץ העוף as applying to all small insect like creatures that move slowly on the ground, such as the common fly, etc. 
      Nachmanides disagrees, as he cannot agree that any species of bird can be described as שרץ just because it is small in size. Neither is a bird called עוף just because it has a certain size. The עטלף is small and is listed as by the Torah as an עוף, whereas many species of locusts have legs which are larger than their bodies. If we accept <i>Rashi’s</i> definition of שרץ העוף, why is the עטלף not included as one of the שרץ העוף? Size of the body clearly is not the decisive factor in determining the difference between these two groups of flying creatures. The fact is that the Torah itself explains the nature of שרץ העוף in our verse, when it is described as walking on four legs, and as having jumping legs above its wings, these legs being employed as a launching pad to enable it to fly or jump. This is also why these creatures are not called עוף כנף, “winged bird,” or plain עוף, “bird.” Another feature of these שרץ העוף is that their neck and head instead of being above their bodies, are generally lower than the highest parts of the rest of their bodies.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ולאלה תטמאו, “through the following you will become ritually unclean.” The reason the Torah prefaces this verse with the restrictive ובאלה, “through these,” an expression not found in connection with either the fish, the fowl, or the teeming creatures including the locusts, is to teach that the ritual defilement resulting from contact with the dead bodies of these creatures applies only to the ones mentioned in the verse preceding, i.e. 4 legged שרץ העוף, or the ones mentioned forthwith. Note that the carcass of an animal permitted for consumption by Israelites after the appropriate preparations, does not confer ritual contamination on contact if it died by ritual slaughter. This is why the Torah does not refer to מיתה, death, but to נבלתם, their carcass, i.e. their having died by natural causes. Anyone touching such cadavers becomes ritually defiled. The Torah also speaks of such animals “dying,” as כי ימות, (11,39) meaning that if the animal had not “died”’ but had been slaughtered, its cadaver does not confer ritual impurity.
  
     כל הנוגע בנבלתם יטמא עד הערב, “anyone touching its cadaver will remain ritually impure until nightfall.” The evening” by itself does not remove the ritual contamination. If the affected person has immersed himself in a ritual bath prior to sunset on the day he came into contact with the cadaver, then, and only then, does the expiry of that day remove such impurity from him. The Torah did not bother to elaborate on that point as it had already explained that a garment which had become ritually contaminated needs to be “washed,” i.e. immersed in a ritual bath, in order to rid itself of such contamination. (Compare verse 28) If even a garment cannot regain ritual purity without a ritual bath, how much more is this required for the body that had been in contact with the cadaver. In the case of contact with the teeming creatures whose cadaver confers ritual impurity, the Torah not only mentions the need to immerse oneself in a ritual bath, but it adds the punishment awaiting those who ignore the legislation and come into contact with sacred objects, or who enter sacred grounds in such a state. This punishment, i.e. death at the hand of heaven, usually premature death, is the standard punishment for all who ignore the need to purify themselves before entering sacred ground or coming into contact with holy objects, or sacrificial meat, etc.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   וכל הנושא מנבלתם יכבס בגדיו, “and anyone carrying part of such a carcass, etc.” The Torah applied more stringent laws for carrying such a cadaver than for merely coming into contact with it without moving it. The latter is required to also immerse his garments before he and they can become purified. The reason may be that ”touching” is presumed to be a light touch, something merely incidental, whereas “carrying” implies major preoccupation with the cadaver in question. The garments of a carrier had an active part in the cadaver being transported.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   וכל הולך על כפיו, “and all creatures that ”walk,” i.e. move on their paws, etc.” Whereas in connection with the mammals that are forbidden to eat, the Torah had lumped them together under the heading of בהמה, here the Torah uses the heading חיה as neither having split hooves nor chewing the cud. Why did not the Torah mention the disqualification from being as a “Kosher” being one that walks on paws already at the beginning of our chapter? 
      Nachmanides speculates that possibly the reason is that even gentiles as a rule do not eat animals that walk on their paws. [this sounds strange to this editor, as surely in Nachmanides’ time eating of hares and rabbits which walk on their paws was already commonplace? Ed.] At any rate the term חיה is a sub category of the comprehensive term בהמה, so that there was no need to refer to that feature earlier.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   The author quotes Rabbi Avraham Bing, of Wuerzburg, Germany who calculated that the numerical value of the word השורץ is equivalent to the numerical values of the word כשעורה, a measure that our sages established as the minimum quantity of bone of such a cadavar which has the ability to confer ritual impurity on those contacting it. [These numbers do not match, i.e word כשעורה having a numerical value of 601, whereas the word השורץ as spelled here without the letter ו amounting only to 595. Ed.] Later authorities question the relevance of this as the minimum size of such a piece of bone is not the size of a kernel of barley, i.e. כשעורה, but the much greater size of כעדשה, corresponding to the size of a lentil. I have heard an answer concerning this apparent inconsistency, by a statement that the author of the book שמרה רוחי in which this <i>gimmatria</i> appeared meant כשערה, “as the size of the width of a hair”. His words would then be in line with those expressed in a <i>baraitha</i> in <i>Chulin</i> folio 126 according to which the size of hole in an eggshell of the egg of such a teeming creature (the inside of which already contained the beginnings of an embryo) so that he who touches it on the outside is perceived as having touched that embryo, would need to be of that thickness. Our verse would hint at this, seeing that the word השורץ is spelled with the letter ו missing, i.e. as השרץ. Once we accept this the supposed numerical value of the word השרץ spelled effectively would match that of the word כשעורה, =595. Personally, I find all this difficult.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   וכל אשר יפול עליו מהם במותם, “and anything which falls upon them when they are dead, etc.” Nachmanides writes that according to our sages this verse applies only to the eight species of “teeming creatures” mentioned in verse 29. They derived from this verse that the minimum size of such a teeming creature’s ability to confer ritual impurity is the size of a lentil. (Compare <i>Chagigah</i> 11)
      According to the plain meaning of the text it would appear that the words מהם במותם, “of them when they are dead,” refer to what the Torah had written earlier in the context of בהמה טמאה, חיה, שרץ, mammals and all land based animals which are ritually unclean and cannot serve as food for Israelites, for why would the Torah mention ritual impurity affecting clothing as a separate subject, seeing that the same rules of impurity also apply to cadavers. Similarly, they all require the same qualifying symptoms in order to potentially be fit for consumption by Israelites. The Torah therefore is presumed to speak of all of these categories here.
  
     וטמא עד הערב וטהור, “he will remain in a state of ritual impurity until nightfall, and then he will become ritually clean.” This verse speaks of <i>terumah,</i> the heave (gift) from the grain given to the priest, which after immersion in a ritual bath remains in a state of impurity until evening.
      Nachmanides writes that the reason why this formula of עד הערב, until nightfall,” is repeated on so many occasions, is that in each of these examples we speak of <i>terumah</i> or something like it, i.e. something which possesses a degree of holiness by definition. Food that is of a secular type, may be consumed by the ordinary Israelites, even when they are in a state of ritual impurity without their having been immersed in a ritual bath. Therefore, if such food has been immersed in a ritual bath there is certainly no need to await sundown before it may be eaten.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   תנור וכירים יותץ, “an oven or stove must be smashed;” the news in this verse is that although these ovens or stoves are fastened to the ground they stand on, something which normally would make them immune to becoming affected with ritual impurity, in the situation described they are subject to the same rules as are earthenware vessels which are not fastened to the ground anymore. In order for such vessels to lose their contamination they must be broken up into pieces small enough to make them practically useless in terms of what they were made for. The reason why the Torah employed the expression יותץ instead of the more common ישבר, for describing something broken, is because the term יותץ which describes the destruction of a building, contains within it the hint that even stoves and ovens which are like buildings must also be destroyed in order to shed their ritual impurity. We find this expression in connection with houses afflicted with <i>tzoraat,</i> as in Leviticus
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
   על כל זרע זרוע, “upon any edible seed that has been planted;” we learn from here that what has been planted as potential food will never be able to be ritually contaminated unless, after having been separated from the earth, it also has undergone a process of making it potentially fit to be ritually contaminated. In most cases, such as here, it means that it had become wet with the active or passive consent of the owner. Although we have already derived this rule from the verse (34) commencing with the words מכל האוכל, I would have had reason to think that such food is immune from contamination in the airspace of an earthenware vessel only.
      Alternately, previously the Torah only spoke about the kind of foodstuffs that are ready to be eaten in their present state, whereas in our verse here the Torah includes the seed, i.e potential food. As for the reason why these foodstuffs require a preparatory step approved by their owner before they are liable to become ritually contaminated, according to Nachmanides, the reason is that the dirt from these teeming creatures have a tendency to adhere to wet foodstuffs, (fruit) but not to dry ones. The Torah therefore decreed that wet foodstuffs are liable to be contaminated ritually. To the question why they should still be capable of becoming contaminated even if the owner had thoroughly dried these foodstuffs after they had become wet, the answer is that the sages never make their rules apply only partially, i.e. to some scenarios and not to others.
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
   והאוכל מנבלתה יכבס בגדיו, “and he who eats from that cadaver must wash his clothes (immerse them in a ritual bath)”. Our sages explained this verse as an attempt by the Torah to apply the same yardstick regarding purification of someone who had consumed ritually contaminated food, as to someone whose clothing had become contaminated by it. In both instances contamination, i.e. eating the size of an olive results in the person becoming contaminated, just as contact through carrying of an amount of an olive’s size, results in the carrier becoming ritually unclean.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the Torah describes a normal person’s eating habits. He both touches and lifts up the food that he is eating. You might have thought that a worse degree of contamination occurs when the party concerned has not only touched the contaminated food but has also eaten it. The Torah teaches that this is not so. This point is made by the Torah in conjunction with the discussion of “<i>kosher</i>” animals because it is easy to err and to assume that because the animal in question had been prepared for consumption by being ritually slaughtered, that it could not become ritually contaminated. To disabuse us of such thinking the Torah used as its model for this legislation specifically a “<i>kosher</i>” animal. The error the Torah tries to head off, is not likely to occur in conjunction with ritually unclean animals, and it is the habit of the Torah to address the most common scenarios.
  
  
  Verse 41
  
   וכל השרץ השורץ על הארץ, “and every teeming creature whose habitat is the earth (land, as opposed to the water and oceans).” Seeing that there are only 8 of these species whose cadavers confer ritual contamination, one might have thought that all the other species are also fit to be eaten. The Torah therefore spells out that none of these species may be eaten.
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
   ובין החיה הנאכלת, “and between the animal that may be eaten;” <i>Rashi</i> (quoting <i>Torat Kohanim</i>) writes that actually we would have expected the Torah to write:בין צבי לערוד, i.e. between a gazelle (a permitted species of free roaming mammal, and the wild ass, (a “non <i>kosher</i>” free roaming mammal). Seeing that these two species could not possibly be mistaken for another, seeing they do not look alike at all, the meaning of the verse must be “to distinguish between permitted species which display symptoms that would make it “<i>treifah</i>” (injuries) and others displaying similar symptoms which however do not result in that animal being pronounced <i>treifah.”</i>
      According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning is that if these symptoms are below the knee joint, the symptom is ignored and the animal remains “<i>kosher</i>” and can be slaughtered and eaten. If, however, the symptom is above the knee joint, the animal can no longer be eaten even if slaughtered forthwith.
      People nowadays are very particular in their attitude to all these definitions of symptoms of a terminal disease. The very fact that the <i>halachah</i> recognizes a term such as טרפה כשרה, “<i>treifah</i> which is <i>kosher,</i> creates some confusion. An example of such a “<i>kosher</i>” symptom of ”<i>treifah”</i> symptoms would be an animal whose windpipe and gullet have been cut but not cut through, or instances when a small hole pierces the lung of the animal, such a hole not being necessarily fatal within 12 months. The question arises there that seeing the lung is directly dependent on the windpipe, damage to both would appear to be especially serious. The subject is discussed in <i>Chulin 32,</i> and basically, if the slaughtering proceeded to the point where it is deemed completed, [most of the windpipe and most of the gullet. Ed.] this animal will not be considered as <i>treifah</i> unless another major problem such as a pierced lung is present. Similarly, these sages discuss that if an animal has 5 legs instead of 4 and the fifth has an injury that, if it occurred on any of the other 4 legs would have made it <i>treifah,</i> whether this is a case of “<i>treifah”</i> that is treated as <i>kosher</i>. 
       It would appear that such interpretation of the written text here is excessive.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   אשה כי תזריע, “when a woman conceives, etc.” At the end of the last portion the Torah instructed the Jewish people to sanctify themselves (verse 44). The fact that the subject following deals with conception, marital intercourse, etc, is proof that the specific sanctification the Torah had in mind at the end of the last portion was that the sex life of the Jewish people should not become one of mere physical indulgence, but should be guided by more lofty considerations, should aim at conceiving and bearing children in a spiritual environment commensurate with the people that are unique in their relationship to their Creator. [In Leviticus chapter 19 the need to sanctify themselves is a dictate based on this relationship with our Creator. I have deliberately pontificated a little at this point. Ed.]
      It is the duty of the Jewish people to be at all times aware of the fact that there are things in this universe that are pure, and others that are impure in a ritual sense. The destiny of the Jewish people to be a “kingdom of Priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19,6)” cannot be achieved without our constant awareness of this fact.
      Such considerations are at the root of our sages counseling or demanding that prior to a woman having her monthly period, assuming she is regular, the husband should already refrain from having relations with her for a period of 12 hours to ensure that he would not become ritually defiled by being in contact with her menstrual blood. The sages also decreed that a widowed woman must not remarry for a period of three months to ensure that when she becomes pregnant from her new husband, there is no chance that the child born might have been fathered by her deceased husband. If, by chance, this decree is ignored, children born in ritual impurity of the most severe type might result.
      <i>Rashi</i> explains on our verse that the wording תזריע, suggests that even if the mother gave “birth” to an afterbirth which was so lacking in substances that it was more like sperm, she is still considered as impure due to birthing. This should not be understood as meaning that if a woman involuntarily aborts an amnion, a sac of the fetus full with water, that she becomes ritually impure like woman that has given birth, seeing that we have a rule that any such sac aborted which did not contain something resembling a human fetus does not confer the impurity of new motherhood on the woman concerned. Only what is called שפיר מרוקם, a sac containing clearly defined human features does that.
      When the Talmud (<i>Niddah</i> 28) says that when a woman conceives first she will give birth to a male child, the reason for this is that it is a fact in nature that anything that appears later is liable to neutralize phenomena that have appeared earlier. If a woman therefore conceives, or has an orgasm first, this feminine part of the process of conception will be weakened once the subsequent male orgasm and ejaculation occurs and contributes male sperm. The same is true in reverse, of course; when the male ejaculates before the female partner has achieved orgasm, the result will be a child of the feminine gender.
      Nachmanides writes that the statement in the Talmud about a woman “contributing seed first,” does not mean to imply that women in common with men each contribute sperm to the fetus to emerge. It could not mean that, as it is common knowledge that women do not have sperm. Woman contributes from the blood in her womb to the formation of the eventual fetus, and upon completion of her pregnancy a child is born. The term זרע used by the Talmud refers to the combination of the sperm contributed by the male and the blood contributed by the woman, his partner.
      Following this approach, the Talmud perceives three partners who between them are active in creating a new life. They are: father, mother, and G’d, the father contributing the sperm which eventually will produce tendons, bones, etc., the mother the blood which will develop into flesh, skin and blood and blood vessels; as well as hair and the black (pupil) of the eye. G’d, of course, contributes the נפש-נשמה the intangible life force known as “soul.” This is the opinion of the medical men of the author’s time. 
      The ancient Greeks believed that the entire body of the baby is produced by the mother, the father’s contribution being limited to determining the shape and form of the raw material man is made of. This had to be so, they believed, as man does not have ovaries, as does woman. The fact is that the chick which was produced after its mother hen had copulated with a rooster is different from the chick whose mother hen had not been mated with a male of the species only in the length of time the mother hen has spent sitting on her egg until it was ready to burst its prison walls and emerge as a new living organism.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   בדמי טהרה, “in blood of purity;” Nachmanides, comments on the opinion of <i>Rashi,</i> who claims that the last letter ה in the word טהרה does not have a dot, <i>dagesh,</i> meaning that the word itself is a noun, and that the translation of the words בדמי טהרה is “in the blood of purification,” [as opposed to “her purification,” Ed] so that the meaning is “although she sees blood she is ritually clean.” This interpretation is also the one given by Ibn Ezra, who spells out that this blood is blood that denotes purification, as opposed to דם נדה that is blood denoting ritual impurity. According to Nachmanides, G’d decreed that the number of days a mother having given birth to a male child remains partially pure and partially impure corresponds to the number of days (40) after conception that it takes for the male fetus to develop to a state where it is recognizable as such. The period of 33 days when she is no longer <i>niddah,</i> in a state of menstruation, to her husband she is still undergoing a second stage of purification before she is able to present the required offerings in the Temple. The word תשב, normally translated as: “she is to sit,” is equivalent to “sitting out,” awaiting the conclusion of the period of the remaining 33 days until she is completely purified. This statement is accepted by Nachmanides as scientifically proved. Similarly, he accepts as proven that the development of the female fetus takes twice as long to attain that stage. [The term “proven” apparently is used, as this is the opinion offered by Rabbi Yishmael in <i>Niddah</i> 30. This Rabbi quoted postmortems performed on a woman executed for some misdemeanour and an embryo not older than 40 days since conception being discovered inside her in such a state of development. The majority view there rejects this “proof,” and states for <i>halachic</i> considerations that both a female and a male fetus develop at the same speed. Ed.]
      Nachmanides considers the word טהרה here as an adjective, such as when we speak of זהב טהור, pure gold, unadulterated by other metals or dross. The rationale appears to be that when giving birth to a male child, during the first seven days, when the mother still discharges blood constantly, she is considered as in the same state as a menstruating woman having her monthly cycle, The additional thirty three days which the Torah decrees that the new mother has to count, she has to spend staying in her home in order to cleanse her body thoroughly, as during these days she will discharge remnants of blood originating in her womb and ovaries. Once all this has been discharged she is able to enter the consecrated grounds of the Temple and to offer her sacrifices, as described in the following verses. 
      Our sages had a tradition that as far as her ritual status <i>vis</i> a <i>vis</i> her husband- as opposed to <i>vis</i> a <i>vis</i> G’d, i.e. the Temple, is concerned, she is ritually pure after the first seven days. The reason why in both regards twice the length of time for ritual impurity has been decreed by the Torah is either in accordance with Rabbi Ibn Ezra’s opinion based on that of Rabbi Yishmael, that the gestation of a female embryo takes that much longer, or, if we accept the view of the majority opinion of the sages at the time, that both types of embryos have developed to the same state after 41 days, that the nature of the feminine embryo is that it is colder and wetter, the wetness is a condition of the mother’s womb caused by the female embryo, which results in the process of her fully recovering from her pregnancy and birth taking so much longer and the process of discharging excess blood also taking longer. We all know from daily experience that cleaning something that is cold is more difficult than something that is warm or hot.
  
     עד מלאת ימי טהרה, “until the completion of the days of her purification.” The completion occurs on the 40th day including the following night. During that night she is still not allowed to come into contact with sanctified objects, etc. On the morning following she may offer the sacrifices ordained for mothers that have recently given birth, including her sin-offering.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   וששים יום וששת ימים תשב על דמי טהרה, “and she will remain in a state of blood of purification for sixty six days.” The Torah made a minor change in the description of the blood during those sixty six days, calling it על דמי טהרה, whereas the thirty three days of the parallel period after the birth of a male bay are called as remaining בדמי טהרה. The reason is that after the birth of a male child the mother has to observe these thirty three days under all circumstances, whereas in the case of a female child having been born, it is theoretically possible that the mother has already aborted a new embryo during the 80 days since she gave birth, in which case these days might not have to be observed in full.
  
     תשב על דמי טהרה, <i>Rashi</i> explains that the expression תשב in our context means “to sit out,” in the sense of “to wait out.” She is not housebound, but she must await the termination of these days before being allowed to handle sanctified objects, [including the dough she bakes, when it is larger than the minimum quantity requiring that <i>challah</i> be taken from it. Ed.] Of course, she may not enter consecrated grounds during that period.
      Nachmanides writes that it is possible that the word תשב here is used in the same sense as in Hoseah 3,3 ימים רבים תשבי לי, “you are to refrain for a long time (from sexual intercourse)” A woman who is in the habit of having marital relations with her husband is described as יושבת לו, “co-habiting with him.” Seeing that the Torah had spelled out the type of her impurity during the first seven days as similar to the days of her menstruation, whereas the following days spell out different kinds of restrictions, it is clear that during these latter days she may cohabit with her husband in spite of any blood which appears to originate in her womb or ovaries. 
      Nachmanides’ personal view, however, is that a woman who sees menstrual blood is called <i>niddah,</i> a term borrowed from someone who has been put into some kind of ban and is ostracised from the community. A woman experiencing her period is similarly socially restricted as far as her husband and holy things are concerned. In the olden days such women were assigned special huts to dwell in during these days, In some societies they were not even allowed to speak to people, as their condition was perceived as contagious, and their spittle could have transmitted their germs. The earth that women in such a state stepped on was considered as polluted. What such women excreted was considered is similar to decaying flesh of the dead. Even being looked at by a woman in such a state was considered dangerous by some societies. This may have led the Torah to decree harsher degrees of ritual impurity for women in such a condition. Any place a menstruating woman sat on or lay on is treated as ritually impure, requiring purification in a ritual bath. The nature of ritual impurity of a menstruating woman has something in common with people afflicted with <i>tzoraat</i> on their skin, such people being ostracised and placed In quarantine outside the camp of the Israelites in the desert, or outside built up areas in later Israelite kingdoms. In the case of the צרוע, the person so afflicted, the Torah specifically states בדד ישב מחוץ למחנה, “he is to remain for an open ended amount of time outside the camp.”(Leviticus 13,46) It is clear that the meaning of the word ישב there cannot be: ”he is to sit,” as who can sit for an undisclosed amount of time. The meaning of ישב is that such a person must remain in a condition of expectancy for an indeterminate period of time. The term ישב is used to indicate that he must not enter the camp during this period of ostracism. If the Torah was not content to describe the situation of the צרוע with the words ויצא אל מחוץ למחנה he is to go outside the camp, and ולא יבא אל המחנה and he must not enter the camp, a term used for different other kind of ritually impure people, the reason may be that this צרוע is not to move about at all as even his gaze may be harmful, not only his touch. When the Torah here says that the new mother must תשב בדמי טהרה, it means that she is to observe a similar degree of restriction as do menstruating women, [no more, as we know from the addition that she must not enter consecrated grounds, as otherwise this latter addition would have been superfluous. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   והקריבו לפני ה' וכפר עליה, “He shall offer it before <i>Hashem</i> and atone for her.” Nachmanides writes that the new mother is in need of atonement as a woman after having given birth is left with a damaged womb. She is in need of having G’d heal that damage for her in order that she will be capable of continuing normal family relations after her womb has healed. Only G’d, the Healer of all flesh, can do this for her. 
      Our sages of old, hold that the reason why most women are in personal need of atonement is that during the excruciatingly painful experience of giving birth they vowed never again to have marital relations with their husbands. Seeing that such a woman swore out of extreme pain and her oath is therefore not really effective legally, since she is contractually obligated to have relations with her husband, G’d wanted her to escape the consequences of such an oath, and by allowing her to bring this sacrifice He forgave her. [We must remember that a legally ineffective oath constitutes uttering the name of the Lord in vain. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  אל משה ואל ואהרן, “to Moses and to Aaron;” Nachmanides writes that seeing the Torah had stated that Aaron would have a decisive voice in all matters pertaining to interpersonal strife or afflictions such as נגעים, be it on the skin, garments, or houses, G’d addressed him also in the following legislation. (Compare Deut. 21,5) The Torah does not continue here with the customary words: דבר אל בני ישראל, “say to the Children of Israel,” seeing that the priests after seeing the people afflicted will decide whether to declare them afflicted with the disease, whether to temporarily keep them under observation, etc. It is also up to the priest to decide when individuals will be considered as cured from the disease. There is no apparent reason to acquaint and warn the entire nation of the forthcoming legislation, seeing that if the services of the priest are required, and sacrifices are to be offered, the afflicted party will be only too happy to have reached that stage. The reason that in the paragraph dealing with the <i>zav,</i> the person who experiences a disease involving his sexual organs the Torah does address every Israelite, i.e. “speak to the Children of Israel and say to them, etc.,” (chapter 15) is that the nature of the disease is private, and the person suffering from it could conceal it, as opposed to people whose skin bears the marks of their disease. The general public had to be warned that if they suffered from the symptoms described that they had to turn to the priest to deal with the problem.
  
  Verse 2
  
   שאת או ספחת, “different degrees of whiteness of the skin.” Ibn Ezra understands the word שאת as a derivative of שרפה, as in והמשאות החלה לעלות עמוד עשן, “and when the column of smoke began to rise” (Judges 20,40) Similarly, we have in Samuel II 5,21 וישאם דוד, “and David burned them (the idols).”
      Nachmanides explains that it is possible that this skin disease is called such on account of what it has in common with fire, which rises into the atmosphere. The skin inflammation described breaks through the regular skin, outwards, i.e. upwards.
      The word ספחת is understood as related to ספחני נא, (Samuel I 2,36) where it means “gather me in,” in our context in the sense of the disease being concentrated in one narrowly defined part of the skin.
      The word בהרת is related to בהיר, very bright, blindingly white, (Job 37,21) where it describes the sun though bright, or because too bright) as invisible to man. The נגע, skin affliction, is assumed to originate in the greenish coloured gall. שאת is the name of the affliction, after it has already traversed the body and come to the surface of the skin. The Torah is perceived as desiring the purity of the Israelites in every respect, both in body and in spirit, and by externalizing sickness of the body’s interior it alerts the victim that something is wrong that needs to be repaired, needs to be attended to, seeing that any disease is not a natural state and a perfectly pure person is not afflicted with any disease. Even the symptoms described in our verse here are not yet a definitive disease, they are signs that a disease is on the way to develop more fully. To indicate this, the Torah at the outset speaks of נגע צרעת, meaning that this נגע is liable to develop into a fully blown צרעת unless addressed properly. Verse 11 describes the fully developed נגע simply as צרעת, the affliction having developed beyond the need for, or beyond the ability of a trial ostracism reversing the symptoms. Whenever a stage is reached which will ultimately result in צרעת, the priest has to declare the afflicted party as ritually impure with all that this implies as described in the verse following. 
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ועמוק אין מראה מן העור, “and its appearance is not deeper than the skin.”      <i>Rashi</i> writes: “I do not know the meaning of these words. His problem was that he had already explained the words עמוק מן העור in the previous verse to mean that every white discolouration of the skin appears as if recessed, lower than the surrounding area, just as an area lit by the rays of the sun appears as lower than the surrounding area bathed in shade.     Rabbi Meir from Rotenburg explains our verse in the following manner: “if what is described as בהרת לבן, an extremely bright whitish discolouration, appears deeper than the surrounding area of skin, as is typical of every sunlit area surrounded by shade, then the appearance of this symptom in relation to the surrounding skin is not the beginning of the entire process we are witnessing; in other words, it does not appear lower on account of its whitish colour.” [If I understand this commentary correctly, the author warns us not to treat the whole phenomenon as something natural, explicable in terms of scientific research. The Torah’s message to us and to the afflicted person is that if the symptoms we are witnessing were merely corresponding to known scientific data, the whole disease would lose its character of being a benign warning by the Creator to the afflicted party to examine his lifestyle which alone led to this affliction. Ed.] Our author feels that the tone signs in our verse support the approach of Rabbi Meir from Rotenburg.     Nachmanides believes that there is a way of dealing with <i>Rashi’s</i> problem so that [at least technically, Ed,] there is no contradiction between verse 3 and verse 4. He limits the generally accepted principle described by <i>Rashi o</i>n verse three that bright areas always appear as deeper, recessed, when compared to surrounding darker areas, as being a phenomenon which holds true only as long as the hair on that area also turned white. When the hair in that bright area has not turned white, then the entire hypothesis of it appearing darker than the surrounding darker area does not hold true. He supports this argument by comparing it to sunspots, i.e. scattered spots of dark areas, black spots on the surface of the sun which do not result in the surrounding bright areas of the sun appearing as being deeper, recessed. He compares the hair (black) on the skin to sun spots scattered over the surface of the sun as we behold it. He also distinguishes between how something appears to the beholder who is close to the object in question and to how it appears to a beholder who looks at it from a distance. (The foregoing was attributed to Maimonides)     Nachmanides continues: in spite of all that we have been told, according to which anything white appears deeper than the surrounding dark area, this does not even agree with what we learned in the Talmud <i>Shavuot,</i> 6, which disagrees with that assumption, stating that the very expression שאת [which is derived from the root נשא to lift up, Ed.] means something high, i.e. higher than its surroundings A verse from scripture is quoted in support of this שאת is compared to wool which had been bleached white, so that according to its degree of whiteness it certainly ought to appear as deeper than the darker area surrounding it. The opinion in the Talmud is also corroborated by <i>Torat Kohanim</i> where it is compared to “shadow” which appears ‘higher than the surrounding area.” If every whitish appearance were to be considered as “deep,” we would be faced with a total contradiction to our ancient sources.     Perhaps we should say that the expression שאת is used in the sense of being “high” only when it is compared to the skin irregularity described by the Torah as בהרת in verse 2. However, when contrasted to the surrounding normal skin, it is indeed עמוק מן העור, i.e. deeper than regular skin.     In view of these various approaches and apparent contradictions, it appears to me that any kind of “white” we look at, leaves a degree of radiance and sparkle in our eyes, similar to that which we experience when we have looked at the sun. This is due to the eye absorbing part of the black colour that clings to it, whereas the white colour is immediately reflected outward. While doing so it also disperses some of the ability of the eye to see properly, an ability that is now somewhat removed from its source, so that it appears to see objects as deeper than they are in reality.    בהרת on the other hand, is glaringly bright and powerfully white as snow, causing the human eyes’ sense of vision to undergo a weakening. Just as it undergoes a similar weakening when the eyes step out of the shade into an area illuminated by brilliant sunshine. The only thing that prevents this from happening is the presence of a black hair. If there is a black hair then the ability of the sense of seeing expands to any adjoining black area and from it to the entire surface of the skin affected by the נגע, the affliction like looking irregularity. It will not leave that area.    שאת, on the other hand, while being white, is not as brilliantly white as בהרת, so that its whiteness does not harm the sense of sight, it can spread over the area of the afflicted skin and man’s eye can view it without hindrance from proximity without harm. It appears to him as elevated, much as the stars look as if standing out against the background of the sky.     In connection with the affliction which we know as שחין, (verse 18), the Torah makes mention of two kinds of visual impressions, one is שאת לבנה, the other is a lesser degree of whiteness described as בהרת לבנה. (Apparently) the white is mixed with some degree of red, i.e. אדמדמת, making it darker) The Torah describes the appearance of that whiteness as מראה שפל מן העור, as opposed to the previous מראה עמוק מן העור. The effect of this reddishness is to make the area appear a little deeper than the surrounding skin, though not a lot deeper, as would be described as עמוק מן העור.     According to the plain meaning of the text, the words והנה מראה שפל העור, are describing only the condition of בהרת and do not refer to the appearance of an irregularity called שאת לבנה at all. As far as the Torah writing later (verse 21) ואם יראנה הכהן והנה אין בה שער לבן ושפלה איננה מן העור והוא כהה “but if when the priest looks at it and behold there is no white hair in it and it is not lower than the surrounding skin,” this verse refers to both the incidence of שאת לבן as well as to that of בהרת לבן.     When discussing skin irregularities resembling injuries from burning oneself, מכות-אש, the Torah mentions the colour לבנה אדמדמת או לבנה, “white streaked with red, or plain white.” When the Torah in the verse following (25) describes the appearance of what was mentioned in verse 24 asעמוק מן העור, “deeper than the surrounding skin,” this part of the verse refers only to the raw flesh which has been described in verse 24 as לבנה, white, and not to the area described as לבנה אדמדמת, white streaked with red. The Torah then mentions that the area described as בהרת is free from any white hair, and does not appear as even slightly deeper than the surrounding skin, for ושפלה איננה מן העור והוא כהה, seeing that the slightly deeper appearance as well as the deeper recessed appearance known as עמוק מן העור, both are reasons to declare the person displaying these symptoms as ritually impure. Such symptoms indicate purification only when not accompanied by any appearance deeper than the surrounding skin. This is the meaning of the word כהה. 
  
  Verse 5
  
   והנה הנגע עמד בעיניו, “and behold- the affliction remained static.”
      Nachmanides quotes <i>Rashi</i> as writing that the word בעיניו means that the affliction’s appearance has undergone no change either in appearance or size. He assumed that the word עין is the same as in כעין הבדולח in Numbers 11,7 where the appearance of the manna is described, was <i>Rashi’s</i> source. He points out that <i>Torat Kohanim</i> takes a different approach, understanding the word עין literally as “eye,” ruling that determination of the afflicted person’s purity or impurity is governed by the subjective criterion of how it appears to the examining priest, and not to the objective criterion of measuring it. If the priest’s perception is different from the perception of his disciple, for instance, the priest’s perception is automatically considered as decisive. He need not measure the affliction to verify if his perception had been correct.
      However, my sainted father the <i>R’osh</i>, said that the priest was required already on his first examination to make a mark on the skin delineating the extent of the affliction, so as to enable him to compare the size of the affliction when he would examine it the second time. This is clearly stated in connection with afflictions that occur on a person’s head, where the Torah demands that the area around the affliction must be shaved off. (Compare 13,33) The priest leaves two hairs adjoining the afflicted are in place, in order to be certain what precisely the area of the affliction had been on the occasion when he first examined it. What holds true for the way afflictions of the head are examined, also hold true for the manner in which the results of examinations of other parts of the skin’s surface are conducted and recorded, i.e. also the terms for temporary seclusion of the person so afflicted. The explanation by <i>Rashi</i> of the words והסגירו הכהן שבעת ימים, that the priest imposed a house arrest on the afflicted party for seven days, was not accepted by the author’s father. He claims that nowhere in the entire tractate of <i>Negaim</i> is there a mention that the afflicted party is under house arrest. Verse 4, mentioning the word והסגיר for the first time, refers to the נגע, not to the person afflicted with it; the meaning is that the area of the נגע is to be clearly delineated, and for a period of seven days following this, no second examination to determine if it had spread or receded is to be undertaken.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   והיא הפכה שער לבן ומחית בשר חי בשאת, “and it has changed hair to white, or that there is healthy live flesh within the white area described previously as שאת;” the letter ו in front of the word ומחית does not mean ”and,” so that both conditions have to be met before the priest must decree absolute isolation of the afflicted person. The letter ו here means “or,” as it does in many instances.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ואם פרוח תפרח הצרעת, וגו., “if the <i>tzoraat</i> will erupt on the skin, etc.” the Torah describes a continuous spread of the affliction until eventually the entire skin of the body is covered with that affliction. When the Torah used the expression את כל עור הנגע, “the entire skin of the affliction,” an expression that seems somewhat confusing, it means that the entire area of the body’s skin, including head and feet, is covered with the affliction. If the area where the affliction had started either did not turn properly white, or became healthy looking again the person is ritually unclean.
      According to the plain meaning of the text the reason for the apparent paradox that when covered with the affliction from head to toe, the affected person is considered ritually pure, is that the very spread over the entire body of this affliction is a sign that it does not penetrate further into the body, proof that the person is on the way to a complete recovery, seeing the problem is only skin-deep.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   והתגלח ואת הנתק לו יגלח, “he is to shave himself, but he shall not shave off the <i>netek</i>.”
      Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning the Torah forbids the afflicted party to allow the razor to touch the afflicted area even though it is not covered with any hair. However, if the razor is allowed to touch that area it will cause injury to the skin that will result in hair growing from such a spot.
      However, in <i>Torat Kohanim</i> we find that the wordsואת הנתק are understood to mean “and around the <i>netek,”</i> in line with <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation that he must leave two hairs unshaven so as to know the extent of the <i>netek.</i> Nachmanides (on verse 29) wrote at length about whether such an irregularity of the skin, not especially defined, results in ritual impurity of the afflicted person.
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
   והצרוע, “and the person afflicted with <i>tzoraat,” Torat Kohanim</i> includes a High Priest in the procedures detailed here, although the Torah had stated elsewhere that the High Priest must not rend his garments (when a relative of his has died, compare Leviticus 21,10). [I see nothing remarkable or contradictory here as a) the rule that he does not rend his garments has nothing to do with its becoming afflicted with a skin problem; b) others could do it on his behalf. Ed.]
  
     ועל שפם יעטה, “and he shall cloak himself up to his lips.” This means that he is to keep his mouth covered so that his breath does not offend anyone around him as it contains bacteria harmful to others.
  
  
  Verse 46
  
   בדד ישב, “he shall remain in isolation.” The reason for this isolation is that this disease is very contagious and even indirect contact with the afflicted person will harm those associating with him.
      Nachmanides writes that neither the symptoms described by the Torah as afflicting garments, nor those afflicting houses, are natural phenomena, found in any civilisation. As long as the Jewish people conduct themselves according to the laws of the Torah they will remain protected by the spirit of <i>Hashem,</i> so that none of the diseases described in our portion would ever befall them. In the event that an individual would experience any of the symptoms we have discussed here, this would be a warning by the <i>Shechinah</i> that he had been guilty of a misdemeanour, designed to make him do penance before he would become subject to a severe penalty for his transgression. Seeing that the Torah introduced the subject as if it were a divine gift, i.e. ונתתי נגע צרעת בבית ארץ אחוזתכם, “I will give a <i>nega tzoraat</i> on one of the houses that constitute a hereditary possession in the land you have acquired as a permanent possession,” (Leviticus 14,34) it is clear that the whole subject reflects G’d’s concern not to allow us to become sin-ridden. By striking our house instead of our body, G’d issued a warning signal to us to mend our ways. The entire legislation is applicable only in a land that has become ours as an inheritance given to us by G’d. The same applies to the legislation concerning such symptoms appearing on our clothing. If these symptoms were to appear on our clothing in any country other than the Holy Land, this is meaningless in terms of Jewish law, and any means at any time may be employed to remove such symptoms. No one has ever been heard of being afflicted with these symptoms either in Babylon, or any other country Jews were exiled to.
      [Besides, miraculous involvement by G’d in this manner is predicated on only a few individuals not observing Torah. Just as the <i>Sotah</i> rites were discontinued when marital infidelity became common place, even though there was a Temple and High Priest, and just as the <i>yibbum</i> legislation (levirate marriage) was observed in the negative aspect of it, <i>chalitza,</i> once it could not be presumed that the brother-in-law would perform the rite in order to secure his deceased brother’s continuity on this earth, so the laws described here were intended for a near perfect Jewish society only. Ed.]
      While in effect, the laws concerning the symptoms on garments applied only on white garments, seeing that the stains on coloured garments looking like the symptoms described here might be attributed to having been caused during dying the garment or the threads the garments were made of.
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
   צרעת ממארת היא, ”it is a malignant <i>tzorat.”</i> The symptom is of a malignant nature that will eventually envelop the entire garment. This is why the whole garment has to be burned forthwith.
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
   פחתת הוא, “it is an ingrained affliction.” The word is derived from פוחת, something which gradually diminishes, becomes progressively worth less, until eventually it has ceased to have value; in this case the meaning it that the damage will spread until it encompasses the entire fabric.
  
     בקרחתו או בגבחתו, “in his new or worn garment.” Some commentators understand this to mean that it makes no difference whether the garment is worn on hairy or smooth skin. [so that the word בקרחתו refers to קרחת baldness. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   זאת תהיה תורת המצורע...והובא אל הכהן, “This shall be the law concerning the <i>Metzora</i>, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the Torah introduces our chapter with the words: “this is the manner in which a <i>Metzora</i> purifies himself, he will be brought to the priest.” This is to emphasise that anyone who has been afflicted with <i>tzoraat</i> cannot ever regain his standing in the community, i.e. become purified, without the assistance of the priest. Having established this premise, the Torah then describes the priest as leaving the boundaries of the camp, i.e. the habitat of normal Jews, in order to start the process of purifying the person who had been struck with this dread disease. The important part of the Torah’s message is that the victim of <i>tzoraat</i> who has now been cured does not have to come to the priest, but the priest comes toward him to welcome him back into the fold.
      <i>Torat Kohanim</i> states that the recently cured victim of <i>tzoraat</i> is brought to the outskirts of the camp to face the priest in order to facilitate the priest’s welcoming him back to the fold.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויצא הכהן אל מחוץ למחנה. “The priest shall go forth to the outside of the camp.” <i>Torat Kohanim</i> comments that only a priest who was inside the camp could do this, not a priest, who, being himself a victim of <i>tzoraat</i>, and hence also outside the camp. Such a priest cannot participate in the purification rites of another <i>metzora.</i>
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   שתי צפרים, “two birds;” the expression צפור [as distinct from עוף, Ed.] may be related to both Proverbs 27,8, and Psalms 102,8 where the צפור is described as wandering, i.e. being a loner, isolated. The analogy with the quarantined victim of <i>tzoraat</i> is evident.
      Nachmanides writes that the scholars concerned primarily with the plain meaning of the text claim that every עוף is automatically also referred to as צפור. Their proof is Psalms 8,9 צפור שמים ודגי הים, “the birds of the sky and the fish in the sea.” The correct interpretation of the choice of the word צפור by the Torah here is that the term צפור includes also the very small birds, the ones who awaken us in the early morning with their chirping. The Aramaic word for the Hebrew word צפצוף describing such chirping is צפורא. The reason the psalmist adds the word שמים, sky, to the word צפור is that in the main the birds use their wings to fly towards the sky. The word כל does not always mean “all, or each,” but usually means “most.” When, at the covenant between the pieces in Genesis chapter 15, Avraham divided the various animals he offered as a symbol of that covenant, the Torah mentions ואת הצפור לא בתר, meaning that he did not cut up either the pigeon or the turtle dove. The expression כל צפור כל כנף refers to two separate species of birds, i.e. both the big ones and the small ones. When the Torah, in Deuteronomy 22,6 speaks of someone encountering a קן צפור, a bird’s nest, this refers to a nest housing small birds, the Torah warning that even such small creatures we must treat with consideration.
      It appears to me that our sages considered every pure bird, i.e. the ones we may eat (in the appropriate circumstances) as described as צפור. However, in connection with the sacrifice of the <i>tzarua</i> who has been healed and purified, he is to bring one of the birds that can be truly described as צפור דרור, ”a free flying bird,” not a chicken, or a duck, which are domesticated and cannot use their wings in a manner reflecting true freedom of movement. This requirement is not absolute, but when available these free flying birds, i.e. pigeon or turtle dove are preferable, though other birds not described in the Torah as of the 24 kinds of birds of prey might be admissible, seeing the Torah does not speak of עוף דרור. Seeing that the <i>Mishnah</i> in tractate <i>Negaiim</i> 14,1 mentions צפור דרור instead of תור או גוזל, the bird-offerings normally presented on the altar, it might have appeared that other birds are acceptable. Seeing that the text of the Torah leaves room for doubt, the <i>Torat Kohanim</i> had to add that the requirement is absolute, and no other bird can be substituted. The fact is however, that the word דרור in the <i>Mishnah</i> may simply exclude ritually unclean birds that also fit the description of עוף דרור. Moreover, it may also mean that even though these two birds are not alike in size and in appearance as is preferable, as indicated by the word שתי instead of שתים, as among the unclean birds there are also some that fit the description of their being small and free flying the Torah meant to exclude those. [Some commentators of the <i>Mishnah</i> do not understand the word דרור as free flying, unrestricted, but they apply it to birds that have learned to escape capture by man both inside the house and outside of it. Ed.]
      It is also possible that the expression שתי צפרים is intended to exclude birds that are ritually impure from being offered as a sacrifice.
  
     ועץ ארז ושני תולעת ואזוב, “cedar-wood, crimson thread, and hyssop.” Ibn Ezra writes that the items the Torah requires as part of the purification rites of the <i>metzura</i> indicate the conceptual linkage between someone whose house is afflicted with a parallel affliction, with the ritual impurity conferred by dead bodies of near relatives and even with the Passover sacrifice offered in Egypt prior to the Exodus. [Emerging from the state of being afflicted with <i>tzoraat</i> is as cataclysmic as the redemption (on a national scale) of the Jewish people from Egypt. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   אל כלי חרס, “into an earthen vessel.” Allegorically speaking, the person preparing to rejoin society is to humble himself, like broken earthenware.
  
     על מים חיים, “over spring water;” just as Naaman, the Assyrian general who had to bathe himself in the river Jordan.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  על פני השדה,”upon the open field.” Uninhabited places where symptoms of that disease cannot be found so that the person that has been cured will not per chance be re-infected with the disease. (Ibn Ezra)
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   יקח שני כבשים תמימים וכבשה אחת, “he is to take two unblemished sheep and one ewe;” Nachmanides points out that the Torah did not state what is to be done with these three animals except to say that one of the male sheep mentioned is to serve as a guilt-offering, the priest having heaved it before <i>Hashem.</i> In verse 19 the Torah does state that the <i>metzura</i> is to offer his sin offering and his burnt offering, without referring to a specific animal. Seeing that we had learned in <i>Parshat Vayikra</i> that every sin offering, if consisting of the species sheep, consists of a feminine species, it is clear that the ewe is to serve as the sin-offering and the remaining male sheep as the burnt offering. (Ibn Ezra)
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   יתן על ראש המטהר וכפר עליו הכהן לפני ה', “he shall place upon the head of the person being purified, and the priest shall provide him atonement before <i>Hashem.”</i> The vehicle effecting the atonement is the blood of the guilt offering as well as the oil that the priest sprinkles in the direction of the Holy of Holies.
      The peculiarity in the procedures being described here is the fact that the expression וכפר, “he shall provide atonement,” is repeated so many times; after the guilt offering which apparently provided this atonement, the same expression is used in connection with the sin offering, and then again in connection with the burnt offering, and even again in connection with the gift offering, the מנחה. As a result of this we are quite confused as to the nature of this “atonement.”
      Perhaps the guilt offering affords forgiveness, atonement, for the trespass the person in question had committed before he had become afflicted with the <i>tzoraat</i>. The sin offering may afford atonement for sins committed while the person was in a state of <i>tzoraat</i>. Possibly, due to his pain, he addressed his prayers then to the attribute of <i>Elokim</i> instead of to the attribute of <i>Hashem</i>, the only one to whom prayers may be addressed. This may be the reason that the Torah adds the word מטומאתו when speaking of this specific atonement.
      The burnt offering and the gift offering may be the “real” ransom of his soul, permitting him to rejoin society. This is why the Torah may have added the words: “and the priest will provide atonement for him, and he will emerge purified.”
      It is also possible that this last line of וכפר עליו הכהן וטהר, “and the priest will provide atonement for him and he will emerge purified,” refers to all the foregoing collectively, seeing that also the bird-offerings had as their purpose atonement as we know from their description in connection with plague-like symbols on the walls of someone’s house. (14,53)
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   ונתתי נגע צרעת, “I will place a <i>tzoraat</i> affliction, etc.” <i>Rashi, -</i>seizing on the word נתן meaning “giving,”- explains this verse as good news, saying that these symptoms alert the owner of the house to hidden treasure in that house buried by the previous owner.
      Other commentators believe that these symptoms both in houses and garments, alert the new owner that these items unbeknown to them used to be artifacts of idolatry and therefore had to be destroyed. Now that the owners had been alerted, they could fulfill the commandment to destroy the items in question.
  
     ונתתי נגע צרעת בבית ארץ אחוזתכם, “I will place a <i>tzoraat</i> in the house of the land of your possession.” Nachmanides writes that the verse is addressed to the entire people of Israel, and it should therefore have been told to the entire nation, i.e. we would have expected the Torah to continue in verse 33 with the words אל כל עדת ישראל, “to the whole community of Israel.” The Torah, for reasons we do not know, decided to abbreviate.
      Alternately, the point is that the Torah spoke to Moses and Aaron in their capacity as the representatives of the whole people. The reason why the Torah, at this time, informed only Moses and Aaron of the legislation pertaining to such afflictions, is that all the details would have to be taught to the priests. Moses thought it pointless to teach all these details now, and preferred to wait until the Israelites would be on the point of entering and conquering the land. In Deut. 24,8 Moses does indeed warn the Israelites to observe all the pertinent laws and to follow the instructions of the priests concerning them.
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
   ואם ישוב הנגע ופרח בבית, “and if the affliction returns and erupts in the house, etc.” According to Nachmanides the affliction the Torah speaks of here does not again show up on the same stones as previously, but the same kind of affliction now appears on other stones and other earthen parts of the same house. This is different from when skin afflictions either shrunk or expanded on an afflicted person. On those occasions the Torah described changes occurring in the original symptom of the affliction. In matters of skin irregularities it is not unusual for symptoms to temporarily subside, only to resurface even more pronouncedly at a later stage of the disease. The disease not only had not disappeared, but, by penetrating more deeply into the body below the skin it had taken a firmer hold on the afflicted person. This is why the Torah here does not write: ואם ישוב הנגע ופרח באבנים ההם, “and if the affliction resurfaces and spreads out on these stones, etc,” but it writes in such a way that we understand that even if now the affliction surfaces in a part of the house that had not been afflicted at first, etc. The word בבית means that the entire house is viewed as having been potentially at risk as soon as any part of it had shown symptoms of being afflicted with this <i>tzoraat.</i> The reason for all this, the need to totally tear down the house, is that the רוח הרעה, the harmful atmosphere that had been responsible for the affliction first erupting, will not disappear until all the stones, etc., have been completely removed. Otherwise, there will always remain the risk that the reconstructed house would suddenly erupt with the same symptoms as had led to the partial destruction of the original house.
      The <i>Midrash</i> explains how one can understand all the verses without having recourse to the principle that the Torah is not bound to write everything sequentially, in chronological order.
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
   וכפר על הבית וטהר, “he shall provide atonement for the house and it will become purified.” According to Nachmanides this atonement is effected through the bird that is released into the air outside the city into the field. This bird is perceived as carrying away all the sins of the person who has purchased it and gone through the ritual with the help of the priest. The procedure is analogous to the שעיר המשתלח, the “scapegoat” that we are familiar with from the Day of Atonement rituals, although that scapegoat is thrown to its death. The reason why this procedure differs from that of a person who experiences <i>tzoraat</i> on his skin, is that the penalty for the sins of a person whose house is afflicted with <i>tzoraat</i> is much less than that of the person whose skin has become afflicted. The sin of the persons whose house was afflicted was far less serious than that of the person afflicted with <i>tzoraat</i> on his skin. The latter had to bring also a sin offering and a guilt offering. The initial atonement procedure is sufficient to cleanse the owner of the afflicted house of his sin.
      Some commentators believe that every “atonement” mentioned in connection with any of three types of <i>tzoraat</i> afflicting house, garments, or skin as well as the “atonement” mentioned by the Torah in connection with the offering the Torah demands of a mother who has given birth recently, as well as the people afflicted with the disease known as <i>zav,</i> mentioned in the following chapter, is not a term for “forgiving a sin,” but is a term denoting the purification of the party concerned having been successfully completed. We find the term used in that sense in <i>Gittin</i> 56, where the words לכפורי ידיה בהאי גברא mean that “G’d wants to ‘clean’ His hands,” i.e. punish him for having been the instrument through whom Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed. Clearly, the meaning of the word there is not “atonement” in the normal sense of the word.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   איש איש כי יהיה זב מבשרו, “any man who will have a discharge from his flesh, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why a discharge from the male genitals is ritually impure and he needs to bring an offering when he has recovered, is that it is one of the most infectious diseases and he needs to bring a thanksgiving offering for having recovered from this disease at all. The sin offering, by means of which he acknowledges that had he not been guilty of a sin he would not have been afflicted with this disease, is meant to assure him that he will not become the victim of further diseases.
      The reason that male sperm is altogether something that is ritually impure and confers ritual impurity on contact etc., although it is a basic and natural activity, is rooted in the very nature of the act of sexual intercourse as the means by which man assure himself of progeny. It is analogous to the ritual impurity caused by and conferred by the dead. The very essence of a human being’s body is the source of its corruption. He who does lie with a woman and impregnates her, has no way of knowing whether he has destroyed his sperm in the process, or whether it will take root in the partner’s ovum and produce a new life.
      The Torah imposed a lesser degree of ritual impurity on a woman that has been afflicted with a similar discharge from her womb at regular intervals when she menstruates, proof that her most recent opportunity to be inseminated had failed to achieve its purpose, seeing that with her such symptoms are part of her natural life cycle, at any rate. She does not have to bring a sacrifice expressing her gratitude for having been healed, as the phenomena she experienced were not in the nature of a disease. The Torah therefore imposes on her a period of ritual impurity for seven days, regardless of her flow of blood (or discharge) having ceased earlier than that. Normally, such a flow of menstrual blood does not continue for more than seven days. However, if her discharge continues beyond the seven days that she normally discharges menstrual blood, she is clearly experiencing a disease, and upon being cured has to offer a sacrifice acknowledging that G’d had healed her, similar to the male <i>zav</i> having to bring such a sacrifice.
      In the case of the female suffering the disease described as <i>zav</i> or <i>zavah,</i> the Torah does not spell out the need for ritual immersion by the afflicted woman, as the comparisons drawn by the Torah between the male suffering this disease and the female suffering it make it plain that their processes of purification are similar, except that the male must bathe in spring water whereas the woman need only immerse herself in a ritual bath, a <i>mikveh,</i> water in contact with rainwater or other water that has not had a chance to become ritually contaminated.
      According to the plain meaning of the text the woman would have to bathe herself in spring water just as the male suffering from that disease, however our sages ruled that she need not bathe in spring water. They derived the reason for their ruling from the extraneous words ואחר תטהר, “and afterwards she becomes ritually pure” (verse 28) There was really no need to add these words as a woman is included in the legislation and the verse only wanted to make a distinction in the mechanics of her purification rites and those of the male. The discharge of a woman called זבה, consist of blood, whereas the discharge of her male counterpart consist of a whitish fluid similar to the colour of semen. In the case of a woman the time of the month when such unexpected discharge occurs is of the essence in determining whether this discharge is part of her menstrual cycle. The word ואחר means that although her purification rites did not involve spring water nonetheless she becomes purified by immersing herself in the same kind of water that purifies her at the end of her monthly menstruation.תטהר. 
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  וידיו לא שטף במים, “without having rinsed his hands in water.” Nachmanides writes that in this instance the Torah uses the word שטף to describe immersion in the purifying waters of the <i>mikveh.</i> The same expression had been used by the Torah for someone instead of immersing his body, immersing his ritually contaminated vessels.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   אחרי מות שני בני אהרן, “After the death of two of Aaron’s sons.” The reason why the Torah again refers to this event at this juncture is that seeing the Torah had just (15,31) concluded by warning us to be extremely careful not to become guilty of death through polluting G’d’s residence while entering it in a state of ritual contamination, the Torah uses the death of Aaron’s sons as an example designed to serve as a deterrent to anyone else daring to desecrate consecrated grounds in such a fashion.
      Nachmanides adds that the wording אחרי מות שני בני אהרן is that immediately after that tragic death had occurred, Aaron and his sons had been warned not to enter consecrated grounds while in a state of intoxication. (Compare Leviticus 10,8-11).
      It is certainly reasonable to assume that these laws were revealed to Aaron and the people on the day following the death of Nadav and Avihu. They could not very well have been communicated on the very day of the death of the sons, as the legal status of אנינות, preoccupation with burial and mourning rites, prevent the remaining two sons from studying Torah on that day. Not only that, but the Holy Spirit does not communicate with people when they are in such a state of mind.
      The warning not to drink wine applied to Aaron personally more than to anyone else, as he performed service in the Tabernacle on a daily basis. Moses had been informed before now, of course, but the Torah wanted that the entire people be warned at once. 
      [We must remember that though Moses had been given all these laws already on Mount Sinai, seeing that at that time the whole subject of building a Tabernacle had not yet become relevant, as there had not yet been the sin of the golden calf, there had also been no reason to reveal this to the people until now, the first or second day that the Tabernacle had become operative. Ed.]
      As a general rule (Nachmanides writing), whenever the Torah departs from chronological sequence in its report, it prefaces such statements with the words “G’d spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai, etc.,” to remind us that the legislation following was not an afterthought. Ed.]
      Our sages claim that the meaning of the words ולא תמותו in Leviticus 10,9 was an oblique reference to the reason why the two sons of his had died. Aaron should take care that the same would not happen to him. [Seeing that the author does not attribute this statement of “our sages” to a specific source, I permit myself the comment that this sounds incredibly unlikely, as surely someone of Aaron’s stature did not need to be given this kind of a warning in order to obey G’d’s instructions. Ed.]
  
     בקרבתם לפני ה' וימותו, “when they approached the presence of <i>Hashem</i> and died.”
      Ibn Ezra comments that this verse is proof that the sons of Aaron died because they had dared to bring the incense into the Tabernacle.
      Nachmanides disagrees, as the Torah always mentions the sin of anyone who died an untimely death at the hands of <i>Hashem</i>. The Torah had already told us on a number of occasions that the cause of death was that they introduced “strange fire” which they had not been authorised to do. (Leviticus 10,1) However, this was described as בהקריבם אש זרה, “when they introduced alien fire,” whereas here the Torah wrote about בקרבתם, i.e. when they personally entered a domain which was out of bounds to them. It is therefore completely reasonable that the Torah should now warn Aaron not to enter the wrong place at the wrong time. Although he is permitted entry to the Holy of Holies, even, something no other priest is allowed to enter, he cannot do so at times of his choosing.
      It is quite possible that the correct interpretation of our verse is in line with what our sages said (<i>Mechilta Beshalach ויסע ו</i>) that the people had come to the conclusion that the incense contained poisonous herbs which had caused the death of Nadav and Avihu, the 250 men who offered incense during Korach’s rebellion, etc. The Torah, countering these wild accusations leveled against the incense offering, wanted to make the point that it had not been the incense which had killed them but their unauthorised entry, both in terms of place and time. Aaron therefore had to be especially on guard, seeing he would offer incense on a daily basis he would be more exposed to such a danger than any other individual. The Torah defines precisely when, where, and who is fit to offer this special offering (verses 12 and 13).
      Some scholars feel that we must take careful note of the difference in meaning of the word בקרבתם as opposed to בהקריבם, the former referring to the act of entering a forbidden domain regardless of the purpose why it was entered and regardless of what the person entering had in his hands as an offering. In order to make plain that mere entering the sacred domain by Nadav and Avihu was a mortal sin by itself, the Torah now instructs Aaron: בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקוד'ש, “only when accompanied by the following is Aaron allowed to enter these holy domains.”
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויאמר ה' אל משה, “<i>Hashem</i> said to Moses,” I am greatly perturbed by this apparent repetition. We have already been told that G’d spoke to Moses, without hearing what He said to him. Our verse appears as if G’d is rephrasing the tenor of what He was about to say without having said anything as yet. We do not know if G’d had interrupted Himself by speaking on some other subject first, the details of which have been withheld from us. Is the word ויאמר merely indicative of G’d taking up the broken thread of a previous conversation?     Some commentators claim that the subject of G’d’s message in verse one was the legislation about the red heifer, the ashes of which would be used to purify the people who had been involved in the burial of Nadav and Avihu who had become ritually impure through their handling the corpses. According to that version, the message contained as part of verse one was delivered still on the same day these sons died, i.e. the first of <i>Nissan,</i> whereas in verse two we deal with what G’d told Moses on the second day of <i>Nissan.</i> According to that, the remains of the red heifer were burned on the second day of <i>Nissan,</i> and the Torah now instructs Moses that the ashes would be used to purify people who had become ritually polluted through contact with dead bodies. In order to make this clear, the Torah refers once more to the death of the two sons of Aaron, to indicate that the ashes of the red heifer are used in purifying those who had become impure through their participation in the burial of these two people. 
     דבר אל אהרן אחיך, “speak to your brother Aaron.” Nachmanides writes that the reason G’d mentioned that Aaron was Moses’ brother, [something that all of us have been aware of for a long time, Ed.] was that G’d meant to emphasise that although Moses was not included in the injunction not to enter the Tabernacle at any time, Aaron was subject to such constraints.
  He had already been told to enter the Holy of Holies only once a year on the Day of Atonement, as we know from Exodus 30,10 וכפר אהרן על קרנותיו אחת בשנה, “he is to secure atonement on its corners once a year by the sin offering of atonement, etc. This is what has been referred to in our verse here. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   בגדי קודש הם, “they are sacred vestments.” The sages in <i>Torat Kohanim</i> use this verse as applying not only to this service in the Tabernacle on the Day of Atonement, but as applying to any time the High Priest performs duties in the Temple or Tabernacle. [Meaning that only the four vestments mentioned here are to be worn by him inside the Tabernacle, not the additional vestments which have been described as לכבוד ולתפארת, “for glory and splendour.” (Exodus 28,2). Ed.]
      Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text, seeing that in connection with the eight vestments the Torah had used the expression ועשית בגדי קודש, “you are to make sacred vestments,” (Exodus 28,2) the same terminology is used here. The Torah by emphasising the fact that the garments enumerated here are to be linen, בד, indicates that during service inside the Tabernacle only linen garments are to be worn. [Approaching <i>Hashem</i> in golden vestments when asking forgiveness would be the ultimate in bad taste. Ed.]
      In <i>Vayikra Rabbah,</i> 21,10 a comparison is drawn between the way service by the angels is perceived as taking place in the celestial counterpart to the Tabernacle on earth. In those regions the service is performed in linen vestments. The words כתונת בד קודש match what our sages used to describe as taking place in those regions. (Compare Ezekiel 9,1) Commenting on three different verbs used by the Torah for Aaron donning these vestments, ילבש, יחגור, יצנוף, when we would have thought that the word ילבש would suffice to describe all this, <i>Torat Kohanim</i> explains that seeing that the High Priest had to return to the Holy of Holies for the offering of the evening portion of the incense, he needed additional vessels to retrieve the spoon used for the incense, for instance, these extra words hint at these additional items the High Priest had to take with him.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   וגורל אחד לעזאזל, “and one lot for the one designated as destined for <i>Azazel</i>.” The word עזאזל is interpreted in <i>Torat Kohanim</i> as “a hard place in the mountains.” The word is linked to the word עז meaning “hard, tough.” By doubling the letters the point is made that the place is especially hard, unyielding.     Nachmanides proceeds to explain the somewhat strange sounding rite of the scapegoat as follows: There used to be people who worshipped other deities, i.e. they ascribed divine powers to phenomena in nature. In fact these so-called deities are agents of the Creator whom we Jews perceive as מלאכים, loosely translated as “angels,” as they perform tasks assigned to them by the Creator, by <i>Hashem.</i> These misguided people offered sacrifices to these powers in the mistaken belief that these powers were able to do things on their own, things that G’d had not authorised them to do, or to fail to do. The Torah, had, of course, forbidden us totally to see in these powers anything resembling divinity. However, on the occasion of <i>Yom Kippur,</i> the Torah commanded that one of the two male goats designated as part of the Temple service would instead of being offered on the altar be dispatched to its death not as a sacrifice. The address to which this scapegoat was dispatched was the location in which the power perceived as possessing divine powers over nature was supposed to have its home. This power is equated in our thinking with the power that unleashes destruction [always at the command of <i>Hashem,</i> of course. Ed.] The “president” of these powers deserves to be acknowledged for what it is, though of course not to be deified, and that is why the scapegoat described in our verse is not slaughtered as opposed to sacrifices that are. The celestial body perceived as in “control” of all negative events in our universe is the planet Mars. Its counterpart among human beings is the nation of Edom, i.e. the descendants of Esau. Esau is the nation that has inherited the sword as the symbol of its power, ever since Yitzchok blessed his son Esau. In he animal kingdom the male goat represents the counterpart of Esau/Edom amongst the human beings. Parts of the domain of the male goats are the so-called שדים, satanic forces, the demons.      The whole subject of the scapegoat must not, G’d forbid, be misunderstood as a kind of offering to these demonic forces from the Jewish people. On the contrary, the procedure demonstrates that we carry out the will of our Creator. Our sages have illustrated this in the form of a parable. When an individual prepares a feast in honour of his king, the king in turn, asks the host of this feast to also give a portion to a certain servant of his. Naturally, the individual tendering the feast to the king, in complying with his king’s request has not thereby done anything for that particular servant of the king. He has merely carried out a wish by his monarch. He had tendered a meal to the king, who had decided not to eat it all himself but to let another one of his servants share in the honour bestowed on him The reason why the king decided to give a portion to that particular servant of his was that he thereby wanted to perform an act of kindness for the host of this meal by ensuring that the servant who had not been invited to that meal but to whom the king diverted a portion now, had no reason to be jealous of the host and be upset that the host had not seen fit to invite him also as guest to that feast. A clear proof of the basic analogy presented in this parable is the fact that the scapegoat, though given to the demons had not been slaughtered, its blood had not been sprinkled on the altar, as was done with the part of the feast to which the king and his other servants had been invited. This is also the underlying reason for the lots which were drawn as to which of the male goats would be served to whom, -to continue in the language of the parable.- Both the fact that according to <i>halachah</i> both male goats had to be as near to twins as was possible, and the fact that only the drawing of lots determined which was to be served to whom, made it plain that the guest whom the king’s admirer had not invited was not considered inferior, else an inferior portion would have been set aside for him from the outset.     Onkelos translates the words גורל אחד לה' as “one of the male goats was destined for the Hoy Name of <i>Hashem,”</i> whereas the other one was destined for Azazel. In other words, the first one was addressed to an attribute of <i>Hashem</i>, not to His essence, whereas the second was addressed to the essence of Azazel, not to an attribute of his.     Such considerations prompted our sages both in <i>Torat Kohanim and in</i> Yuma 67 to comment as follows on Leviticus 18,4 את משפטי תעשו ואת חוקותי תשמרו, “Carry out My laws and observe My statutes.” The “laws” are the ones that are so self-evident that if the Torah had not spelled them out we would have had to legislate them ourselves. The former include legislation against robbery, murder, idolatry, etc.; whereas the latter include such statutes as not to mix wool with linen in a garment, not to allow the widow of a husband who had no children to remarry unless her brother-in-law had refused to enter into a levirate marriage with her (חליצה), not to eat pig’s meat, the red heifer, etc. The latter have been described as examples of irrational laws which the nations of the world ridicule, and thereby test our faith in the Creator Who has wanted to see if we would observe these laws although we do not understand their rationale. The legislation about the scapegoat also falls into the category of laws that afford the gentiles a challenge in that they feel that basically, we do nothing else than what they do. They cannot challenge all the various offerings that we offer to <i>Hashem</i> and hope thereby to undermine our faith in the invisible Creator. They thought that the absence of the mention of <i>Hashem</i> in the procedure of the scapegoat proved that we also pay homage to demons, etc. They thought they had found another proof of the irrationality of our faith in the red heifer legislation that appears to contaminate the very person who is preoccupied with purifying others.     The wording of the Torah, as alluded to by Onkelos, makes it plain that the gentiles have completely misunderstood the phenomenon of the scapegoat. The major reason why the gentiles were misled is that both the red heifer procedure and the second half of the scapegoat procedure takes place outside consecrated grounds. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  ...elsewhere the sinner’s or his representative the High Priest’s placing his hands with all his weight on the animal offered as the sin offering is designed to regain the goodwill of <i>Hashem</i> for the sinner or sinners. In this instance (compare <i>Shabbat</i> 119) the scapegoat reluctantly agrees to carry the sins of the Israelites and says <i>Amen.</i> 
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ובא אהרן אל אהל מועד, “Aaron shall come to the Tent of Meeting;” <i>Rashi,</i> quoting our sages (<i>Yuma</i> 32) says that the verse does not really represent the correct sequence of what happened. According to the sages the entire chapter is reported chronologically in proper sequence with the exception of this verse. Aaron did not enter the Sanctuary until after he had completed the procedures involving both the bull and the male goat offering. Afterwards he entered the Sanctuary in order to retrieve the ladle and the pan of the incense that he had left behind there earlier. 
      Nachmanides agrees that the position of this verse in the <i>Yom Kippur</i> rites needs explaining. If we were to accept the verse at its face value, we would have to believe that Aaron made a special trip into the Sanctuary to do nothing else but retrieve the ladle and the censer which he had use earlier when offering the incense. For all this he would have to first change his golden vestments immerse himself in a ritual bath, etc, and don the linen vestments mandatory when entering the Sanctuary after first having stood nude in the Sanctuary. We must assume that Aaron entered the Sanctuary in order to perform service, some of the priestly functions. There was no need to mention that this service consisted of the retrieval of the ladle and the censer. The meaning of 16,13 ונתן את הקטרת על האש לפני ה' וכסה ענן הקטרת את הכפורת וגו', “he shall place the incense upon the fire before <i>Hashem</i>; so that the cloud of smoke of the incense will envelop the lid of the Holy Ark, etc.,” is that Aaron shall wait there until the cloud of the incense had enveloped the lid of the Holy Ark. When that had occurred, he was to leave immediately and leave behind the ladle and the censer [as they were too hot to handle at that moment. Ed.] Naturally, at some stage these two vessels had to be retrieved. This is what the Torah refers to when it writes in verse 23 “Aaron is to enter the Sanctuary, disrobe from the golden vestments and again don the linen vestments, etc.” The Torah did not mention at this stage what he had done prior to this while having worn the golden vestments, such as performing the rites of the daily <i>tamid</i> offering. Instead, the Torah commences describing the daily sacrifices that were offered while he was wearing the linen vestments. These rites are described sequentially. It is the custom of the Torah to relate procedures in order of their happening and to complete the report of them. In this instance, retrieval of the ladle and censer from the Holy of Holies was the last item on the agenda. Even though, as a result, there is some chronological inconsistency in the report here, the Torah rectifies this by reporting that Aaron had entered the Sanctuary again wearing the appropriate vestments in order to complete the final stage of the day’s Temple service in them.
  
     והניחם שם, “and he shall leave them there.” He was to leave these garments at the place where he changed into his golden vestments. We are taught by this that they would not be used again even on the Day of Atonement in the following year.”
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   יוציא אל מחוץ למחנה, “he will take outside beyond the boundaries of the camp.” According to Ibn Ezra the subject of the word יוציא is Aaron himself. Nachmanides disagrees and understands that whoever was the person who had been designated to do this would at this stage proceed and take these animal carcasses outside the camp limits there to burn them with their skins, etc. The same interpretation is correct for the respective persons charged with ושרפו, burning these remains.
  
     ושרפו, “they shall burn (transitively);” the verb is in the plural mode to teach us that if there are a number of priests participating in that procedure, one may bring the torch or match, another may arrange the firewood, yet another may light the flame, seeing that only the one who brings the torch or match becomes liable to ritual contamination by the procedure. Seeing that the others do not become ritually contaminated, the Torah speaks of the one starting the fire in the singular mode, i.e. השורף, in verse 28. [Priests must not become ritually contaminated unless they perform a מצוה by doing so. The one starting the fire has to be מכבס בגדיו both immerse his body and the garments he wore in a ritual bath after having completed the task. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   ויעש כאשר צוה ה' את משה, “Aaron did as G’d had commanded Moses.” He carried out all that he had been commanded to do and he remained careful for the rest of his life not to enter beyond the dividing curtain except on the Day of Atonement, on which day he performed the sacrificial service in strict compliance with what the Torah had instructed Moses.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו ואל כל ישראל, “speak to Aaron and to all the Children of Israel.” Nachmanides writes that seeing that the Torah warns that the priests are not to offer any sacrifices outside the consecrated grounds, and the people on their part are not to enter consecrated grounds in order to offer their sacrifices, the Torah also had to warn the Israelites not to offer their sacrifices outside the consecrated grounds.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   אשר ישחט שור או כשב או עז במחנה או מחוץ למחנה, “who will slaughter either an ox, a sheep, or a goat inside the camp or even beyond the boundaries of the camp, etc.”     According to the commentary by Nachmanides our paragraph discusses two separate subjects. Subject number one is the prohibition for Israelites while in the desert to eat meat which was not part of a sacrificial offering, something which in <i>halachah</i> we call בשר תאווה, meat eaten merely to satisfy one’s craving for it. The penalty for violating the commandment is <i>karet,</i> the same penalty as is applied to people who deliberately eat on the Day of Atonement, or people who violate the Sabbath deliberately when there are not any witnesses whose testimony would lead to a conviction in court. Even slaughtering non-consecrated animals outside the confines of the Tabernacle is equally forbidden when these had not been brought to the entrance of the Tabernacle to be offered there as שלמים, peace offerings, in which case the fat parts and the blood are sprinkled or burned on the altar as the case may be, and the remainder, after the priest has received his statutory share, may be eaten by the owners.     Subsequent to this legislation, the Torah continues in verse eight to deal with the reverse situation, when an Israelite arrogates to himself the right to perform priestly procedures within the confines of the Tabernacle. The Israelite as well as the priest is warned not to erect altars even to <i>Hashem</i> outside the confines of the Tabernacle. While it is true that upon entry into the Holy Land the regulations concerning בשר תאווה were considerably relaxed, the prohibition to erect private altars was never rescinded. Even a עולה, a burnt offering, of which the owner of the animal does not receive anything, must not be offered on a private altar in a private domain. While it is true that immediately after the Israelites entered the Holy Land, some altars outside the Tabernacle were permitted for the purpose of offering communal offerings, in the main, that was only a temporary arrangement. The permission to eat meat that had not first been part of a sacrificial offering was a concession to the fact that once in the land of Israel, the journey all the way to either Shiloh, or later on Jerusalem, was a great inconvenience for the people, who, but for this concession, would normally have eaten meat only on the three pilgrimage festivals when at least the male had to appear in the Temple.     At any rate, it is hard to understand that the mere fact of slaughtering an animal that had not been consecrated as an offering should carry the <i>karet</i> penalty, seeing that even Rabbi Yishmael derives this prohibition from what is written in Deut. 12,20, and there the Torah speaks about animals which had been consecrated as offerings. Rabbi Akiva, on the other hand, does not agree that meat that had not been consecrated was ever forbidden. From that verse we can derive that while the people were in the desert and the Tabernacle was right in their midst, only consecrated meat was allowed. But nothing had been spelled out about someone slaughtering such animals becoming guilty of the <i>karet</i> penalty.    
  
  Verse 4
  
   דם שפך, “it is considered bloodshed.” Seeing that the Torah had said in Genesis 9,3 כירק עשב נתתי לכם את כל לאכלה, “I have allocated it to you as food, like the grass of the field,” and had thereby permitted Noach and mankind to kill living creatures to use as food, excepting man, i.e. cannibalism, the Torah here adds –for the Israelites- that unless we observe the rules laid down for eating meat the whole procedure turns into murder, into wanton killing. In that event, we must consider the situation as if the prohibition to eat meat which was in effect before the deluge had been reinstated. 
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   לשעירים, “to the demons;” the spiritually negative phenomena, שדים, the expression occurs in that sense also in Isaiah 13,21 ושעירים ירקדו שם, “and the demons are dancing there.”
      Ibn Ezra writes that the reason that these demons are described as שעירים, hairs, is that people’s hair stands on edge when they behold these creatures.
      It is more likely that the reason they are called thus is that they conduct themselves like people who have gone out of their minds, as elaborated on by Nachmanides in his commentary on 17,14 כי נפש כל בשר בדם היא.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   כי נפש כל בשר בדם הוא, “for every living creature’s life-force is in its blood.” From this we learn that the reason for our not being allowed to eat blood is that the purpose of the blood is to secure atonement for man. It is part of the essence of the creature. The reason is the same as the reason for the prohibition of eating certain fat parts that are burned up on the altar. These too serve to secure man atonement for his sins. For man to eat such parts of the animal would be counterproductive, as he would deprive himself of the chance to achieve atonement This leaves us with the question why the blood and fat of animals which are not allowed to be offered on the altar is also forbidden? Also, why then did the Torah not forbid all kinds of fat, not only that on the kidneys and the liver? The fat parts that are not easily identifiable from a distance have not been designated as atonement to be burned up on the altar. Seeing that all blood looks alike, no such distinction was made as to which part of the blood requires sprinkling on the altar, etc. Maimonides’ approach to the subject parallels that of Nachmanides, i.e the Torah widens the framework of the prohibition to make such practices as sacrificing to the demons even more unlikely. Ibn Ezra points out that the resident stranger has not been mentioned in this paragraph at all, as opposed to the paragraph dealing with meat offerings and burnt offerings, as the Israelites in the Land of Israel are obligated to enforce that such resident strangers do not offer sacrifices to their deities. On the other hand, when discussing the prohibition of eating blood, the stranger resident in the Land of Israel is mentioned as, seeing that the blood represents the life force of the animal, such a stranger is also forbidden to eat that blood. 
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   אשר יצוד ציד חיה או עוף אשר יאכל, “who will trap a beast of bird of the kind that may be eaten;” seeing that the eating of any kind of blood is prohibited, and such blood cannot be offered on the altar either, it would be insensitive to leave such blood uncovered. The Torah therefore decrees burial of a kind for the lifeblood of such pure animals. Moreover, unless the blood of such animals is covered, anyone seeing it might conclude that this blood was the remainder of blood poured out after part had been sprinkled on an altar as a sacrificial rite dedicated to idolatry. Ibn Ezra is convinced that here too resident strangers in the Land of Israel are forbidden to eat such impure animals as donkeys, horses or birds of prey.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   דמו בנפשו, “its blood represents its life.” According to <i>Rashi,</i> the meaning of this expression is that the blood of such an animal [that is not equipped with a soul, נשמה, is its life-force Ed.], acts in lieu of a soul. When deprived of its life it dies.
      Nachmanides writes that <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation is not correct, but that it is possible to understand the meaning of the word נפש as an alternate word for גוף, body. We find something analogous in connection with Psalms 105,18 where the words ברזל באה נפשו, normally translated as “an iron collar put on his neck,” may be understood as describing a strong body as equivalent of a life force. [In the context there when Joseph’s encounter with Mrs Potiphar is described as Joseph trading “irons” for a “sword,” i.e.. he came close to being executed, losing his נפש, for allowing himself almost to be seduced by that woman, seeing he had provided her with that opportunity by being alone in the house with her. Ed.]
      Personally, (Nachmanides speaking) I think that the Torah has provided us with three meanings for the term דם, seeing that each time the penalty of <i>karet</i> is mentioned alongside. This teaches that unless we kept in mind all three parts of the definition we could not properly understand the subject.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   וכל נפש אשר יאכל נבלה וטרפה באזרח ובגר, “any person native or proselyte, that will eat a dead carcass (natural death) or a beast that had been torn and died as a result,” Ibn Ezra writes that in view of the Torah having written about animals not fit as sacrifices on the altar, it also mentions two other categories of animals that are in a state of being unfit for the altar, though under different circumstances those animals would have qualified as sacrificial offerings.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   דבר אל בני ישראל, “speak to the Children of Israel;” Nachmndes points out that seeing that the legislation following includes all segments of the people equally, the priests are not mentioned separately. The Torah introduces this chapter with the words: אני ה' אלוקיכם, as if to say: “when you speak to them tell them that you are speaking in My name.” There had been no need to spell this out more clearly seeing that whenever Moses came out of the Tabernacle without wearing his veil around his head, whatever he was going to say were instructions he had just received from <i>Hashem</i>, and he did not have to add the words: “thus <i>Hashem</i> has said.” Everybody knew that the spirit of the Lord was speaking out of Moses’ throat. There are many similar examples in the Book of Deuteronomy, paragraphs beginning with the words: והיה אם שמוע תשמעו אל מצותי, “it will be when you will surely listen, etc.,” when nobody misunderstood thinking that Moses was speaking about commandments issued by him instead of <i>Hashem.</i> The people were well aware that the promise of rainfall, to quote but one example, was not meant to mean that Moses would command the rain to fall.
      Ibn Ezra comments that the reason why the Torah, after having previously spoken about the demons, begins its admonition to the people not to walk in the footsteps of the Egyptians, is that these Egyptians had made a practice of offering sacrifices to these שערים, the demons. The reason that the practices of the people of Canaan were also singled out here as something the people of Israel should not try to emulate, was that these people were steeped very deeply in sexually perverted conduct, עריות. Our sages say that the Egyptians were no less guilty of sexually licentious conduct than were the Canaanites.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   את משפטי תעשו, “carry out My laws, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> says that whenever the Torah refers to G’d’s law as משפטי, what He means is that if He had not spelled out these laws in His Torah, the people themselves should have made laws like this in order to secure the continued existence of civilised society. This is why the Torah adds the otherwise superfluous words אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם, ”which mankind is to observe and live by them.”
      Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text the laws described as משפטים, are the ones written in Exodus chapters 21–24 that comprise in the main inter personal relationships known as מצות בין אדם לחברו. This is why the Torah adds the rider אשר יעשה אדם וחי בהם, ”that man is to carry out in order to live by these laws.” Failure to observe these laws results in anarchy.
      Our sages interpret the words וחי בהם as a promise that he who observes these laws will enjoy life in the world to come. In that event the words would refer to observing את חוקותי תשמורו, “to observe My statutes,” i.e. the ones whose rationale escapes us, for observance of which the Torah holds out he promise of success beyond this world, seeing that observing social justice is self fulfilling in our terrestrial universe, and does not need the assurance of וחי בהם. We must realize that when the Torah speaks of חיים, “life,” it does so on different occasions in different contexts, i.e. ”life on different levels” as is appropriate to the context in which the word appears. 
  
     את משפטי תעשו, “you are to carry out My laws, etc.;” the reason why the משפטים were mentioned first is that once we observe these commandments i.e. performing justice tempered wit mercy, משפט וצדקה, it is easier to also perform the statutes which are basically acts of obedience and faith in the Creator. 
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   איש איש אל כל-שאר בשרו, ”any man shall not approach his close relative, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the underlying reason for the legislation not to indulge in incestuous relationships has not been spelled out in the Torah. Maimonides claims in his Guide for the Perplexed (3,49) that the underlying reason is to minimize the frequency of indulging one’s libido, and with close relatives who may live in the same house such opportunities exist more than with potential sexual partners who live elsewhere. The subject is closely related to matters discussed in the <i>Sefer Yetzirah</i>, that the author claims not to have understood. Moreover the subject of sexual gratification contains animalistic elements at the same time as the fulfillment of the first commandment G’d gave man. Anyone who knows that in indulging his libido he will not or cannot fulfill that commandment must not indulge in sexual intercourse. Seeing that in order to fulfill the commandment to multiply, i.e. to have children, our libido has its positive part to play in the way the Creator arranged the human race, it was impossible to outlaw sexual activity altogether. He therefore legislated what from our vantage point may look like a compromise, but what from His vantage point no doubt reflects His superior wisdom. [Some of this wording is my own. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 7
  
   ערות אביך, “The nakedness of your father, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the reference is to the wife of one’s father who is not one’s mother, whereas the words ערות אמך refer to one’s mother who was never married to your father (either because he raped her or they had illegitimate relations seeing that he was legally unable to marry her)
      Nachmanides adds that the Talmud in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 54 does not explain our verse in the manner <i>Rashi</i> does, but explains the scenario in terms of homosexual relations of son and father. Seeing that in the Talmud there is an opinion (Rabbi Yehudah) that reflects <i>Rashi’s</i> approach, the <i>R’osh</i>, our author’s father, writes that Rabbi Yehudah’s view appears closer to the plain meaning of the text. 
      Nachmanides’ own opinion is that the two statements ערות אביך and ערות אמך do not speak of parallel situations at all. The first warning is the prohibition not to sleep with one’s mother, because by doing so one violates one’s father’s nakedness, whereas the second warning mentioning one’s mother underlines the fact that in violating one’s father’s nakedness one at the same time violates one’s mother’s nakedness. One commits two evil deeds at one and the same time by perpetrating a single incestuous act.
      After the Torah warns regarding incestuous relations involving one’s father which is at the same time an incestuous relationship with one’s mother, the Torah comes back to forbidding incestuous relationships with the wife of one’s father who is not one’s mother by saying that one must not have such relations with one’s father’s wife because by doing so one would in effect commit incest with one’s father. Similar reasons are given by the Torah for forbidding such relations with the father’s brothers. The meaning of the line ערות אחי אחיך לא תגלה is: “do not have relations with the wife of your father’s brother.” This is why no mention was made specifically of the wife of such brother (uncle).
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   מולדת בית או מולדת חוץ, “whether born to someone who may remain at home, or born to someone who must remain outside of it.” <i>Rashi</i> comments that the meaning of these words is: “regardless of whether one tells your father that: “you may keep her,” or whether one tells the father: ”you must divorce her.” [Compare <i>Yevamot</i> 23, an example being quoted being the <i>mamzeret,</i> an illegitimate offspring who we might have thought does not qualify as a “relative.“ Ed.]
      Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text this is a warning not to have sexual relations with one’s mother’s half sister, from the same mother, regardless if such sister was born to a husband and wife, her sister’s husband having married also his wife’s half sister, or if she is the daughter of a totally illicit relationship. Had we not had this verse, we would have thought that as long as the sister in question had been born in wedlock that she deserves preferred treatment, i.e. that the Torah would not publicly shame her by this legislation. This is also the reason that the Torah additionally writes in the following verse about a half sister when the two only have the same father. The first half of that verse speaks of such a half sister born in wedlock, i.e. מולדת אביך. This was necessary, seeing that in the case of a half sister, the daughter of the same mother, the Torah had not spelled out this distinction. There had been an assumption that possibly sleeping with a daughter of one’s father that resulted from an illicit relationship might not be considered by the Torah as an incestuous relationship; the Torah therefore had to set the record straight telling us that such a relationship is forbidden under the heading of קורבה, incest with a relative. The line בת אביך מולדת אביך was written so that we would know that the first verse mentioning בת אביך does not speak of a father’s daughter sired with his legal wife.
      Seeing that in the rules of incest for non Jews such relationships apply only when they involve the mother rather than the father, the Torah went on record that amongst Israelites there is no such distinction, and both father and mother are considered on an equal footing when it comes to incest. It is therefore possible to incur the penalties for a single act of incestuous relations both because of violating the law not to sleep with one’s sister and with one’s father’s wife.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   שארה הנה זמה היא, “they are close relatives, it is an act of depravity.” Onkelos translates the word זמה as עצת חטאין, “a frivolous sinful plot.” The originator of this plot is the evil urge.
      Nachmanides writes that basically all acts of incest are the product of temptation by one’s evil urge, and the reason why in this particular instance the Torah mentions זמה, “an evil plot,” is that the word זמה is derived from זמם, an expression the Torah uses for witnesses who plot together to accuse an innocent party of having committed a major crime. (Deut.) A devious, illicit plot is called זמה, or מזמה as we know from Job 42,2 and Both those instances describe the planning stage of an activity. 
      I believe that the reason why the Torah chose the verse dealing with a man engaging in sexual relations with a mother and her daughter or her granddaughter to describe such as an evil plot, is because in both instances it is likely that when the man engaged in sexual relations with one of the parties he fantasized about having such relations with the mother or the daughter, as the case may be. In other words, while committing the one sin he was already planning the next sin. In other words, by doing so, both indulgences of that man had been turned into sinful planning by him. The words: כי שארה הנה “for they are ‘family,’” make it plain that the Torah considers the parties mentioned as ‘family”’ in the same sense as a wife is “שאר” of her husband [although not so by DNA standards. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ואשה אל אחותה לא תקח לצרור,” and you must not marry your wife’s sister to make them rivals.” Until you married your wife’s sister, these sisters maintained a very warm relationship with one another. As soon as you provided the basis for jealousy among them by marrying both, you broke up this relationship and turned them into enemies, each vying for your favour. [We only need to think of Rachel and Leah to know the truth of that piece of psychology. Ed.] This same consideration does not apply when a man treats both a mother and her daughter as his wife, even though in terms of DNA the relationship between mother and daughter is closer than that between two sisters. This is borne out by the fact that one may marry the sister of one’s wife if one’s wife has died, something that is forbidden in the case of a mother who is one’s wife dying and one wants to marry her daughter.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ואל אשה בנדת טומאתה לא תקרב, “you shall not approach a woman (your own wife) during the time she is unclean through menstruation.” The Torah varied the term used for having sexual relations with one’s own wife during certain periods from לא תגלה ערותה to לא תקרב, seeing that one is constantly in the proximity of one’s own wife, and therefore a special effort is required not to run afoul of the prohibition to have relations with her. Therefore the Torah not only forbade intercourse but even touching one’s wife during those days, and that is why the Torah used the term לא תקרב “do not even come close!”
      Nachmanides writes that the reason for this prohibition is that basically, sexual intercourse is for the purpose of reproducing, for having children. Seeing that the embryo is fertilised by the mother’s blood, and it is a well known fact that during menstruation a woman’s body is unable to perform this function there is no point in her husband having relations with her during that period. Nachmanides adds that not only can a menstruating woman not produce or initiate life, but the blood oozing from her during that period is liable to kill any nascent life or afflict it with incurable disease.
      Furthemore, the scientists have told us of a true experiment, according to which a woman who is in an early state of menstruation who looks at a shiny mirror made of polished iron, that this mirror will reflect drops of blood, proving that the natural effect of her state is to create harmful substances which adhere to the surface of the mirror from the air she exhaled, making her similar to a lethal viper that can kill merely by looking at you. How much more so would she exhale harmful substances if one were to lie with her and be intimate with her. Because of all these reasons the Torah decreed a kind of isolation on such a woman, describing her state of impurity as a special impurity known as טומאת הנדה, and her state of contamination is compared to that conferred by contact with certain שרצים, four-legged vermin, and to the contamination conferred by someone afflicted with <i>tzoraat</i> whose ritual impurity is anchored in his body. [Our sages, as was their custom, accepted the results of the most recent findings of science in their time, especially in view of the fact that Jews in their time did not possess scientists of their own. This Editor has published an article exposing that <i>halachah</i> was erroneously based on such mistaken scientific findings in connection with the need to allow river water to cool off for 12 hours before using it to make the dough for <i>matzot</i> for Passover. Compare my book “the Just lived by his faith<i>,” as</i> well as the translation in Hebrew published by <i>Heychal Shlomoh</i> in שנה בשנה in תשנ'ד. Such a woman remains forbidden to her husband, and is generally in a state of ritual impurity until she has immersed herself in a ritual bath. 
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ואל אשת עמיתך לא תתן שכבתך לזרע, “and you must not lie carnally with the wife of your neighbour or colleague to defile yourself with her.” Ibn Ezra writes that cohabitation is an act that can be for one or more of three different purposes. 1) It is intended to impregnate one’s partner with one’s seed so as to produce offspring. 2) It may be designed to relieve oneself of excess pressures (moisture in the parlance of the author) built up in the body. 3) It can be engaged in so as to satisfy one’s lust, an act reducing man to the level of the beasts. The reason that the Torah adds the word לזרע, is to tell us that even when it is engaged in for an otherwise noble purpose, it is totally inadmissible when engaged in with someone else’s wife.
       Nachmanides writes that the reason the Torah added the word לזרע in our verse, is to remind us that if this were permitted, the father (and mother, if she is promiscuous) of any child resulting from such insemination would not know who the true father of such a child is. As a result of such lack of knowledge the earth would become full of abominations resulting from incestuous relationships even by Torah observing people. This is why the Talmud in <i>Sotah</i> 26 in commenting on Numbers 5,13 ושכב איש אותה שכבת זרע, “if some man has cohabited with her and left his sperm in her,” explains that the additional words שכבת זרע mean that if the wife is suspected of perverted sexual relations which could not result in her insemination, that she would not be given the special waters in order to determine if her professions of innocence were true. [it might explain the deceived husband’s rage, suspicion, as he would never know if the child his wife bears is his own. Ed.] This may also be the reason why Torah adds the words:שכבת זרע in Leviticus 19,20 as there too a doubt would surface about the paternity of any child born by that servant woman. In that instance even coitus interruptus is culpable, as the chance of a drop of semen having entered the vagina cannot be discounted.
      Personally, I feel (Nachmanides writing) that seeing that a married woman is totally out of bounds to any other man for any kind of intimacy, the words שכבת זרע or לזרע are perfectly justified, seeing that if the Torah had only written לא תתן שכבתך, I might have deduced that even if these two people had only kissed or embraced each other they would already have committed a capital offence. Therefore, the Torah added a word that clearly defines the offence as lying carnally with one another. The reason that in our verse the Torah omitted the customary words לגלות ערותה, “to reveal her nakedness”, is that this is a term fit to be used only in connection with people who are genetically related to one another.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   למולך, “to the <i>Moloch</i>.” Nachmanides writes that this word represents a certain type of idolatry, and the reason that the Torah dignifies this type of idolatry by using the prefix ה i.e. the vowel <i>patach</i> at the beginning which substitutes for the definitive article “the,” is due to the fact that this particular idolatry was extremely well known in Egypt, where the Israelites had become familiar with it.
      Ibn Ezra writes that it is possible that it was the chief deity of the people בני עמון, and may have been known to the Israelites as such.
  
     לא תתן להעביר למולך, “do not present them to the <i>Moloch.</i> The reason why the Torah employs the expression תתן, “give,” as well as the term העברה, ”transfer,” means that culpability for violating this injunction begins only when both of these acts have been perpetrated. The second stage of that cult involves handing a child over to fire, <i>Moloch</i> being the fire-god. In other words, the father hands over his child to the priests of that cult.
      Nachmanides adds that the word להעביר is not to be understood as the priests of that cult making the child brave a ring of fire, risking burning his feet, as portrayed <i>by Rashi,</i> for how could the father be guilty of death when a priest of another religion performed this act? Moreover the wording of the verse clearly means that the father of the child himself performed whatever act the Torah describes. Rather, the father may hand over his child to these idolatrous priests, who, in turn perform some sort of ceremony like swinging the child over fire, before restoring it to the father. 
      [There appears a certain amount of confusion as to precisely what these rites were and as a result we do not know for which violation the father would be guilty of death. In light of this I have decided not to elaborate on the subject any further. Ed.] The Torah, by using the word חלול in connection with this barbarous cult makes plain that it is a cult which desecrates the sanctity of all human life, hence the Torah’s extreme opposition to this cult.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ואת זכר לא תשכב, “and you are not to indulge in homosexual relations with another male.” Nachmanides writes that the reason for the injunctions against sexual relations between males, and between man and beasts, are quite clear, seeing that G’d abhors such mismatching of His creatures. Such relations cannot contribute to the continued existence of the respective species, the only valid reason for indulging in the sexual act.
      Ibn Ezra writes that seeing that the older daughter of Lot said to her younger sister (Genesis 19,34) “here I have slept with my father last night, etc.,” this is clear proof that the Torah views initiation of the act by the female of the species as on the same level as if the male initiates it, i.e. when a forbidden relationship is entered into both parties are equally culpable. Although the Torah uses the masculine לא תשכב in our verse, the same applies to the female of the spies, i.e. lesbianism is also prohibited.
      Nachmanides criticizes Ibn Ezra, saying that if he were correct why was the woman not automatically included in the warning of ובכל בהמה לא תתן שכבתך לטמאה בה, “you must not inject your seed into any female animal to lie with it carnally,” and mention separately immediately afterwards:ואשה לא תעמוד לפני בהמה לרבעה, “and a woman must not stand in front of an animal for the purpose of mating, etc,?” He therefore concludes that the verse quoted by Ibn Ezra from Genesis 19,34 means that Lot’s daughter drew attention to the fact that seeing that ejaculation of semen by the male normally occurs only as a result of physical activity by the male, something which in the case of the drunken Lot could hardly be expected, she told her sister that in order to secure the semen that both of them wanted, it was not enough to remain passive during the procedure, but they had to be physically active to arouse their father.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ותטמא הארץ ואפקוד עונה, “the land became contaminated and I recalled its inequity upon it.” Nachmanides writes that the extremely harsh attitude of the Torah to people violating the laws of incest and sexual perversions is due to the fact that the very earth of the land of Israel is revolted by such behaviour and will seek ways and means to eject people from it that so abuse their virility. The commandments involving incest and sexual perversions are commandments involving one’s body, and apply universally, wherever we are, so that we may wonder why the Torah linked non-observance to the Canaanites being ejected by that land, and the Torah threatening a similar rejection by the land to the Jewish people if they did not observe higher moral standards? 
      We must understand this in terms of the concept that what goes on in our world has parallels in the celestial regions. When the Creator created the universe, He imbued certain celestial forces with the ability to strongly affect the affairs in the terrestrial universe. Thus He appointed a “שר,” minister, for each of the nations of the earth who represented their interests in the celestial spheres. In our parlance this is part of the discipline known as astrology. Celestial bodies, their constellations, the times at which each appears in the sky and where in the sky, all play a role in the fates of these nations. All this occurs under the guidance of the Supreme Authority, <i>Hashem</i>, seeing that these bodies are not free to vary their orbits. 
      In Daniel 10,13 we read as follows: ושר מלכות פרס עמד לנגדי עשרים ואחד יום, והנה מיכאל אחד השרים הראשונים בא לעזרני, “but the heavenly prince of the Persian kingdom stood opposed to me for twenty one days; when behold! Michael one of the foremost heavenly princes came to my aid.” Daniel describes a confrontation between the heavenly forces appointed on behalf of the Persian Kingdom and the people of Israel, and describes that if not for the intervention of Michael, an angel appointed to look after the special interests of Israel, the opposing forces might have prevailed. The representatives of these various nations are described as מלכים kings, G’d by comparison being known as מלך מלכי המלכים, the King who is the supreme King,” just as we have the term אלוקי האלוקים, “the Supreme Divinity,” indicating that there are forces that are also perceived as divine but on a much lower level. When Avraham in his prayer for the good people of Sodom, if any, speaks of השופט כל הארץ לא יעשה משפט?, “is the One Who is in charge of Justice in the whole universe not going to perform justice?” He implies that there are forces, divinely appointed, to dispense justice in their narrow domain. The important thing to remember is that above all these “kings”: or “ministers” appointed by G’d as His agents to look after the affairs of the nations of the earth, exclude Israel. There is a Supreme Being from whom all the others receive the parameters of their authority. The Land of Israel, in this respect, has always had rules of its own, as we know best from when the King of Assyria transplanted nations to that land to fill the void created through the exile of the Ten Tribes, and these nations fell victim to lions, etc., until they learned by experience that in order to survive on that land they had to adopt different mores. (Compare <i>Baba Kamma</i> 38 based on Kings II 17, 24-34) In short, seeing that the land of Canaan, even before the land was occupied by the Canaanites, was נחלת ה', a special land set aside for the Jewish people, this land tolerated deviant behaviour much less than other lands not predestined for G’d’s personal supervision. [I have condensed and rephrased some of this in the interest of brevity. Ed.] If we needed further proof of the above, consider the fact that our matriarch Rachel died a premature death immediately after crossing the boundary of this land. Yaakov’s having married two sisters while both were alive, something forbidden by the Torah (after it was revealed to the Jewish people) did not apparently bother G’d while Yaakov had not yet crossed the boundary into the Land of Israel. The moment he did, G’d applied stricter yardsticks to the mode of conduct expected of him and her. Apparently she had become pregnant with Binyamin before they had reached Shechem, otherwise who knows if Binyamin would have not have died with her. Consider also, that once in that land, Yaakov ordered his servants to dispose totally of any objects that had ever been used as objects of idolatry. (Genesis 35,2)
      The fact that the Torah while speaking of the punishment of the Canaanites did not list where they had been warned about their sexual depravity, is proof that all of mankind had been warned about this ever since first man was given the 7 basic commandments of conduct on G’d’s earth. The very fact that the Torah testifies to the Egyptians having been guilty of similar excesses but they were never expelled from their country, proves that different rules of tolerance apply on the soil of <i>Eretz Yisrael</i>
      Further proof of the special status of the soil of the Holy Land, is the fact that the כותים whom the Assyrian King had transplanted to the land formerly occupied by the Ten Tribes had never been punished by G’d when they had worshipped the same deities in the country of their origin. 
      We should also consider the statements of our sages <i>Ketuvot</i> 110 that anyone residing permanently outside the Land of Israel is considered as not having a “G’d,” i.e. Divine protection. Gentiles, especially while in their own countries, are allowed to co-opt deities such as horoscopes as long as they recognise <i>Hashem</i> as the Supreme G’d and Creator. When the sages said: “as if they had no G’d,” they meant that the fates of such people were not presided over by <i>Hashem</i> personally, but that they were subject to <i>mazzolot</i>, astrological constellations, etc., something that is not the case for people living in <i>Eretz Yisrael</i> of which G’d has said that He has His eyes on it from the beginning of the year till the end of the year (Deut. 11,12). You must not counter that the verse from Daniel we quoted before in which Michael is described as the שר ישראל, the angel appointed by G’d as especially in charge of protecting the Jewish people, proves that they were not under the direct guidance of <i>Hashem.</i> First of all, the function of that angel is to implore <i>Hashem</i> to use His mercy on behalf of His people; secondly, the Jewish people with whom Daniel associated were all in exile, most of them in voluntary exile, at least after Cyrus ascended the Persian throne having defeated the Babylonians, and having enabled the return to Zion under Zerubavel. 52 years after the destruction of the Temple. [Jews who chose to remain in Persia, even under the premiership of Mordechai were a primary target of the statement we quoted from <i>Ketuvot</i> 110 that “Jews who live outside the Holy Land are considered as if they had no G’d.” Ed.]
  
     ותקיא, “it spit out, etc.” Once the measure of their sin which G’d was prepared to tolerate if they would repent, had become full, the fact that G’d decreed their destruction is considered by the Torah as if that decree had already been carried out. Alternately, the word ותקיא in the past tense, applies to the parallel phenomenon in the celestial regions. We have a similar statement in Numbers 14,9 when the impression by the majority of the spies that the land consumes its inhabitants was interpreted by Joshua and Calev as evidence that the protection of that nation’s guardian angel, described as צלם, had already abandoned this people so that they would fall into the hands of the Israelites like ripe plums. 
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ונכרתו הנפשות העושות מקרב עמם, “all the people committing such violations will be cut off from their people. Nachmanides writes that the penalty known as <i>karet</i> by the Torah, comprises three different aspects. The first type of that penalty is meant when the Torah describes it as applied to ונכרת האיש ההוא, “the man in question will be cut off.” (Example Exodus 30,33, where the making of incense of the kind used in the Tabernacle is punished with this penalty.)
      The second type of <i>karet</i> is the type described in our verse, and the third type is meant when the Torah prefaces it with the words הכרת תכרת הנפש ההיא עונה בה, (compare Numbers 15,31 where the Torah speaks of people blaspheming deliberately.) There is another, differently worded such penalty mentioned in connection with violating the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 23,30 where the Torah writes והאבדתי את הנפש ההיא, which means the same as והכרתי הנפש ההיא, “I will utterly destroy that person from membership in its people.” The <i>Torat Kohanim</i> explains that the word <i>karet</i> does not always mean that the hereafter of the person, נפש, so punished is automatically forfeited. This is why the Torah in Leviticus 23,30 used a variant. There is a difference in the application of the <i>karet</i> penalty if the person guilty of that particular violation had been driven by a craving to eat forbidden fat or blood, for instance, and that person in his overall lifestyle is very Torah-observant. In such a situation, the many merits he has accumulated protect him against the aspects of the <i>karet</i> penalty that extend beyond death, and he is punished by premature death in this life without losing his share in the hereafter. Shortening such a lifespan usually means death before reaching the age of 60, just as the people of the generation of the Exodus died before reaching 60, hence they had to stay in the desert for 40 years.
      On the other hand, as we know from personal observation, there are many wicked Jews who live well beyond the age of 60 on this earth. This does not mean that their sins have been overlooked, but that instead of applying that penalty to the physical parts of their lives, G’d has seen fit to reward them for their good deeds with long life on earth so that He does not have to reward them for such deeds after their deaths. The last mentioned group of people comprises most of the gentiles who practice the licentious sexual mores condemned by the Torah, and as a rule, after their physical death they experience painful punishment for a period of up to 12 months after which time their bodily remains are utterly destroyed and their souls are burned, their spirit being scattered under the soles of the feet of the righteous.
      There is a yet harsher type of the <i>karet</i> penalty in which both body and soul are utterly destroyed. It is applied to people whom the Torah in Numbers 15,30 described asאת דבר ה' בזה ואת מצותו הפר הכרת תכרת וגו', “he deliberately blasphemed <i>Hashem,</i> and violated His commandments. The use of the root כרת twice in that verse means that such people will not only be uprooted from this world but also from all parts of the hereafter. The only sins concerning which this word is used twice are idolatry and blasphemy. 
      Our sages elaborated on this subject still further in tractate <i>Shavuot,</i> saying that also included in this harsh application of the <i>karet</i> penalty are people who deliberately mislead others by interpreting Torah in a manner that contradicts the <i>halachah.</i> Such people will not only die prematurely but they will not have any share in the eventual resurrection of the dead. Nor will they experience life in the hereafter, i.e. a life of the disembodied soul. We should remember that when the Torah uses expressions that deny some people life in the hereafter, this is the best proof of the fact that there exists such life. Otherwise, what does the sinner stand to lose by his rebellious conduct? Verses dealing with such penalties reinforce our belief in reward for good deeds being paid after our life on earth has come to an end. By saying that some souls will be cut off from what awaits them in the hereafter, the Torah is in effect saying that for the ordinary Jew much that is worth looking forward to is in store for them after their bodies have died. The word כרת is meant to conjure up in our minds the picture of a tree some of whose branches and leaves are being chopped off. Instead of the Torah speaking openly of a life in the hereafter, something we are to regard as natural, the Torah warns that sinners of certain categories will be miraculously denied that which is a natural state for the human being who lived in accordance with the Creator’s wishes.
      We have already explained elsewhere that all the promises of pleasant developments or the threats of disastrous events in the future which are spelled out in the Torah, must not be viewed as natural developments but as proof of Divine intervention in the fates of either the individual or the Jewish nation. This is why the Torah, when warning against violating the legislation involving incest, etc., speaks of the unnatural penalty of unnatural כרת, something which cannot be explained away as a natural development in terms of evolution, regression or whatever.
      There are thirty six sins which carry the penalty of <i>karet,</i> the vast majority of them involving violations of G’d’s sexual mores for man. Our sages do not tire of lumping together idolatry, shedding of innocent blood, and violating sexual mores, even between what are nowadays called “consenting adults,” as the most serious sins a Jew can become guilty of. Of the three, גלוי עריות, offences involving our libido, is always mentioned ahead of such crimes as murder, to show how abhorrent such a sin is in the eyes of the Creator.
      Maimonides writes in his <i>Moreh Nevuchim</i> section 3, chapter 41 that seeing man’s libido is a powerful drive, only the threat of terrible punishments is likely to act as a restraining influence on us.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   קדושים תהיו, ”you shall be holy;” Our sages in <i>Torat Kohanim</i> state that this was one of the portions of the Torah which was read out in public once every seven years on <i>Sukkot</i> on the occasion of “<i>hakhel,</i>” the public reading of the Torah by the King before the assembled nation, men women and children (compare Deuteronomy 31,10, the penultimate of the 613 commandments). The reason was that it contains so many of the basic laws of the Torah, such as the laws about offering personal voluntary peace-offerings, the penalty for disregarding the laws abut incest and sexual mores. We must understand that holiness can only develop as a result of abstaining from all the items that the Torah has described as an abomination in the eyes of <i>Hashem.</i>
      Nachmanides writes that he has examined the wording in his edition of the <i>Torat</i> Kohanim, and has not found anything spelled out there about being especially פרוש, i.e. keeping one’s distance from the subject covered by sexual mores, but that we are to be generally פרושים, discreet, and discriminating in our conduct, as a result of which holiness will develop. [My edition of the <i>Torat Kohanim</i>, printed in <i>Torah Shleymah</i> bears out what Nachmanides writes. Ed.] G’d is quoted as saying: “just as I keep apart (from contact with what is unbecoming, so shall you keep yourself apart from contact with matters that are unbecoming for you.” It follows that the subject of פרישות includes abstaining and keeping one’s distance from all the subject matter mentioned in the Talmud as subject to such warnings by our sages. 
      Nachmanides uses as an example the fact that whereas on the one hand, the Torah has permitted sexual intercourse, it imposed limitations with whom such sexual intercourse may be indulged in, similarly, it has also permitted the eating of foods which are palatable and non poisonous, but has imposed limitations in forbidding Jews foods which gentiles clearly enjoy without apparent harmful effects. Holiness, if aspired to, is therefore possible by imposing upon oneself restrictions and not considering everything that has not been expressly forbidden as permitted, but to train oneself to be moderate in enjoying the material attractions the world has to offer. These attractions may be enjoyed when they are intended to make the performance of a commandment more meaningful both esthetically and artistically, for instance. A person intent on attaining a level of holiness would not seek out such attractions for their own sake. [When someone loves silver trinkets and collects them, this does not further his path to attaining holiness, although he did not do something forbidden. If, however, he indulges his whim by buying beautiful <i>ethrog</i> boxes, <i>mezuzah</i> housings, <i>kiddush</i> cups, etc., then he may at one and the same time indulge his sense of what is esthetically beautiful, and come closer to attaining degree of holiness.
      Our sages, in limiting the frequency of marital relations with one’s wife even, suggested that a Torah scholar limit himself to such marital intercourse once a week, while an ordinary uneducated worker is allowed to indulge in such activity more often. (Compare <i>Chagigah</i> 18, <i>Berachot,</i> 22 and other places in the Talmud) Nachmanides points out that it is possible not to violate a single one of the 613 commandments in the Torah and still not only to remain far from “holy,” but to continue to be a gross and uncouth individual, eating to excess, drinking to excess, indulging in legally permitted sex at every opportunity, etc.
      If the ideal of a Torah personality could be the result of merely not violating any of the 613 commandments, Moses would not have had to write in Deut. 6,18 ועשית הישר והטוב בעיני ה', “do what is fair and good in the eyes of <i>Hashem.”</i> In<i> halachic</i> parlance, our approach to life should be to act לפנים משורת הדין, “to stay well within what is allowable legally.” The meaning of the dictate in our verse therefore is:
  
     כי קדוש אני ה' אלוקיכם, “for I, the Lord your G’d am holy.” Naturally, G’d did not expect that we, the creatures, become like He, the Creator. But, He hopes and expects that we will try and emulate as many of His characteristics as it is possible for us to emulate, seeing we are only creatures. By doing this we can achieve דבקות, a measure of close attachment to the Divine, something the Torah encouraged us to do on several occasions (compare Deut. 10,20; 11,22; 30,20) In a way, this was the message of G’d revealing Himself to us in the first of the Ten Commandments.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   איש אמו ואביו תיראו, ”everyone is to revere his mother and his father.” Whereas in the Ten Commandments the Torah demands that one honour one’s parents, there the demand to honour one’s father precedes the demand to honour one’s mother. The Torah continues:
  
     את שבתותי תשמורו, “you are to observe My Sabbath days.” Comparison with the Ten Commandments shows that the emphasis was on ”remembering” the Sabbath, not on observing it, i.e. not to violate the restrictions in one’s activities that apply on the Sabbath.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   אל תפנו אל האלילים, “Do not turn to the idols!” The injunction here is addressed to the mind rather than to the hands and feet that carry out the desires of the heart and mind. We are commanded to totally discount any supposed influence so-called deities have on anyone’s fate, future, etc. We must remain firmly convinced that our future depends exclusively on decrees made by the Creator in heaven.
  
     ואלוהי מסכה לא תעשו לכם, “and molten gods you must not make for yourselves.!” The warning here is that culpability for idolatry does not start at the moment one worships idols, but already when one sets out to construct such an idol with the intent to worship it. In Vay<i>ikra Rabbah</i> these verses are all explained as being patterned on the Ten Commandments. The Torah continues:
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   וכי תזבחו זבח שלמים, “when you set out to slaughter a peace-offering, etc.” After the Torah had forbidden slaughtering and any other aspect of idol worship, it now addresses our desire to offer gifts to the Deity by telling us that the proper address for such offerings if we want it to be welcome, is only the attribute of <i>Hashem.</i> More to the point, contrary to what the naïve human being thinks that such an offering is something the Deity needs or desires, the Torah reminds us that the sole purpose of such a peace-offering is to secure a condition of grace for ourselves; no offering impacts on the Deity in the least, seeing that <i>Hashem</i> is totally self-sufficient. What could man possibly give to the Creator who is the One who has given everything we have to us? The reason why the Torah makes this point in conjunction with the offerings known as שלמים, peace-offerings, is that most of the meat of these animals may be consumed by the owners of the offering rather than by the priests, and it need not be consumed on consecrated grounds but the entire city of Jerusalem is considered holy enough for eating what are known as קדשים קלים, sacrificial meats of a relatively low level of sanctity.
      Another reason may be that only Israelites are allowed to offer this type of sacrificial offering altogether. Gentiles who are allowed to offer burnt offerings are not allowed to offer peace offerings at all. [On the altar of the Tabernacle or Temple, Ed.]
      Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why in our chapter the demand to accord reverence for the mother precedes the demand to do the same for one’s father, is that a young child in his early years gets to know the mother intimately whereas it does not establish such a close relationship with its father as yet. The next major focus of a young child is the Sabbath, seeing that it is a duty to train even youngsters in the observance of the Sabbath. The same is not true of the other festivals. Having become familiar with the concept of the Sabbath, the youngster next becomes familiar with the concept of G’d, the Creator, the lawgiver, who rested on the seventh day. Having become familiar with these concepts the youngster is introduced to the need to be in awe of the Creator. The Torah does not repeat the word איש in front of each piece of legislation. It uses the plural mode תיראו when legislating the need to be in awe of parents as well as of the invisible G’d, to remind us that it is every Israelite’s duty to implant such feelings in a fellow Jew; it is not merely the parents’ business to do so. Deviants have to be forced to toe the line when in public. Public desecration of the Sabbath, for instance, is not to be tolerated in a Jewish state or even in exile that is self-governing.
      The reason why the Torah concludes verse four with the words אני ה' אלוקיכם, is to remind us that the reason why G’d wants us to rest on the Sabbath is because He Himself rested on the first Sabbath and interrupted His creative activities on account of the sanctity of that day.
      Still quoting Ibn Ezra, the reason for the words אל תפנו אל אלילים, “[something that sounds like a repetition of previous legislation on the subject, Ed.] is that we must not even briefly look at such displays of pagan deities.
      The reason the Torah repeats the injunction of אלוהי מסכה לא תעשה לך, not to make yourself a molten image, is simply to reassure you that you have no need for any additional celestial assist. By saying אני ה' אלוקיכם, <i>Hashem</i> tells us that He, and only He, will look after our needs.
      The reason that the Torah writes (verse 9) that we must not completely harvest every last stalk of our fields, immediately after speaking about the peace-offerings, is to draw a comparison between gifts we offer to <i>Hashem</i> such as the fat parts of the peace-offerings, and the gifts we leave for the poor. Giving to the poor is another way of honouring <i>Hashem,</i> who has also made the poor. After having dealt with the need to voluntarily leave gifts for the poor and the stranger (proselyte) who has not yet established an economic base for himself, the Torah enjoins us not to steal, as a corollary of voluntarily giving to the poor. If we even share with the poor what we are in the habit as considering as ours, how much less may we deprive anyone of what is rightfully his by stealing from him? The Torah phrases this legislation also in the plural mode to teach that anyone observing someone stealing and not protesting is as if he had aided and abetted the thief.
      The Torah continues by warning us not to lie actively or passively, nor to keep silent when we know that someone else lies or cheats. (Verse 12) The injunction not to swear a false oath, i.e. involving G’d Himself in one’s sin by using His name in vain when denying one’s transgression, is added as a warning that sinning leads to denying the sin, which in turn results in desecrating the name of the Lord publicly, one of the most serious sins possible. Here too, the plural mode is used to involve the party demanding that the second one confirm his claims by swearing in the name of <i>Hashem.</i>
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   לא תקלל חרש, “do not curse a deaf person.” The Talmud in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 66 points out that the Torah has forbidden cursing notables such as judges and kings, when it wrote אלהים לא תקלל ונשיא בעמך already in Exodus 22,27, and here it equally forbids cursing less prominent people, even those who cannot hear that they are being cursed. Once even a deaf person is included in this legislation it is clear that one must not curse anyone.
      Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text the Torah warned against cursing the deaf, as seeing that the fact that he cannot hear the curse he cannot feel insulted or enraged by it, it follows that one must not curse people who can hear the curse and who will feel shamed by it.
      Furthermore, as is the Torah’s custom, the example for legislation selected is always something near at hand, i.e. people feel free to curse the deaf and to trip up the blind as they are not afraid of being identified and being called to account for this. This is why the Torah had to add:ויראת מאלוקיך, “you shall fear your G’d,” i.e. He will see and punish what people do not see or do not hear. Cursing rulers, something which usually takes place in the privacy of one’s home where one is not overheard is in addition something pernicious, as it is usually motivated by one’s personal pique against such a ruler, while one forgets that the exercise by this ruler of his appointed functions is what prevents our society from degenerating into anarchy. This is why the Torah felt the need to spell out an additional prohibition against cursing dignitaries, although the law could have been derived logically from our verse alone.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   לא תלך רכיל, “do not be a gossipmonger.” According to Nachmanides Onkelos’ translation of these words as לא תיכול קורצין, describes someone raising his voice. Yonathan similarly renders קרא בגרון, in Isaiah 58,1 as אכלי בגרונך, “call out loudly with your throat.” He quotes more examples of translating רכיל as something involving making something public by means of sound. An alternate rendering describes רכילות as publication of the information through unmistakable gestures with one’s eyes.
  
     לא תעמוד על דם רעך, “do not stand idly by when the blood of your fellow is being shed.” Seeing that the Torah does not link these two injunctions by the letter ו, i.e. ולא תעמוד וגו', some commentators believe that the entire verse contains one single prohibition, the latter half of the verse being the interpretation of the first half. The meaning would then be: do not carry tales in order that in the end you will not stand by idly when your fellow’s blood will be spilled. It is assumed that he who accepts slander against his fellow, i.e. believes the accusation, will out of anger take physical action against the person whom he perceives to have been guilty of what the slanderer accused him of. This is why our sages said that לשון הרע, “slander eventually kills three people.” (<i>Tanchuma, Metzora,</i> 2)
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך, “do not hate your brother in your heart.” Some commentators interpret this line as “if you see your fellow man commit some sin do not say to yourself: ‘I wish he would continue in this way,’ but remonstrate with him and try to get him to desist and to improve his ways.
      Nachmanides writes that seeing the Torah uses real life examples, i.e. people keeping their disapproval of others or even hatred of others to themselves, the Torah urges that If one has a legitimate reason to disapprove of one’s neighbour’s lifestyle, one should not bottle this up within oneself, but should discuss it openly with the party concerned so as to give him a chance to mend his ways.
  
     ולא תשא עליו חטא, “so that you will not bear a sin on account of him.” If your fellow sins because you did not call his error to his attention, you will share in his sin. Not only this, but the Torah adds that you are obligated to love your fellow man.” (Verse 18)
      Personally, I believe that the correct interpretation of our verse, i.e. the words הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך, is similar to when Avraham remonstrated with Avimelech. (Genesis 21,25) He remonstrated with Avimelech who had allowed his, Avraham’s wells to be either shut down or to be claimed by his own people as theirs, instead of bearing a grudge in his heart against Avimelech. The result was an agreement between the two. When such rebuke is administered with discretion it may often result in resolving a dispute.
      Having advised us not to bear grudges without first having voiced our grievances, the Torah also instructs us not to harbour feelings of revenge for injustices real or unproven. Having taught us not to entertain negative feelings against our fellows, the Torah proceeds to demand that we relate positively to them, i.e ואהבת לרעך כמוך. You will note that the Torah does not write רעך, but לרעך. Had the Torah written the word רעך, it would have meant that we are instructed to love our fellow man’s body, his person as much as our own, an impossible task. As it is, the Torah demands that we relate to our fellowman’s possessions with the same degree of concern as we do to our own possessions. You should be as concerned for the welfare of your fellowman as for your own,
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   לא תקום, “Do not take revenge.” An example of revenge meant here is that if your neighbour refused to lend you any of his tools, and he turns to you some day asking you to lend him yours, you are not to justify your refusal to lend him your tools by saying that seeing he did not lend you his tools when you needed them, you now do not lend him yours either. Some people ask why the Torah criticizes the second party for his refusal to lend, without saying a word about the behaviour of the first party who had started the chain reaction by refusing to lend his tools in the first place? The answer given is that the first party, who obviously is a miser, while not acting as a good neighbour, had not violated a law as it says nowhere that one must lend one’s tools, however, he who basically is willing to lend his tools to neighbours, refuses to this neighbour only as an act of revenge. This is not tolerated. It is a negative virtue. His refusal stems from feelings of hatred.
      Some people answer the above question by saying that it is clear that the first one will be punished more harshly so that there is no need to spell this out, seeing he had started the chain of reciprocal unfriendliness. We have a tradition that the plague of <i>tzoraat</i> occurs, among other reasons, as retaliation for miserly conduct, withholding help from one’s neighbour being one such example.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים, “You must not mate your animal with another species.” Ibn Ezra writes that the Torah links the laws of not interbreeding species and the encouragement to become holy in order to make the point that after you have become a holy nation you must not commit violent acts against any person sharing your beliefs, and you must not even forcefully interfere with the animals’ natural way of behaviour which is, after all, the way they have been programmed to behave by the Creator. Animals are more loyal to the rules laid down for His creatures than man is.
      <i>Rashi</i> writes that the prohibition against cross breeding must be seen as a Divine decree, G’d did not see fit to give us His reasons.
      Nachmanides writes that the sages did not write anywhere that the underlying reasons for this legislation have been deliberately hidden, giving the evil urge and the gentiles a chance to ridicule and undermine our faith in the Creator. Whereas such an argument is true with respect to the prohibition to mix wool and linen, [but not other fibers, Ed.] the reason for not mixing different seeds in a vineyard, or not crossbreeding species of animals are not at all a challenge to [test of, Ed.] our faith. 
      On the one hand, all G’d’s laws, [especially those regulating our conduct <i>vis a vis</i> Him seeing that they emanate from a higher intelligence, are of a kind whose true intent we are unable to fathom, Ed.] are beyond our ability to fully comprehend, as opposed to the laws governing inter-personal relations which we are expected to try and understand.
      However, we are encouraged in many instances to examine some aspects of how the חוקים are beneficial to our successful existence on this earth. We must not make observance of these laws conditional on our understanding their usefulness.
      There appears to be a perfectly rational reason for the legislation of forbidding crossbreeding, both of animals and plants. The Creator enabled each species to perpetuate itself by planting its seed in the appropriate counterpart. Crossbreeding, in the vast majority of cases, would foil the Creator’s plan, and such species would die out, as their seed would not produce any issue or issue that was capable of sustaining itself. G’d provided the seed to these creatures in order to enable His universe to endure as planned. Any activity that puts the Creator’s intent at risk, is therefore forbidden, is an act of insurrection if persisted in. This is the reason why already at the time of reporting creation, the Torah stresses again and again the words למינו and למיניהם, “according to its species,” or “according to their species.” He who interferes with this obviously finds fault with the Creator, implicitly criticizes Him. G’d does not need His creatures’ help in perfecting His universe, He is content if His creatures do not ruin it. We know from experience that even if apparently well matched human beings mate with one another, especially those forbidden under the rules of incest, any children from such unions are liable to intensify genetic defects which no human being is totally without. In other words, not only do totally different species not reproduce when crossbred, but, even members of the same species fail to reproduce satisfactorily if the rules of the Torah are not followed. Who would know best what is good for us if not He Who had created us?
      When the Torah enlarges this prohibition by writing שדך לא תזרע כלאים, “you must not scatter more than one type of seed in your field,” it includes even relatively simple plants in its regulations. Our sages expressed their conviction that violating this commandment will be found detrimental to the farmer’s interest, even if he thought that he would benefit through such a stratagem. Our sages (<i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 10,7) have illustrated their approach to the whole subject when they told us that there is not a single species of plant which does not have its own <i>mazzal</i>, i.e protective guardian angel appointed in the heavens. Clearly, such a statement refers only to species created by G’d, not to new species created by man. Such species are without any heavenly protection. 
  
     ובגד כלאים שעטנז, “and a garment consisting of a mixture of lamb’s wool fibers and linen fibers, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the reason for this prohibition –which singles out wearing a garment made of such mixture, not the making of the mixture- is that we must learn to keep our distance from species that have been mixed. One of the mystical aspects of the prohibition is that when we in our nether regions don garments made of such forbidden mixtures, we upset even the separation of the species in the heavenly regions. When the sages allowed such mixture to be part of the priests’ garments, this simply means that while engaged in service to G’d commanded by Him, we do not need to fear the negative emanations that such forbidden mixtures inject into our universe. [Compare this editor’s translation of the commentary by Rabbeinu Bachya page 1745, volume 5, Ed.]
      <i>Halachic</i> authorities discuss if this prohibition extends to felt containing such mixture of linen and wool fibers, and other details of the finer points of this legislation. Generally speaking, such combinations are considered as forbidden only by Rabbinical decree, seeing the materials were not properly interwoven.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ואיש כי ישכב את אשה, “If a man lies carnally with a woman, etc.” the reason why this verse follows the subject of forbidden mixtures of species is that lying carnally with a woman not one’s wife is another type of mixing forbidden species with one another.
  
     והיא שפחה נחרפת לאיש, “she being a servant woman (gentile slave) designated for an Israelite man, etc.” The term נחרפת is subject to different interpretations, as is the status of the woman in question.
      [I am providing some background here not found in the author’s commentary, seeing the author concentrates more on the linguistic meaning of the word: נחרפת Ed.] 
      According to some opinions, <i>Rashi</i> included, the woman is not originally Jewish, but on the way to being freed, which by itself is possible only if she converts to Judaism. At the time this intercourse occurs, apparently she is half slave, having been owned jointly by two masters, one of whom had not yet released her. She had been promised as a wife to a Hebrew slave (servant). Such a Hebrew servant, at the instruction of his master, would legally be allowed to sleep with her even while she had not begun any process of conversion. 
      Some see in the word a comparison to זבולון, compare Judges 5.18 זבלון עם חרף נפשו למות, “Zevulun, a tribe that defied and risked death.” Zevulun’s chancing death at Devorah’s command is similar to this slave in our verse surrendering to a man’s advances.
      Nachmanides sees the word as related to חרפי, as in Job 29,4 כאשר הייתי בימי חרפי, “when I was still in my early youth.” The days of נעורים, adolescence, are compared to חורף, winter, seeing they are the beginning of the season, before summer, whereas the time of old age זקנה are considered as again as such as the summer of one’s life is already past and one approaches “winter.” Accordingly, the meaning of our verse is that the שפחה described here is a woman designated as a concubine, someone frequently described as נערה, i.e. “a wife of a junior status.” At any rate, the woman in question is not totally a married woman as yet.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the word is related to חרפה, inferior status, a woman who is not yet exclusively betrothed to a specific man seeing she is still a slave. She is however, still a virgin at the time the man in our verse sleeps with her.
  
     בקורת תהיה, “there shall be an investigation.” According to <i>Rashi</i> it is up to the court to determine the status, as the woman is not guilty of the death penalty. [She would be if she were a married woman and had consented to infidelity. Ed.]
      Some interpret the need for this investigation as resulting from the fact that to many onlookers this woman does have the status of a married woman, so that some people would be in a hurry to put her to death. In order to prevent such a miscarriage of justice, the Torah orders an investigation. The word בקרת is related to the word יבקר in Leviticus 13,36 where the Torah declares an investigation by the priest as uncalled for, writing לא יבקר הכהן. 
      Still other scholars see in the word בקרת the word בקר when it is used in the sense of administering physical punishments with a strap.
      Nachmanides views the words as indicating הפקרות, that the woman in question due to her dubious status was considered הפקר in the sense of unprotected by law. According to Nachmanides we encounter the expression הבקר in the <i>Mishnah,</i> when it always means the same as הפקר with the letter פ instead of the letter ב. (compare <i>Peyah</i> 6.1 <i>et al</i>) Still others consider the word as similar to פילגש, concubine, quoting Psalms 45,10 בנות מלכים ביקרותיך, “Royal princesses are your favorites.” Ibn Ezra categorically rejects this saying that on the contrary, the meaning of the word in Psalms is from יקר, the especially highly regarded ones. In other words, princesses who elsewhere are highly esteemed will be become lowly slave women for the Jewish people [remember Hagar who voluntarily became the slave of Sarah. Ed.]
  
     כי לא חופשה, “for she had not yet been set free completely.” She was not yet able to become the legal wife of the man designated for her. Nonetheless, the man who had slept with her has to bring a guilt offering as spelled out in verse 22.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ונטעתם כל עץ מאכל, “you will plant every kind of fruit-bearing tree.” After the Torah had discussed <i>halachic</i> aspects of planting seeds in the field, we now hear about <i>halachic</i> aspects of planting orchards. Placing seed inside a woman or placing seed inside the earth are activities that have quite a bit in common with one another.
  
     וערלתם ערלתו, “you shall treat its fruit as if uncircumcised. (forbidden)” <i>Rashi</i> views the choice of the term ערלה here as parallel to the meaning of the word when applied to the uncircumcised male, i.e closed off, אטום, not yet opened up. It is out of bounds, not yet to be enjoyed. 
      Nachmanides also writes that there is something quite different in the prohibition of the fruit of newly planted trees during the first three years compared to other products the Torah has forbidden. The fact that it becomes permissible without our having to do anything to the fruit itself, once sufficient time has elapsed, lends support to the concept that ערלה is nothing else but a “closed door” which in due course will open. We find that the development of the fruit is referred to as פתיחה, compare Song of Songs 7,13 פתח הסמדר, “the blossoms opened up.” The Torah portrays the fruit of the first three years as if they had not yet “opened up.”
      The underlying reason for this commandment is parallel to the commandments governing agricultural products, such as the setting aside <i>challah,</i> the first part of dough when making bread, leaving a small section of one’s harvest uncut for the poor, donating <i>terumah</i> to the priest, G’d’s representative on earth, etc. In each of these instances the idea is that before we ourselves partake of G’d’s bounty, we indicate by performance of the respective commandments that we are aware of the origin of our wealth and that we are grateful to the Creator for this. If, in the case of <i>orlah</i>, these early fruit are not presented as a gift, the reason may be that such a gift of relatively underdeveloped fruit might be viewed as inappropriate, seeing that it is inferior. This is the reason why the fruit of the fourth year is treated as suitable for consumption in the holy city of Jerusalem, and only in the year following this is the tree’s bounty freely available to the owner of the orchard. (Verses 24-25) (The fruit of the fourth year is treated like the second tithe, מעשר שני, in that it is sacred to the extent that it either may be consumed only in Jerusalem, or redeemed so that the money of the proceeds is spent in Jerusalem. (<i>Sifra)</i>
      Nachmanides adds that it is true, (as scientists claim) that there is also a health hazard when the fruit of the first three years are consumed [raw, I presume, Ed.] as there is excessive acidity. Moreover, in the majority of cases the tree does not even produce fruit during the first tree years after having been planted, depending on climate and the quality of the soil, etc. Maimonides advances these considerations as the reason for the prohibition in his <i>Moreh Nevuchim¸</i> section 3, chapter 37. He mentions that in earlier times the magicians, etc., in order to establish their reputation as quasi-deities, used to add some kind of poison to newly planted trees, which they knew would lose its power after a certain length of time. They would make you believe that it was they who had made these poisons harmless, the ordinary person not having any knowledge of the nature of such poisons, and thinking that whereas without the blessing of the magician they might have died, the magician possessed power over life and death, whereas in fact he only exploited the ignorance of natural science of the common man. [I gave just one example of how the ignorance and gullibility of the man in the street enabled the magicians to prosper from their superior knowledge. Ed.] When the appropriate time had arrived, these magicians would sacrifice some of this fruit to their particular deity, claiming that this sacrifice made the fruit safe for the multitude.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   לא תאכלו על הדם, “do not eat over the blood.” According to <i>Rashi</i> there are numerous interpretations offered for this verse, one of them being reflected in Samuel I 14,33 הנה העם חוטאים לאכול על הדם, “here the people commit a sin by eating over the blood, etc.” [The people ate from the loot of the battle while the slain had not yet been buried, etc.] 
      Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text the Torah warns against adopting the practice of the sorcerers who used to gather around blood they had spilled and preserved in a bowl, and foretell the future, relying on the demons that would gather around to foretell them the path of future events. When the Jewish soldiers were with their King Sha-ul in camp and they were very much afraid of the Philistines their enemies, Sha-ul would not do anything without consulting the <i>urim vetumim,</i> as we know from above chapter in Samuel, verse 36. To his consternation, on this occasion the priest did not receive a reply to his enquiry, something which prompted Sha-ul to enquire which sin the people could have been guilty of that would deny them access to the word of G’d. As a result, it was found out that his own son Yonathan had violated his father’s command not to taste any food on the day of the battle, and he had, while being unaware of the prohibition, tasted some honey. The people, not wanting to accuse Yonathan, had phrased it as if all of them had been guilty of a trespass, i.e. eating prematurely on the day of the battle. [Prior to the battle, the people had not asked via the <i>urim vetumim,</i> but engaged in sorcery regarding the continuation of the war, something which Sha-ul considered a grievous act of treachery against G’d. Also, they had started to enjoy the spoils of war without giving thanks to the Lord by means of the blood of the appropriate animals being presented on an altar. Ed.]
      The reason why the Torah wrote the legislation of ערלה, the restrictions applying to the fruit of the tree during its first three years, immediately after the above legislation is to show that here too before enjoying the fruits of defeating an enemy, first we must express our gratitude to <i>Hashem</i> Who has made us victorious. Seeing that in periods when private altars were forbidden this might represent quite a hardship, the rule was enforced only when there was a legitimate altar in the vicinity. 
  
     לא תנחשו, “do not indulge in sorcery.” The word נחש is similar in meaning to that of נסיון, experimenting and using the outcome of the experiment as one’s guideline for how to act. [It is debatable if Eliezer’s request at the well stipulating certain behaviour patterns of the maidens that came out to draw water at the well falls into the category of forbidden ניחוש, at any rate at that time Torah had not yet been given. Ed.] Lavan admitted to Yaakov that he was in the habit of using such sorcery, i.e. Genesis 30, 27 נחשתי ויברכני ה' בגללך, “I have discovered by such experimentation, that G’d’s blessing for me is on your account.”
  
     ולא תעוננו, “and you are not to believe that some periods are lucky compared to others.” Ibn Ezra writes that some people claim that the word עונן is derived from ענה, “answering,” i.e. a person poses a certain question expecting to guide his behaviour according to the answer he receives. This is not a tenable interpretation according to the rules of grammar. He believes, instead, that the correct interpretation is based on the word being derived from ענן, “cloud,” that the Torah forbids us to read meaning into the cloud patterns we observe in the sky, and to use such patterns as guidelines for our behaviour.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   לא תקיפו פאת ראשכם, “do not round off the edge of your scalp.” Ibn Ezra understands this as a warning not to trim one’s hair in the manner that the priests of idolatrous cults are in the habit of doing. 1) We should not look like such people but preserve our identities also in the manner in which we appear externally. Furthermore, seeing that hair, especially hair of the head, is considered a mark of beauty, what possible reason would we have to deprive ourselves of this mark of תפארת, ”glory?”
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה, “do not desecrate your daughter by making her into a harlot;” <i>Rashi,</i> basing himself on <i>Torat Kohanim,</i> understands our verse as handing over one’s daughter to be used sexually in any setting other than that of wedlock. Nachmanides, severely limits this verse by stating that the term used here means only not to allow one’s daughter to become sexually involved with parties who because of legal restrictions could never offer marriage to such a girl. This, according to most authorities would mean that if the relationship would lead to marriage the penalty would be death, either by a court of law or by heavenly decree, <i>karet</i>. [Tthe disagreement, of course, does not touch on the ethics or morality of the situation, but on the legal implications of our verse. Ed.] The only scholar who considers what <i>Rashi</i> says as legally making such a daughter into a harlot when she sleeps with a male while she is unattached, is Rabbi Eliezer, whose opinion is not accepted by <i>halachah.</i>
  
     ולא תזנה הארץ, “so that the land not become a whore.” The restrictive clause “the land,” which is interpreted by <i>Sifra</i> as ‘but you may make a whore out of the produce of the land,” is understood by Nachmanides as arrived at by the Torah not having written ולא יזנו את אנשי הארץ, “so that the people of the land will not become pimps and whores.” There is no question that the principal concern of the verse is the second prohibition not to become guilty of the land becoming full of harlotry, etc. The last few words are to be viewed as an independent prohibition. The author of <i>halachot gedolot,</i> (Rabbi Yehudai ben Rabbi Shemuel gaon, head of the Babylonian Torah academy in Sura) lists these words as one of the 365 negative commandments in the Torah, stating that it is a twofold prohibition, i.e. a warning to the father separately and to the daughter in her own right not to allow herself to be used by her father in such a fashion. She must not have sexual relations with anyone except for the purpose of entering into a relationship of wedlock. The Torah divides the verse into two halves, the first one dealing with a girl who as a minor is under the total control of her father, the second part addressing such a girl after she has grown up and is still not married. It then applies to her and her male partner equally.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   את שבתותי תשמורו, “you are to observe My Sabbaths;” the reason why this exhortation, not the first of its kind, has been written here immediately following laws about sexual chastity is reminiscent of the Talmud <i>Kidushin</i> 81 where the social separation of men and women is discussed and Avin is on record as saying that if one allows men and women to mingle socially one furthers unchaste conduct and worse. He considered the time when the Israelites went up to the Temple to celebrate the festivals as the most dangerous of such opportunities. The parallel with the Sabbath is clear. On the Sabbath, social gatherings are encouraged, wine flows freely, and therefore the opportunities to become guilty of unchaste behaviour are multiplied on that day. Hence the Torah issued a special warning to be on guard against violating sexual mores on the Sabbath.     Immediately after the warning not to allow the Sabbath to entrap you into forbidden contact, the Torah writes:
  
  Verse 31
  
     אל תפנו אל האובות, “do not turn to the sorceries that follow, etc.” [if I understood the author correctly. Ed.] “Do not have social intercourse with these sorcerers even on the Sabbath, thinking that since they do not practice their art on the Sabbath that this is harmless.     Ibn Ezra writes that this is a warning not to do what King Sha-ul did near the end of his reign in desperation, when he asked a sorcerer to conjure up the deceased prophet Samuel’s image (Samuel I 28,7) The word אובות is derived from Job 32,19 וכאובות חדשים יבקע, describing skins filled with wine that are full to bursting. בעלי אובות, those soothsayers are like people who cannot wait to reveal the knowledge they believe that they possess. The word ידעוני, is related to דעת, knowledge, and also describes these supposedly knowledgeable people who foretell future events. The Torah adds that the result of turning to such soothsayers will be  
     לטמאה בהם, “to become contaminated by them.” Any person, soul, who turns to such charlatans in order to divine the future will lose whatever degree of cleaving to <i>Hashem</i> it had achieved prior to this. The reason for this is: 
     אני ה' אלוקיכם, “I alone am the Lord your G’d.” You are not to look for refuge with anyone other than I. 
  
  Verse 32
  
   ויראת מאלוקיך אני ה', “you shall be in awe of your G’d, I am <i>Hashem.”</i> Ibn Ezra sees in our verse a warning by G’d that if we fail to accord honour and accord dignity to the elderly, He may punish us for this in our own old age.
      Other commentators see in the statement a reminder that these elderly have been honoured by G’d with attaining long life and wisdom, and it would not do for us not to accord them at least the same recognition that G’d has shown them. They back up their approach by quoting Isaiah 24,23 ונגד זקניו כבוד, “and the Presence (of G’d) will be revealed to His elders.”
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   וכי יגור אתך גר, “and if a proselyte shall reside amongst you,” The reason why the Torah saw fit to write this verse immediately after having told us to treat our native born elderly with dignity and respect, is that G’d draws a comparison between the former and the latter, both being people who by circumstance are somewhat handicapped, one by age and frailty, the other by not yet having established his self-worth in the new nation he has joined.
      Other opinions see in the sequence of how to respect elders and not to discriminate against proselytes a message that anyone who discriminates legally or otherwise against proselytes offends the Creator Who instructed us to be especially courteous to the elderly.
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   לא תעשו עול במשפט, ”do not pervert the judicial process.” According to Ibn Ezra the verse refers especially to treatment of proselytes, as the reason why the Torah felt it necessary to write ושפטתם צדק בין איש ובין אחיו ובין גרו, “judge righteously between a man and his brother, and between his fellow who is a proselyte, or even a resident alien!” (Deut. 1,16)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ואני אתן את פני באיש ההוא, “and as for Me, I will give My special attention to that man;” Ibn Ezra writes that this statement presupposes that the sin was committed in the privacy of the sinner’s house or secretly, as otherwise judicial steps have to be taken by the court.
      Some commentators understand this wording to imply that G’d is going to single out the offspring of that person for extinction.
  
     למען טמא את מקדשי, ”(he had done what he did) in order to defile and desecrate My Sanctuary, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> feels that in this instance the word מקדשי refers to the whole of the Jewish people, seeing they have been declared a holy people, עם קדוש, by G’d Himself. Conduct, such as that of the person who worships the <i>Moloch</i> deity, results in the presence of the <i>Shechinah</i> leaving the Jewish people, thus depriving them of their status of being a holy nation. This is also the reason why in this instance the Torah demands that the death penalty by stoning be administered by the עם הארץ, “the people for whose sake the earth had been created,” whereas in other similar executions the Torah simply writes באבן ירגמו אותו, “they are to stone him,” without appending a specific subject to who those “they” are. Seeing that the man worshipping the <i>Moloch</i> had put at risk every single Israelite’s status in the eyes of the Creator, they all have to demonstrate their disapproval of that sinner by throwing a stone or stones at him.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   לזנות אחר המולך, “to stray after the <i>Moloch</i>.” When <i>Rashi,</i> following <i>Torat Kohanim</i>, writes that these words include anyone straying after other types of idolatry whose form of worship is of a similar nature or even of a different nature, he means that the reason why the Torah singled out this particular cult for expressing its extreme abhorrence, is that this form of idolatry is especially abhorrent. When such a cult is worshipped even in a manner not typifying the norms of worship for that particular idolatry, it still carries the death penalty of <i>karet</i>. Nachmanides writes that this is not so, seeing that according to the Talmud <i>Sanhedrin</i> 64 the penalty applicable to that cult is only for those who “crowns” that deity, looking up to it as a “king” [as implied by the word <i>Moloch</i>. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   כי איש אשר יקלל את אביו, “for any man who curses his father, etc.” According to Nachmanides this line is a continuation from the commandment in 19,2 to revere one’s parents. There the commandment had been expressed as a positive commandment, whereas here it is reinforced as a negative commandment, telling us what is in store for people who not only ignore 19,2, but who engage in doing the opposite.      Alternately, the Torah draws our attention to the harshness of the penalty by reminding us that G’d commanded us to sanctify ourselves. Anyone who curses G’d’s “partners,” i.e. our parents who helped bring us into this world, has thereby frustrated the Creator’s design and deserves a suitable punishment. This, after all, is also the penalty for marital infidelity, etc.; the underlying concept is similar in all such cases. Abstention from incestuous and promiscuous behaviour furthers G’d’s plan to sanctify our world, whereas violating His laws concerning chastity does the opposite. The positioning of our verse here immediately after the imperative to become holy is quite natural then.     Some commentators understand this sequence in a somewhat narrower frame, i.e. verses 9 and 10 respectively as being justified by the simple fact that the <i>mamzer,</i> bastard, product of incestuous relationship does not recognize his father and mother as such, and therefore is liable to curse them.     The Torah now lists some of the laws of incest already detailed in chapter 18, in order to spell out the penalties for them, especially those that constitute a capital sin. These include sleeping with one’s father wife, any woman married to another man, one’s daughter-in-law, and indulging in homo-sexual relations, sleeping with a woman and her daughter, including her granddaughter. This was not spelled out, as only some of the woman’s relatives have been spelled out. Clearly, if sleeping with one’s granddaughter is a capital offence so is sleeping with one’s daughter. Naturally one’s own relatives are also included in the list of incestuous relationships subject to the death penalty. One’s aunt and the wife of one’s brother are singled out to remind us that this is forbidden on pain of death even if it is clear that no issue could result from their unions, i.e. that they would die childless, (verse 20). Some more relatives need not be listed specifically as culpability for illicit relations with them has already become clear when more distantly related relatives have been for bidden on pain of death either by tribunal or at the hands of G’d.     The reason why, when mentioning the penalty of <i>karet,</i> the Torah adds the enigmatic words לעיני בני עמה, “in the sight of members of her people,” (verse 17) is because this is the Torah’s way of saying that the guilty party will die in her youth, thus enabling the survivors to reflect on the cause of her early death, and for this to act as a deterrent.      The meaning of the words עונם ישאו, commonly translated as: “they will have to carry the burden of their sin,” is that the sin will stick to both of the guilty parties like glue from that moment on, and will result in their various endeavours and enterprises in life all failing to be successful.     The reason why the Torah repeats the prohibition of a man to sleep with his own wife when the latter is in a state of <i>niddah,</i> menstrual bleeding, is to inform us that the <i>karet</i> penalty applies on such union even if the coitus has not been completed. 
  
     דמיו בו, ”his blood is upon himself.” The meaning of this expression is similar to דמו בראשו, “his blood is on his own head.” The same applies to someone who lies in an adulterous manner with someone else’s wife. He is no less guilty than someone who has cursed father or mother.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ואיש אשר יקח את אחותו, “and a man who takes his sister as a wife.” Nachmanides already comments on why the Torah here uses an expression for a sexual union which elsewhere always means a legal union, i.e. marriage. This seems especially inappropriate, as, according to <i>halachah,</i> any such “marriage” ceremony between brother and sister is null and void. Nachmanides therefore does not understand the word יקח here in the legal sense of the word, but as a graphic description of how brother and sister who both live under the same roof are liable to slide into an intimate relationship precisely because they are so familiar with one another and the frequency of the opportunity makes it hard to resist. Whereas the normal expression in <i>halachah</i> describing sexual intercourse between two people is ביאה, i.e. one party has to “come” to the other, here, due to both parties already being in the same location, that word would lose its normal connotation. All the brother has to do is יקח, take the sister, just as he takes a glass of water. You will find that the Torah has adopted this phraseology of יקח whenever the union of heterosexual relatives who are likely to live in the same house is described.
  
     וראה את ערותה, “and he sees her nakedness;” Nachmanides writes that it is the style of the Torah to teach morality by varying the expressions used for the same phenomenon. Sometimes sexual intercourse by people whose sexual union is forbidden is described as “revealing nakedness,” other times it is described as “seeing nakedness,” as here. Other times the same act is simply described as “sleeping or lying together.” The reason why the Torah may have chosen to describe brother/sister sexual relations as “seeing nakedness,” may be because being in the same house together all the time” may not have left much to reveal that either one of them had not seen before without their being intimate with one another. By repeating that the sister also saw her brother naked, the Torah may indicate that the attraction and desire was completely mutual and that neither force nor enticement was needed. When a female is seduced unwillingly, she would protest in the loudest possible terms. What is described here therefore occurred by mutual consent, so that no investigation was needed to determine that both were equally guilty. [Compare Deut. Chapter 22 where seduction or rape between two people not related to one another genetically are discussed. Ed.] Seeing that when brother and sister are in the habit of sleeping in the same bed, the brother might have perpetrated his act without the prior consent of his sister, or even without her knowledge, the Torah reports her consent in order to justify the penalty she will have to suffer.
  
     חסד הוא, “it is a shameful disgraceful act.” People, by nature, possess a sense of shame that often deters them from committing sins, acts that are despicable. We find the word חסד in that context in Proverbs 25,10 פן יחסדך שומע, “lest he who will hear it puts you to shame.” (By revealing something you would have preferred to keep secret.)
      Nachmanides writes that he feels that the word חסד in our verse is used in the way it is used in nearly all other instances in the Bible, namely referring to an act of kindness. How then does this fit our situation?
      Precisely because brother and sister are closely related it was the duty of the brother to see to it that his sister find a suitable husband, something he has now made difficult if not impossible because he indulged his lust. The Torah repeatedly stated that the prohibition to reveal the other party’s nakedness was because of the close relationship that exists between such parties, so that it is taking unfair advantage of that relationship. It is as if the Torah asks the rhetorical question: “is this the way you show your sister true kindness?” The Torah speaks of חסד in the masculine mode, i.e. הוא to show that it always considers the male to have been the one initiating the intimacy between the two. This approach can also be applied to the verse from Proverbs we quoted earlier, namely: “the one who revealed your innermost secret has deprived you of all the kindness he should have shown you.”
  
     ונכרתו לעיני עם, “they shall be cut off in the sight of their whole nation.” The message of this verse is that when you commit a sin in secret, I, G’d, will see to it that it becomes public by means of the penalty I will exact from you in plain view of all. The Torah chose to tell us this in connection with sins usually committed in the privacy of one’s home. What applies here also applies to all the sins that are punishable by the <i>karet</i> penalty.
  
     ערות אחותו גלה, עונו ישא, “he will have to bear the burden of his sin for having revealed the nakedness of his sister.” Ibn Ezra adds that if her brother had raped his sister so that only he alone had revealed the nakedness of his sister, of course, only the brother will be subject to the penalty described here.
      Nachmanides writes that the reason that the word עונו, “his guilt,” is written in the singular mode is that each of the two parties will have to bear the burden of their joint sin individually. It is similar to the situation in verse 19 where the Torah uses the word עוונם, “their collective guilt” in the plural mode. Ibn Ezra mentions that the reason why the Torah did not spell out the penalty for sleeping with the grandson or granddaughter may be that the senior partner in that relationship, due to old age, may not get much carnal pleasure out of gratifying his desire.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   את מקורה הערה, “he has bared the source of her blood.” Ibn Ezra views this expression, used here for the first time, as an indication that the Torah considers this sleeping with a menstruating partner as an abomination reflecting something very depraved. He explains the additional words:
  
     והיא גלתה את מקור דמיה, “and she revealed the source of her blood,” as applicable only if she was a willing partner in the union, not if she had been raped.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   אשת אחיו, נדה היא, “the wife of his brother, is as forbidden as a menstruating woman.” Our sages (<i>Yevamot</i> 54) interpret this somewhat unclear wording to mean that even incomplete coitus with one’s sister-in-law is as serious a sin as sleeping with one’s own wife while she is menstruating. The penalty makes this point quite clear.
      Some commentators feel that the Torah was especially harsh here, seeing that under certain circumstances, such as the brother having died without ever having had children, it may actually become a <i>mitzvah</i> to marry this sister-in-law who had become widowed by performing the levirate marriage ceremony with her.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   ואיש או אשה כי יהיה בהם אוב או ידעוני, “any man or woman practicing the cult of <i>ov</i> or <i>yidoni</i>, etc.” The reason that the Torah mentions the word אשה especially, although like all negative commandments women are as culpable as men, is because women far more than men are known to have practiced these cults.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   אמור אל הכהנים, “say to the Priests, etc.” The repetition of the words: אמור ואמרת, are intended to signal that the adults are meant to train their youngsters in Judaism and its mores.
      Nachmanides writes that the warning by the Torah to train the children while they are still small occurs several times in the Torah. It occurs in connection with the legislation not to eat blood, as well as in the prohibition not to eat creepers and the ritual contamination caused by the dead bodies of such creepers. (Compare <i>Midrash</i> Proverbs 14,33) We learn from these various instances that under no circumstances are minors to be encouraged to do things the Torah forbade for adults. However, if such minors, on their own initiative, engage in activities for adults, the adults are not legally required to interfere.
      It seems to me, (Nachmanides continuing) that as far as ritual contamination is concerned the adults are required to prevent their youngsters from doing this even if the children had themselves initiated these activities forbidden to their parents. This is the reason why the sages did not say –as they had done in respect of eating dead carcasses-“that if a minor is observed eating such meat from dead animals that have not been ritually slaughtered that the court does not need to interfere.” [if the youngster has no father whose duty it is to raise him. Ed.] Nachmanides quotes Psalms 5,2 הקשיבו לקול שועי in support of his view, as well as the extraneous words לא תאכלום, “you must not eat them,” which appear in connection with the legislation to eat neither blood nor creepers. (Leviticus 11,42) The sages interpret this as if the Torah had written לא תאכילום, “do not feed them, etc.” (<i>Yevamot</i> 113) The only reason that the Torah had added this little statement after having forbidden the eating of these reptiles outright previously even with the rider that eating such creepers even contaminates one’s clothing, must be to add the prohibition not to feed such to anyone else with one’s own hands.
      In our verse here, where the Torah is concerned with the state of ritual purity to be maintained by the priests at all times, the wording is such that it even imposes the need to restrain youngsters from eating such contaminating food when the youngster got hold of it by himself and was not fed by an adult. The reason is that the ritual purity of the priests, even their minors, is to be inviolate as far as is humanly possible.
      Nachmanides, adding an <i>aggadic</i> interpretation to our verse, adds that the repetition of the words אמור ואמרת, are both addressed to the same priests, a second time, i.e. the Torah feels the need to repeat these instructions again and again to impress upon them the importance of their maintaining their ritual purity. Not only priests engaged in Temple service, not only adult priests, but any male born to the priesthood is charged with preserving his status of ritual purity.
      Some commentators claim that seeing the Torah had seen fit to alter its mode of address by writing here אל הכהנים בני אהרן instead of simply אל בני אהרן, the meaning is that the כהנים are to transmit the instructions to בניהם, their children even while they are still minors. 
      Ibn Ezra writes that after the Torah had requested that the whole Jewish nation be careful of their ritual purity, the Torah now repeats this theme once more when addressing the priests to whom this is so much more important in their daily lives.
      It is possible that the interpretation of the words אמור אל הכהנים is a reminder that it is these priests who are charged with teaching the people the laws of the Torah, and it is their duty to warn the people not to become negligent in their observance of the laws of ritual impurity even when there is no immediate requirement to be ritually pure in their daily tasks.
      Nachmanides writes concerning the last mentioned interpretation that he does not agree with it, and that in his opinion the word אמור here is similar to the word דבר elsewhere in the Torah. אמור אל הכהנים is equivalent toדבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם, [such as in connection with זב or ציצית et al. Ed.] The wording is dictated either by reason of the importance the Torah places on what follows, or because people were in the habit of disregarding the particular laws which followed.
      Concerning the word הכהנים in our verse, Nachmanides points out that when the Torah addresses the priests in their capacity as functionaries in the Temple carrying out the sacrificial service, etc., the term is simply דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו, “speak to Aaron and his sons,” the fact that they are also priests is not even mentioned, whereas here when the subject is ritual purity, in other words something touching the essence of their being, the Torah does draw attention to this. The message is that not only must the priests be on guard not to enter the Tabernacle while ritually impure, etc., but, they must maintain such purity also “off duty,” so to speak. [This was important in later years when there were thousands of priests and each one had only two weeks’ service, and even during those two weeks only served on a single day in each week. Ed.] As a result of our verses here, priests who do not take part in funerals do not do so because they consider themselves superior, but because the Torah forced them to act in what to some might appear in the wrong light. They maintain a state of purity for G’d’s sake, so as always to be on “call,” if the occasion should arise. 
  
     לנפש לא יטמא, “he shall not contaminate himself for an ordinary dead person.” According to Nachmanides the word לנפש is to be read as part of what follows, i.e. “he must not contaminate himself on account of a dead person.”
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   כי אם לשארו הקרוב אליו, לאמו ולאביו, “except for a near relative; (or) on account of his mother or of his father, etc.” If he is a priest of the regular category, he may or must contaminate himself on account of the above-mentioned (and some other) relatives. This is why the mother here is mentioned before the father. In the case of the High Priest when even contamination on account of wife, father and mother, is prohibited, the Torah mentions the father ahead of the mother (verse 11). The Torah does not differentiate between mother and father, though we might have thought that the “father” does not need to be mentioned separately, since even the mother whose identity as mother is beyond question is out of bounds. 
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   לא יטמא בעל בעמיו, “A husband among his people shall not contaminate himself to desecrate himself.” <i>Rashi</i> understands this verse as referring to a priest who has married someone forbidden to him as a wife, but whose marriage is recognized in Jewish <i>halachah</i> as such.
      Nachmanides understands the word בעל here as similar to that same word in Samuel II 6,2 מבעלי יהודה, from the “notables of the tribe of Yehudah.” [And other similar verses]. Accordingly, the message appears to be that priests are not only warned by the Torah not to defile themselves legally, but to be conscious of their position among the people at all times and to conduct themselves accordingly, so that they do not bring shame on the institution of the priesthood. One such example would be marrying someone obviously not suited, such as a harlot. Defiling himself by attending funerals of the people not his near relatives is among the things he must not do.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   לא יקרחו קרחה, “They are not to make bald spots, etc.” The reason why the word קרחה is spelled with the letter ה at the end instead of the letter ו which would signal the normal plural mode, is to teach that people making more than one such bald spot (not only the priests, by the way,) are culpable for each such bald spot.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why the Torah commands this only to the males is because the males who are the only priests performing service in the Temple, must not appear before G’d with their heads shorn or their beard shaved off. Nor must they appear before <i>Hashem</i> when they had made incisions on their flesh or skin.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   קדושים יהיו, “They shall be holy, etc.” Nachmanides writes that קדושה is a term describing a certain type of abstinence, as he had explained on previous of occasions. In the case of the priests, the Torah re-emphasises this to teach that even though the Torah had already made holiness a state every Israelite is to strive for, the priests must abstain even from things that are perfectly permissible for the ordinary Israelite. The most prominent example of these is the <i>mitzvah</i> to busy oneself with the burial of the dead. Another, well known example, is the restriction the Torah imposes on the priests in the type of woman that is eligible to become the wife of a priest.
  
     כי אני ה' מקדשכם, ”seeing that it is I, <i>Hashem,</i> Who sanctifies you.” The switch to direct speech (you) again, signals a continuation of the opening line in the chapter that had been addressed exclusively to the priests. Alternately, G’d does indeed refer to both the priests and the people as a whole, but seeing that the priests represents the entire nation being the one who presents G’d’s “food” on the altar, He addresses them in the first instance. The people’s state of holiness necessitates that the priests represent them in the manner prescribed.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   אשה זונה וחללה לא יקחו, “they are not to marry a woman who is either a harlot (has desecrated herself) or has been desecrated through no fault of her own. (by birth)” When speaking of the ordinary priest, the Torah lists the women disqualified in the order of “harlot, disqualified by birth, divorced,” whereas when speaking of the High Priest the order is reversed “widow, divorced, disqualified by birth, harlot.” 
      My late father of sainted memory [the <i>R’osh,</i> Ed.] explained the reason for this reversal in sequence as follows: in the case of the ordinary priest the Torah follows the pattern of forbidding not only a woman who had disqualified herself by her own conduct, but even women who had been disqualified by accidents of fate, or even women who clearly had once qualified to become the wives of priests but who had been divorced by their first husbands. Seeing that in the case of the High Priest the Torah added another disqualification, i.e. widow, it mentioned this special disqualification first. Having started with a disqualification which is neither genetic nor due to character faults, the Torah proceeds from the relatively minor disqualification to the most severe one, i.e. being a harlot.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ומן המקדש לא יצא, “And he shall not leave the Sanctuary.” According to <i>Rashi</i> this means that the High Priest is not even to walk behind the bier of his father or mother, and that he is even to continue with his daily priestly routine while still in the condition known as <i>onan, a state of</i> pre-mourning before his dead has been buried.
      Nachmanides, commenting on <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation, writes that we are faced with two conflicting views about this verse expressed by different <i>midrashim.</i> If we assume that the verse meant to permit the High Priest, or better, to instruct the High Priest, not to interrupt his Temple service even while he is in the state of <i>aninut,</i> pre-burial mourning, there was no need for the Torah to mention that he must not take time out to walk behind the funeral procession and that he is not permitted to leave the Sanctuary for that purpose. It follows that what is meant by our verse is not a warning for the High Priest not to walk behind the bier of his father or mother. On the other hand, the <i>baraitha</i> cited in <i>Torat Kohanim</i> on our verse is quite emphatic that the words ולא יחלל in our verse mean that as long as the High Priest does not leave the Sanctuary he does not desecrate the institution of the Temple even if he does perform the Temple service while in a state of <i>aninut</i>. In other words, the injunction not to walk behind the funeral procession is a definitive negative commandment. The author of <i>halachot gedolot</i> also shares the view cited in <i>Torat Kohanim</i>, listing it as such.
      He explains that the principal injunction of our verse consists of forbidding the High Priest to leave the Temple and to thereby interrupt or abandon the sacred task he had been entrusted with by preferring participation in the funeral of his parents, etc., to the task at hand. It follows that if the High Priest were to leave the Holy Temple for a lesser reason this would constitute an even graver dereliction of his duties. The reason why the Torah chose our verse to make this point was in order to allow the High Priest to continue performing his service in spite of the fact that he temporarily finds himself in a state of <i>aninut.</i> It follows that if he voluntarily prefers to attend his parents’ funeral, that he would thereby desecrate the Temple.
      Concerning the Talmud in <i>Sanhedrin 18</i> where our verse is understood to mean that the High Priest is not to follow the bier, this is not a Biblical injunction, but seeing that by following the bier he might come closer to it than is <i>halachically</i> permitted, [closer than 4 cubits. Ed.,] the sages decreed that he must keep the kind of distance from it that places him a block away from the bier, beyond direct visual contact with the bier. An ordinary priest is not subject to such stringent restrictions. He may contaminate himself in respect of the relatives mentioned in our paragraph, but not for the sake of people not related to him genetically.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   כי אם בתולה מעמיו יקח אשה, “but he must take for a wife a virgin belonging to his own people.” These words are the definition of the previous והוא אשה בבתוליה יקח in verse 13. In other words, [if the High Priest was not yet married at the time he was appointed as such, a most unlikely scenario, Ed.] he is not allowed to marry a woman who has already had carnal relations with another man. Verse 13 is what is known as לאו הבא מכלל עשה, negative commandment arrived at by bringing it into line with an existing positive commandment. Now, by repeating the same concept as a positive commandment, it is much stronger. [The author understands the positive message in verse 13 as only an indirect prohibition to marry a woman no longer a virgin. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ולא יחלל, “so that he will not desecrate, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> understands the message of our verse, as “he must not take as a wife someone forbidden to him so that he will not desecrate any male children he will have from such a union.”
      Nachmanides rejects this interpretation saying that if it were correct our verse is not a negative commandment, but merely an explanation of the legislation.
      Our sages (<i>Kidushin</i> 78) make plain that our verse is an additional negative commandment, i.e. a priest will receive twice 39 lashes for what might have a appeared as violating a single commandment. In fact he violates לא יקח as well as לא יחלל.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   דבר אל אהרן: איש מזרעך, “speak to Aaron saying: ‘any man of your offspring, etc.’” Nachmanides points out that the Torah here does not use the formula דבר אל אהרן ובניו, “speak to Aaron and his sons,” but it refers to his sons, etc, in the third person. The reason is that earlier Moses, i.e. G’d, had spoken in connection with the sacrifices, whereas if here the Torah had used the same form of address it would have had to add the words איש מכם לדורותיכם אשר יהיה בו מום, “if any one of you (the priests) throughout the generations is afflicted with a physical blemish, etc.” The Torah did not want to include Aaron personally in the list of people who might be stricken with a blemish, seeing that Aaron was a paragon of holiness, physical perfection, etc. The possibility of any priest being stricken with a physical blemish in the future therefore had to be approached in a very sensitive manner, not addressed to anyone in particular. It remained Aaron’s task, of course, to caution his offspring against performing priestly duties while in a blemished state.
      In the paragraph dealing with ritual contamination (chapter 22) where the Torah reverts to its customary formula of “speak to Aaron and his sons, that they should abstain, withdraw from holy domains as soon as they do become contaminated,” there was no need for such sensitivity, as Aaron himself, without being in the least to blame, could become the victim of such ritual contamination, [for instance, if a dead mouse fell upon him. Ed.] 
      Further on in our portion, (22,18) not only Aaron and his sons but all of the Israelites are addressed, the idea being that the courts are warned to intervene in any non observance.
      When it comes to warn the people about the plague of צרעת, Aaron is mentioned at the beginning of chapter 14, as seeing that we have learned that the High Priest continues to perform his functions even while in a state of pre-mourning, אנינות for father and mother, I might have thought that even if he were struck by <i>tzoraat</i> this would also not disqualify him from performing his duties. To make sure we do not err in this respect, the Torah introduces that legislation by including Aaron by name. (Leviticus 214,33)
      This confronts us with the statement in <i>Torat Kohanim</i> on Leviticus 22,4 איש איש מזרע אהרן והוא צרוע או זב, “any man from the offspring of Aaron who is either stricken with <i>tzoraat,</i> or <i>zav,</i> etc.” On this verse <i>Torat Kohanim</i> comments that the word והוא means that the legislation might even apply to him personally, if he were to be afflicted with such a dysfunction. This is so, in spite of the fact that on the face of it, the verse appears to restrict itself to the offspring of Aaron.
      It is possible to understand the word אהרן in all of these verses as the (first) High Priest, and as such Aaron is mentioned by name as representative of High Priests throughout the generations, although he himself had long ceased to be alive. Accordingly, when the <i>Torat Kohanim</i> asks: ‘whence do I know that the legislation applies to Aaron personally,’ and it answers that we derive this from the word והוא, the author had never referred to the actual Aaron but to the respective High Priest officiating, if and when the problem raised by our verse should ever occur.
      Alternatively, the mention of Aaron is a hint that the Torah’s legislation is not predicated on miracles –i.e. considers the possibility that Aaron might be stricken with either of the two afflictions mentioned in that verse. However, out of sensitivity for Aaron this possibility is obscured by the word והוא so as to preserve our image of him as a physically perfect specimen.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   חרום, “someone with a flat nose, without a bridge,” the origin of the word is חרם, as used in והחרמתי את עריהם, “I will utterly deface their cities.” (Numbers 21,2) The nose, i.e. the bridge of the nose, is considered essential to someone having a handsome face. Absence of that bridge deprives a person of his human appearance, [makes him appear like an inferior species, such as an ape. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   או גבן, ”or abnormally long eyebrows;” the word appears in conjunction with eyes, as in שגובן בעיניו, describing eyebrows so bushy that they cover one’s eyes. The word is related to גב, “back,” as in על גבי חרשו חורשים, “plowmen plowed across my back” (Psalms 129,3)
      The Torah began by listing the kind of physical blemishes that consist of visibly missing or malfunctioning limbs or organs, limbs, etc., proceeding to examples of priests whose limbs are all there and functioning, but who suffer from blemishes making them appear ugly. This is followed by defects which were not congenital but the result of bone fractures, etc. At the end, we even hear about blemishes that affect the mind of a person such as knowing that one’s reproductive organs, though not visibly blemished, suffered the kind of injuries which make the organ permanently dysfunctional.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ולא יחללו את שם קדשי, “so as not to desecrate My holy Name.” According to<i> Rashi</i> the verse is truncated and the clause “by performing their Temple duties in an inappropriate state of purity,” are missing. 
      Nachmanides does not consider that there was any need for these words, as the words אשר הם מקדישים, are quite adequate to make the meaning of the verse crystal clear. He explains that the words ולא יחללו את שם קדשי clearly refer to animal and animal parts that these priests had previously sanctified for use on the altar. Why else would the Torah have to add the words: אשר הם מקדישים לי, “which they are sanctifying for Me?” 
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל, “He shall not eat from a carcass or a fatally injured animal.” Nachmanides reminds us that our sages in <i>Torat Kohanim Emor 4,4</i> explain that the news here is that seeing that there are species of birds not subject to the ritual contamination caused by carcasses of mammals, we might have thought that the priests do not need to be on guard against contact with or eating same when they were part of an offering. The Torah therefore had to write our verse, even though, naturally, the priests were included in all the carcasses and <i>treyfah</i> animals mentioned in chapter 11.
      If we were to look at the plain meaning of the text, [something we must never disregard, Ed.] the injunction for the priests here does not repeat the ordinary prohibition against eating נבלה וטרפה, applicable to all Israelites, but it adds the new dimension of the priest violating their status of ritual purity when they do this, a dimension that does not apply to the ordinary Israelite unless these animals had been sanctified at some time prior to their death. Seeing that the various ways a human being can become ritually contaminated had been discussed in previous chapters, as well as the definitions of such ritual impurity of sperm, and other effluences from the body, this was the place to add this reminder to the priests.
      In case you wonder why the Torah used the wording “he shall not eat” such animals (on the basis of the פשט), an expression not normally used with the contaminating factor of such repulsive creatures as insects, vermin, rodents, and the like, it is the Torah’s awareness that most people would not eat these creatures even if the Torah had not expressly prohibited this. However, this consideration does not apply to mammals which had died by an arrow or a gunshot wound, or had been fatally wounded but had undergone decapitation immediately afterwards.
      The word טרפה in our verse refers to animals that had been mauled by predators such as lions or bears or wolves. While prohibited as food, such injured animals do not transmit ritual contamination until after they have died. The Torah here expands the prohibition by referring even to such animals that had not yet died as included in those that confer ritual contamination on contact. The expression נבלה automatically includes this aspect of conferring ritual contamination.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל, “and they shall not desecrate the holies of the Children of Israel,” according to <i>Rashi</i> this is a warning not to feed any consecrated gifts to ordinary Israelites. [Verses 14,15, and 16 all speak of the same type of holy gifts, the first describes non priests eating such inadvertently, the second speaks of the same people eating same knowingly, the third speaks of priests feeding such to non priests not entitled to eat them. Ed]
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   והשיאו אותם עון אשמה, “and they would cause themselves to bear the sin of guilt.” They would bring the punishment of their guilt upon themselves, etc.
      Nachmanides writes that he has not understood the meaning of <i>Rashi,</i> whom he understands as saying that our verse is a warning for the priests not to give non priests to eat produce which had already been set aside as תרומה, the priest’s share of the farmer’s harvest. If that were so, the words there would not be needed to explain the wordsוהשיאו אותם עון, as applying to themselves, i.e. the people eating this תרומה, as the sin had been committed by the priests, and they would be the guilty ones, having burdened the ordinary Israelite consuming these קדשים, sacred things, with guilt.
      Furthermore, we do not find this prohibition <i>Rashi</i> speaks about being mentioned in the Talmud as a separate negative commandment, although misleading an Israelite into eating food forbidden to him because it is reserved for priests of their households, is of course, forbidden, no more and no less so than feeding the unsuspecting other categories of food which the Torah has placed out of bounds for the individuals it is given to.
      The proper meaning of our verse is that the verse is conceptually a continuation of verses 14 and 15 which are addressed to the Israelites and warn them not to eat such food that is described here as קדשים. The reason the legislation is repeated is to spell out that there is a punishment for disobeying it. According to our sages the punishment is even death at the hands of heaven, if the forbidden food is grain that has not been tithed, or harvest products, known as טבל. The reason is simple, and the word קדשים alludes to it. All טבל still contains the portion which was meant to be set aside as תרומה, sacred heave produce for the priest. (<i>Midrash Hagadol Devarim,</i> page 579<i>)</i> 
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   לפלא נדר או לנדבה, “to fulfill a promised vow or making a voluntary offering.” Nachmanides writes: “it appears to me that seeing that the Torah uses the expression לפלא נדר או נדבה, that both here and in other situations where this expression is used it refers to people who when making such a vow they felt that they were under extreme stress which prompted them to make this “vow.” (Compare Leviticus 27,2, and Numbers 6,2, for instance) The vow goes something like this: “If <i>Hashem</i> will perform some kind of miracle, פלא so that I will be extricated from the predicament I find myself in at this time, I promise to do such and such as a thanksgiving offering.” The whole situation is analogous to Yaakov having made a vow after his dream with the ladder, and his being penniless on the way to get a wife for himself. The basic difference in the formula of a vow called נדר and one called נדבה, is that the נדר is a personal obligation that has to be seen through, i.e. if the item vowed has been lost or stolen before it was paid, the person who vowed it has to make restitution, seeing he had said “I accept the obligation on myself to do or give such and such.” The person vowing a נדבה, on the other hand, declared a certain item as holy for G’d, and once he had declared it as such, if something happened to it, it is no longer his responsibility to make restitution. Seeing that in the case of the נדר the party vowing it does not make the selection at once, the Torah applies more stringent rules to the state of physical perfection used for such an animal. [There are, of course, numerous other distinctions between the two kinds of vows, but they do not concern our verse. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   עורת או שבור, “blind or having a fractured limb.” Nachmanides writes that seeing the Torah had already listed the blind and broken limbs as disqualifying such an animal it did not have to lengthen the list of disqualifications. It is therefore quite possible that the whole list of disqualifications in our verse applies to the נדבה kind of vow, which was not intended as an offering on the altar in the first place, but was intended as a gift to the Temple treasury. The verse therefore has to be understood as telling us that all the blemishes listed are acceptable in a vow called נדבה, but are not acceptable in a vow called נדר. 
  
     נדבה תעשה אותו, “you may donate it under the heading of <i>nedavah.” Rashi</i> says that it may be donated to the Temple treasury.
  
     ולנדר לא ירצה, “but it is not welcome as a vow made under the heading נדר.” Animals with the above-mentioned blemishes are not acceptable as gifts for the altar. The expression ירצה is used to make plain that the Torah speaks about a gift vowed which by definition requires G’d’s goodwill, ירצה, in order to be acceptable.
      Nachmanides writes that in accordance with this interpretation we need to read the previous line as follows: נדבה תעשה אותו ולנדר, “you may vow it as either a נדבה according to the definition we mentioned, and as a נדר according to the definition we mentioned, i.e. personal responsibility, in the event it disappeared, etc., but, -and that is important- as a gift for the altar which requires goodwill by G’d, it is not welcome. In that respect it does not matter which formula the vow had been phrased as. Nothing that is blemished is acceptable as a gift for the altar. On the other hand, both types of vows if intended as gifts to the Temple treasury are acceptable in spite of the animals having the blemishes mentioned in the Torah.
      It is possible that we can understand the wording of the Torah as primarily thinking of the type of gift to the Temple treasury in terms of נדבה, because during the donations the Jewish people made prior to the building of the Tabernacle the Torah constantly referred to the generosity of the people’s hearts prompting them to make such gifts, terming them נדיב לבו, as emanating from the generosity of his heart. (Compare at length in Exodus chapters 25,35,36 where this word appears in this context repeatedly.) It is not mentioned in connection with animals but with lifeless objects, clearly unfit for the altar. Wherever the word נדבה without further adjective is mentioned, it refers to gifts to the Temple treasury. The very fact that we do not find the expression תקריב אותה, “you shall bring it near as a sacrifice,” mentioned in connection with נדבה, but only the words תביא אותה, “you shall bring it,” supports our theory.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   שור או כשב או עז וגו', “an ox or goat that will be born, etc.” After the Torah had given us a list of animals unwelcome on the altar due to various kinds of blemishes, it now adds a new type of disqualification, i.e. being under age, less than seven days old. Even though these animals do not display any blemish, being too young (or too old) can also disqualify an animal as a potential sacrifice. 
      Some commentators claim that the reason is that if one were to sacrifice an animal on the very first day it was born, some onlookers might construe this as homage to that day, the first day heaven and earth existed. Similarly, offering such a young animal on any other of the seven days of its first week on earth might be misinterpreted as some form of idolatry. Hence, after a whole week has elapsed, such a misinterpretation of the owner’s intention is impossible. By waiting at least seven days before offering a newly born animal as a sacrifice, this amounts to an acknowledgment that G’d created the universe in six days and that He rested on the seventh day.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   אותו ואת בנו, “it together with its offspring.” This legislation applies only to the females of the species, not to the males. [Although according to the masculine mode employed by the Torah we might have been misled. Ed.]
      Nachmanides writes that actually we could have expected the Torah to write instead of the words שור או כשב או עז, the feminine equivalent i.e. פרה או כבשה אותה ואת בנה, the reason why the Torah did not do so was that the paragraph began with the legislation that the species cattle and sheep etc., must not be used as sacrifices on the same day.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   וכי תזבחו זבח תודה, “when you slaughter a thanksgiving offering, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that the reason this verse appears adjoining the law not to slaughter mother and its young as a sacrifice on the same day, is that the offering called תודה must be consumed on the same day it is offered.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   ושמרתם מצותי, “You shall observe My commandments, etc.” Nachmainides writes that this verse is meant as a warning to the people of Israel to be very circumspect that their offerings are not blemished, are not offered too soon, and that the thanksgiving offering not be eaten for longer than the day on which it had been slaughtered. The various offerings must be presented in a manner that will secure <i>Hashem’s</i> goodwill for those on whose behalf they are being presented. The reason that the Torah adds the words לא תחללו, “do not desecrate, etc.,” is to warn you not to tolerate amongst yourselves anyone who would present unfit offerings on the altar. This is parallel to a similar injunction to Aaron and the priests in verse 2 of our chapter.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   דבר אל בני ישראל, “speak to the Children of Israel;”
      Nachmanides writes that the reason the name of Aaron has not been mentioned in this paragraph is that in this paragraph the Torah did not mention the additional sacrifices, מוספים, which are offered on every one of the festivals mentioned here. The Torah contents itself with writing –in a general statement- והקרבתם אשה לה', “you are to offer fire-offerings to <i>Hashem.”</i> The details are spelled out only in Numbers chapter 28-29. The reason this has been delayed until there is that by then the details of the occupation of the land of Israel, the key to how to distribute the various parts of the land had been spelled out, and basically, the additional offerings are applicable in the central location where the Tabernacle/Temple would stand and the Israelites would have to make their pilgrimages to that location to honour the festival. In a manner of speaking, these מוספים represent acknowledgment of <i>Hashem</i> having given us our daily bread in the land of Israel. Although at this time, the land had not yet been conquered, the Torah in verses 9-22 speaks about offerings which could not possibly be brought prior to the land having been conquered, seeing that the ingredients are largely produce of that land, the message is that the legislation in the Torah being discussed here is for the duration, throughout the generations.
      It is noteworthy that the Sabbath, a day that is not connected to calendar considerations, is mentioned as part of these מועדים. The reason is to show that part of this legislation, such as the Sabbath, is capable of being honoured in the performance already immediately. The fact that after having mentioned the Sabbath the Torah reverts to telling the <i>halachic</i> authorities of the people אשר תקראו אותם במועדם, “the festivals that you have to proclaim as such at their appointed times,” makes the distinction between the Sabbath on the one hand, and the festivals on the other hand, quite clear. The reason that the Sabbath is introduced with the words אלה מועדי ה', “these are the appointed festivals of <i>Hashem,</i> etc.” in the plural mode is that the Sabbath occurs so frequently.
      It is reported in the name of Rabbi Chiya (<i>hasefardi</i>) that when mentioning the Sabbath the words מועדי ה' occur before the words אשר תקראו אותם, “that you are to proclaim,” whereas in connection with the festivals the words אשר תקראו אותם occur after the words מועדי ה'. This is a clear hint that unless the dates of the festivals have been publicly proclaimed in advance, these festivals i.e. their legal status, remains in doubt. It is necessary for the Highest Court of the land to declare the first day of that month as such in order for us to know when the dates mentioned as festivals do occur.
      Nachmanides mentions further that the words אלה מועדי ה' אשר תקראו אותם וגו' refer to what follows, [not as in Genesis 24, or Exodus 6,19 and many others where the word אלה sums up what had been reported before then. Ed.] This is the reason why the Torah felt compelled to repeat this line seeing it had interrupted its narrative with mention of the Sabbath. There is an essential difference between observing the Sabbath and observing the festivals, as on the Sabbath any manner of מלאכה, creative kind of activity, is prohibited, whereas on the festivals only activities defined as מלאכת עבודה, “work typically performed by slaves, servants,” are forbidden. This enables us to cook, fry, and use fire on the festivals. There is a further allusion in the text that when such a festival day occurs on the Sabbath, the rules pertaining to the festival do not supersede those of the Sabbath and all the activities normally prohibited on the Sabbath are then also prohibited on the day that is both Sabbath and part of the festival. We find a similar syntax in the Torah when the Torah writes אלה הדברים אשר צוה ה' לעשות אותם, “These are the things which <i>Hashem</i> had commanded to do them,” in connection with the building of the Tabernacle, (Exodus 35,1) as there too, the Torah had interrupted its narrative by referring to the rules of Sabbath observance.
      In light of the above we can understand very well why when introducing this legislation the Torah did not use the words והקרבתם אשה לה' when describing the Sabbath, [although such an offering is, of course tendered every Sabbath, Ed.] as it does at the end of the mention of each festival, and instead it writes at the end of the chapter (verse 37) אלה מועדי ה' אשר תקראו אותם מקראי קודש להקריב אשה לה' מנחה זבח ונסכים דבר יום ביומו. מלבד שבתות ה' ומלבד מתנותיכם וגו' , “These are the appointed festivals of <i>Hashem</i> that you shall proclaim as holy convocations, to offer a fire-offering to <i>Hashem</i>: a burnt offering, and its meal-offering, a feast-offering, and its libation, each day’s requirement each day. Apart from <i>Hashem’s</i> Sabbaths, and apart from your gifts, apart from all your vows, etc.” These verses make crystal clear that the Sabbaths are not included in the list of the festivals.
      If a further proof were needed you will find this in the very fact that the Torah wrote a separate paragraph commencing with practically the same words in verse 4. If the Sabbath could have been lumped together with the festivals, surely at least that verse could have been saved.
  
     מקראי קודש, “a holy convocation.” According to Nachmanides the exact meaning of this expression is that all the people will be assembled on that day in preparation of performing a sacred task. On such days it is a commandment for the people to assemble in or near the House of G’d [in accordance with the regulations governing ritual purity. Ed.] Public prayers would be recited, songs of praise for <i>Hashem</i> would be sung, etc. The people would honour such days by clean and appropriate clothing for the occasion. They would also observe the second part of the day as a day of feasting, eating and drinking well in honour of G’d.
      Onkelos views the origin of the word מקראי as related to a happening, rather than as related to “following a call.” He quotes אשר יקרא אתכם באחרית הימים, “what is going to happen to you at the end of days,” (Genesis 49,1) as another example of the word מקרא or יקרא having this meaning. In other words, “whenever such a day or date occurs, make a point of treating it as a holy day.” This day or these days are to be treated as something special, a fact that is reflected in one’s bearing, cleanliness, distinctive dress and superior food. All this is implied in Onkelos’ meaning.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   מלאכת עבודה, “laborious work.” <i>Rashi</i> includes even activities which, if not performed on those days, result in the Israelite suffering irrevocable financial loss.
      Nachmanides disagrees, saying that what purpose would be served in the Torah telling us that we must not even perform activities that result in financial loss, so that activities that do not result in financial loss would be forbidden automatically? If this were a valid form of reasoning, we would apply it also to activities forbidden on the Sabbath!
      Furthermore, if correct, why did the sages have to rule that activities which result in irretrievable loss may be performed on the intermediate days of the festivals, thus providing us with an allusion in the text, whereas the sages contend that there is no such allusion in the text? (Compare <i>Chagigah</i> 18)
      In addition, the expression עבודה, includes all manner of work and activities, as we know from Proverbs 28,19 עובד אדמתו ישבע לחם, “he who works his soil will have enough to eat.” Or, Deut. 15,12 ועבדך שש שנים, “and he shall serve you for six years.” Nachmanides quotes a number of additional such uses of the word עבודה. On the basis of these examples he concludes that the expression מלאכת עבודה includes all manner of work except that involving the preparation of food. He draws a comparison between Kayin who was a עובד אדמה, tilled the earth, but did not do this for his amusement or satisfaction but out of necessity, and someone who prepares food, the objective being his enjoyment. Clearly, the two activities are not comparable, hence the expressionמלאכת עבודה describes the nature of the activity not its value to the person who performs it.
      It is noteworthy that when speaking of the festival of <i>matzot</i>, the very first of the festivals mentioned, in Exodus 12,16, the Torah writes כל מלאכה לא יעשה בהם, that on those days no manner of work may be performed. This is no contradiction, as the Torah immediately continues to exempt the kind of work needed to prepare food. On the contrary, it supports the theory that whenever the expression מלאכת עבודה is used this excludes activities involved in preparing food. Had this not been the intention of the Torah the word מלאכה would have sufficed. 
      There is one exception to the wording used by the Torah in connection with the festivals, i.e. Deut. 16,8 where the eating of מצות is discussed, and where the Torah in prohibiting work on the seventh day of Passover uses the expression לא תעשה מלאכה. On the face of it, this sounds ambiguous, as the Torah omits the customary מלאכת עבודה on the one hand, but it does not write כל מלאכה לא תעשה, “that you must not perform all manner of work” either, as it does concerning the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement. The meaning of the words לא תעשה מלאכה is simply: “do not perform the manner of work I have already prohibited to you on the festivals in previous references to that day.”
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   והקרבתם אשה לה' שבעת ימים, “you shall bring a fire-offering to <i>Hashem</i> for a seven-day period.” The reason is that all the seven days of Passover enjoy the status of being festivals, חג, so that these additional publicly financed sacrifices are mandatory. On the other hand, the work prohibition applies only on the first and the seventh day of this festival. The components of this fire offering are not detailed here but in a separate section in Numbers chapters 28-29.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   דבר אל בני ישראל, “speak to the Children of Israel, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah devotes a separate instruction by G’d for each of these festivals instead of a single introductory heading for all of them, is that each festival contains some legislation which did not apply to the previous one, excepting the Sabbath. The common denominator of all of them is that all are called מקראי קודש, “holy convocations. Since there is no specific date given for the festival of <i>Shavuaot,</i> seeing that the Torah links it to the first day the <i>omer</i> was offered on the 16th day of <i>Nissan</i> and stipulates that the 50th day thereafter must be the festival of <i>Shavuot</i>, it is lumped together in the same paragraph as that legislating the <i>omer</i> offering, an offering which permits the new barley harvest for general consumption from that date on. Also, the fact that both <i>Rosh Hahanah</i> and <i>Yom Hakippurim</i> occur in the same month and represent the beginning and the end of the ten days of penitence, i.e. they cover basically the same subject, at least the words דבר אל בני ישראל, “speak to the Children of Israel,” are not repeated.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ממחרת השבת, “on the day following the rest-day.” The meaning of this expression is: “on the day following the first day of Passover.” The word שבת here does not mean: “a week,” as it does in verse 15 in שבע שבתות “seven weeks.” The reason the Torah refers to a week by the name of שבת is that each unit of seven successive days includes a “Sabbath,” and seeing that that is the central day of the week as far as Jews are concerned, it is not surprising to hear a “week” also referred to as a “<i>Shabbat.”</i> In any reference to the Jewish calendar, each day of the week is identified by its relation to the Sabbath, i.e. “the first day of the Sabbath”, “the second day of the Sabbath,” etc.
      Nachmanides writes that there is no problem even if we were to call the expression ממחרת השבת as “the day following the week,” as the day on which the <i>omer</i> is waved for the first time is the 16th day of <i>Nissan,</i> the day on which the counting of the seven new weeks begins. It follows that that day is the day following the completion of the previous week. Seeing that the first day of Passover is on the fifteenth of <i>Nissan</i>, the Torah quite correctly describes the sixteenth as the day following the week that had just expired.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   וספרתם לכם, “you are to count for yourselves, etc.” Some commentators believe that the reason the Torah demanded this count is that seeing that these are days when the harvesting in the fields is in full swing, the common people, the farmers, might lose track of the exact number of days that had elapsed since the Passover. Seeing that during that period they are hardly ever at home, the messengers from the court might have difficulty in reaching them. These farmers might not find out if the month of <i>Nissan</i> had 29 days or thirty days, and similarly, they might not know if the High Court had extended the length of the month of <i>Iyar</i> or not. By counting until 50 they would be certain to observe the festival of <i>Shavuot</i> on the correct day. This is also the reason that the optimal time for counting these days was in the evening, as during the day they might have been to preoccupied with their harvesting activities.
  
     וספרתם לכם, according to Nachmanides the additional word לכם, “for yourselves,” was the reason why our sages decreed that every individual was to count these days, it was not enough for the members of the Court to do so on behalf of the people at large, as they did when they proclaimed the day of the New Moon. On the other hand, when the Torah writes וספרת לך in the singular mode, pertaining to the Jubilee year, that is a task reserved for the High Court exclusively. (Leviticus 25,8)
      The number of days from the first heaving of the <i>omer</i> offering corresponds exactly to the number of years in a Jubilee cycle. The seven years in that cycle, correspond to the seven weeks in the counting of the <i>omer.</i> Presumably, this is the reason why the Torah wrote תספרו חמישים יום, “you are to count 50 days, meaning that you count seven times seven days, i.e. 49 days, whereupon the 50th day is a holy convocation, again a wording which closely parallels the Jubilee legislation in chapter 25. The principal reason for mentioning the number 50 is to ensure that we do not count either less or more than the number stipulated by the Torah.
  
     ממחרת השבת, the word ממחרת is as if the Torah had written במחרת, “on the day following, etc.” This is quite accurate as the counting begins on the day following the first day of the <i>matzah</i> festival. The Torah adds: (actually at the end of verse 14)
  
     חוקת עולם לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם, “an eternal decree for all your generations wherever you will reside.” The decree referred to is 1) that of not eating of the new barley harvest before the day on which the <i>omer</i> offering has been presented. 2) To observe the fiftieth day as a festival on which the performance of work is prohibited. I might have thought that seeing that these laws have been linked to offering sacrifices, also to the offering of the first sacrifice of breads made from the new wheat harvest on <i>Shavuot,</i> that the other regulations do not apply when there is no Temple and when we are not dwelling in our own land. This is also the reason that the Torah stresses the same applicability of the prohibitions of the Day of Atonement, as there too, seeing that the atonement mentioned in the Torah is linked to special offerings and the ceremony of the scapegoat, that when these cannot be performed that the entire <i>Yom Kippur</i> legislation would be null and void. By writing these extra lines the Torah makes plain that this is not so. There was no need to specifically mention applicability of the prohibitions of New Year, <i>Sukkot</i> and <i>chag hamatzot</i> wherever Jews lived except in connection with the laws in Exodus chapter 12,17 seeing that it appeared to depend entirely on the availability of a male lamb in its first year for slaughter in the Temple. We might have thought that once there was no place available to offer the blood and fat of that lamb on the altar, the laws about unleavened bread and bitter herbs would also not apply, therefore the Torah had to write verse 17 to disabuse us of such an idea. As long as the Torah did not restrict a prohibition to periods when there would be a Temple, such prohibitions remain in force regardless. (Compare <i>Kidushin</i> 37)
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   חמץ תאפינה, “they shall be baked leavened.” Nachmanides, quoting Jeremiah 5,24 חוקות קציר ישמור לנו, “He who keeps for our benefit the laws of the periods appointed for the harvest,” sees in the offering a form of thanksgiving offering. Every thanksgiving offering contained 10 out of 40 loaves that were leavened. Nachmanides speculates that the normal prohibition to include anything leavened in our offerings may be related to leavening being viewed as outgrowths of spiritually negative influences, “creatures” or phenomena which have their origin in demonic forces, Satan. As such they are reminders of the attribute of Justice, the last thing we want to remind <i>Hashem</i> of when offering Him our sacrifices. 
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ובקצרכם את קציר ארצכם, “When you reap the harvest of your land, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that the reason the Torah introduces the subject of the harvest here is that the festival of <i>Shavuot</i> occurs right in the middle of the harvesting season, and the Israelite needs to be reminded of his duties <i>vis</i> a <i>vis</i> that festival at a time when he is so engrossed in bringing in his harvest.
      Nachmanides writes: the true reason, in my opinion is, that the introductory letter ו in the word ובקצרכם is a reference to the first time when the Torah commanded a <i>mitzvah</i> related to the harvest, when it spoke about the <i>omer</i> the offering of a sheaf of the early barley harvest on the second day of the Passover festival. At that time, the Torah had introduced the subject with the words כי תבואו אל הארץ...וקצרתם את קצירה in verse 10 of our chapter, implying that we must not shortchange the poor in order to fulfill the commandment of bringing that <i>omer,</i> by harvesting also the last corner of the field. Normally, when a positive commandment conflicts with a negative commandment and is due simultaneously, the positive commandment can override the negative commandment. In the example mentioned this is not so. (Compare verse 22)
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   יהיה לכם שבתון, “shall be a day of rest for you.” Nachmanides writes that this formula suggests that <i>Rosh Hashanah</i> is to be a day of rest for you in that you do not even perform some of the tasks that you do normally perform on the other festivals. For instance, if you were inclined to measure the size of the harvest you had brought in, not one of the 39 forbidden activities, you should not do this on <i>Rosh Hashanah</i>. Neither should you weigh fruit, etc. Avoidable physically tiring labour, should not be engaged in on that day.
  
     זכרון תרועה, “a remembrance including <i>shofar-</i>blasts. According to <i>Rashi</i> this is an allusion to the Biblical verse dealing with or mentioning this subject that are to be recited on that day. [We recite 10 each in the <i>Mussaph</i> service. Ed.] Among the things we bring to <i>Hashem’s</i> attention on that day is the selfless submission by <i>Yitzchok</i> on the altar on which his father was prepared to sacrifice him.
      Nachmanides writes that the comments by <i>Rashi</i> on that word are only to be understood as secondary meanings superimposed by our sages, the real meaning of the word זכרון תרועה being like the meaning of the words יום תרועה, i.e. that on that day we are to blow blasts of the <i>shofar</i> which in turn will bring our devotion to <i>Hashem</i> and our making a חשבון הנפש, a serious examination of our lifestyle our concern to His attention, an activity including remorse which will continue until the tenth of the month. G’d promised also in connection with our trumpeting blasts on the חצוצרות, Moses’ trumpets that He would take note of this, that it would serve for Him as a “reminder” and He would come to our assistance when the need arises. (Compare Numbers 10,10 <i>et al</i>) Seeing that on that occasion the reason was that we celebrated a day of rejoicing whereas here nothing is mentioned of the blowing of the <i>shofar</i> being the result of a particular expression of certain collective emotions, it is clear that the <i>shofar</i> blasts here are not spontaneous expressions of joy, etc., but are a duty the Torah imposes on us in connection with New Year’s Day, the Day of Judgment. Whenever the Torah mentions תרועה without going into details, the reference is to a <i>shofar,</i> not to the trumpets. Although the Torah does not mention why on this day it is more important that we bring ourselves to <i>Hashem’s</i> attention than on the other days of the year, the proximity of that day to the Day of Atonement 10 days later speaks for itself. The Torah also did not elaborate on why that day has been designated as a holy convocation. Seeing that it occurs in the month that it does and the day is the day on which traditionally first man was created, it is most plausible to accept the sages’ estimation that this is the day on which the Creator sits in judgment of man, His most precious creature. The prophets provide us with a number of allusions that on this day G’d assumes the mantle of supreme Judge, i.e. “dresses:” up in garments of Royalty, the garments worn by a judge. After <i>Rosh Hashanah,</i> during the days of penitence, the “King” will concern Himself with forgiving, or at least reducing the level of guilt of His subjects, those who truly repent their errors.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   אך בעשור, “However, on the tenth, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> draws attention to the saying of our sages that every time the word אך or רק appears in the Torah it introduces the limitation, diminution, of some general principle mentioned previously.
      Nachmanides writes, that if this is so, the meaning of our verse must be that whereas on the first of that month the entire people observed a day of <i>teruah,</i> blowing the <i>shofar,</i> seeing that all of them came up for judgment on that day, by the tenth of that month only a small portion of the people still needed to ensure that their judgment too would be favourable. This day would complete the process of atonement. The meaning of the word אך in our verse then would be the same as בלבד, “excepting,” referring to something not included in the previously enunciated rule. Just as in Exodus 31,13, basically, the rule was that the construction of the Tabernacle does not override the prohibitions of performing work on the Sabbath, it exempted performance of circumcision if the eight’s day of the baby occurred on the Sabbath. The circumcision is not postponed. The meaning of the word אך in our verse is similar to when Pharaoh pleaded with Moses to pray for G’d to forgive him his sin one more time, He used the words: אך הפעם"” (compare Exodus 10,17) When we encounter the word אך again in verse 39, i.e. אך בחמשה עשר יום לחודש השביעי באספכם את תבואת הארץ תחוגו וגו', “only on the fifteenth of the seventh month when you gather in the yield of the earth, you are to celebrate, etc.”, the message is also that even though that date may occur on the Sabbath, this does not cause the first day of the <i>Sukkot</i> festival to be postponed.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the word אך is to be understood as similar to “but in truth,” similar to the word אכן. That word appears in such a context in Genesis 28,16 when Yaakov becomes aware that G’d’s presence is manifest at the location where he had the dream of the ladder. It appears again in such a context when Moses had killed the Egyptian thinking that there had not been any witnesses, and on the morrow he found out that he had erred. (Exodus 2,14) In our verse the meaning of the word אך then is that on the tenth of the seventh month is <i>Yom Hakippurim</i>, on no other day.
      Ibn Ezra, understands the word אך here as meaning that in spite of the extremely serious nature of that day, seeing that it too has been described as a מקרא קודש, just like all the festivals, it too is a day on which (the latter part) we are to express our joy at feeling that we have been forgiven.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   כי יום כפורים הוא לכפר עליכם, “for it is the Day of Atonement to provide atonement for you, etc.” The instruments that lead to your receiving atonement are the afflictions you have submitted to, the abstaining from pursuing any of your normal and considered important activities. It is important to realise that the absence of the requisite offerings in no way impedes the process of your being forgiven for your sins.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   בעצם היום הזה, “on this very day.” Nachmanides writes that the commentators generally understand the word בעצם as meaning “the substance of this day.” It would have that same meaning in verse 14 of our chapter ולחם וקלי וכרמל לא תאכלו עד עצם היום הזה, “you must not eat either bread, parched kernels or roasted kernels (from the new harvest) until this very day.” The word עצם does not appear in connection with the Sabbath day, or in connection with any of the festivals. It is only featured in connection with the festival of <i>Shavuot</i> and the Day of Atonement. The reason may be that just as the prohibition of eating from the new barley crop before the <i>omer</i> offering had been presented on the day itself, not the previous evening, it is parallel to the count which is to conclude 50 days after the time when the <i>omer</i> offering has been presented, when the new wheat harvest may be used for an offering. We might have thought that the various commandments attached to either the Day of Atonement or the festival of <i>Shavuot</i> are inextricably linked to the offering of the sacrifices the Torah tells us to offer on those days. By adding the rider בעצם היום הזה, the Torah teaches that each commandment in connection with these special days is standing on its own and has to be observed because of the date on which this day occurs, not because some other auxiliary commandments connected with these days. The word בעצם היום also implies that the night of the day in question is included in the special regulations pertaining to this day, unless of course, specifically excluded. Nachmanides adds that the word עצם is closely related to expressions denoting strength, toughness, etc., as in כחי ועוצם ידי, “my own power and the strength of my hand, [as opposed to G’d’s] Deut. 8,17). Another example is עוז ותעצומות לעם, Psalms Seeing that what supports the body is a certain toughness of character, attitude, etc., the Torah uses the expression עצם היום as in the “skeleton” of the day, the essence of it, when the occasion warrants it.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
   באספכם את תבואת הארץ, “when you gather in the yield of the land.” <i>Rashi</i> says that the purpose of the verse is to warn us that the seventh month of the year should coincide with the period when the last of the harvest is brought into the barns. This forms the basis of the sages on occasion, in tandem with the solar year’s requirements, inserting an extra month into our lunar calendar.
      Nachmanides argues that we already learned this from when the Torah instructed that Passover must occur during the period of the spring equinox, בחודש האביב, (Exodus 34,18) Actually, there it concerned the commemoration of the Exodus on the anniversary of when it had occurred, whereas here the concern of the Torah is that the <i>Sukkot</i> festival coincide with the last fruit of the orchards being harvested. The Torah here elaborates on the nature of true joy being that after a successful harvest we thank <i>Hashem</i> with visible symbols expressing our joy, the four species of plants being one such example. The 15th day of that month, being still part of the ingathering season we observe a festival, interrupting our work in the field, just as we do on the eighth day of the festival. We take time out to rejoice in the presence of the Lord, in Jerusalem. On the last day, a separate festival in many respects, we no longer sit in the <i>Sukkah</i>, nor use the four species of plants.
  
     תחוגו את חג ה', “you will celebrate <i>Hashem’s</i> festival.” The meaning of the somewhat strange sounding “<i>Hashem’s</i> festival,” is that we are to rejoice in the location where His presence manifests itself, in the Temple; we do not celebrate our success, but we proffer our thanks to Him, Who alone has made all this possible.
      The reason why the Torah repeats once more in verse 41 וחגותם אותו שבעת ימים חג לה', “you will celebrate it for seven days as a festival for <i>Hashem</i>,” is to link it to the commandment (verse 42) to dwell in the huts for seven days. Dwelling in the huts, waving the four species, etc., are all part of the manner in which we rejoice; they are all rated as the performance of a Divine commandment. [In other words, the joy is not the reward, but the Torah by making it mandatory, promises reward for our being joyful. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 40
  
   פרי עץ הדר, “the fruit of a citron tree.” This tree is distinguished by the fact that the taste of its fruit is the same as the taste of its trunk if we were to eat it.
      Nachmanides writes that our sages used the word in order to provide us with an allusion to this peculiarity. The fact of the matter is that the tree that in Aramaic is called <i>etrog,</i> is known as <i>hadar</i> in classical Hebrew. The meaning of the word <i>etrog</i> is the same as the Hebrew חמדה, something lovely and precious. The words הדר and חמדה are almost identical in meaning. It is a fact that both the tree and its fruit are known by the same name, something that is common with certain fruit trees, such as the fig and the fig tree, the date palm, and its fruit, dates, etc. As to the reason for the choice of these four species, we have a tradition that by symbolically presenting these for species as expressions of our gratitude, the rainfall during the winter season will become beneficial instead of destructive.
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
   כל האזרח, “every native of the land of Israel;” according to <i>Rashi</i> the expression אזרח excludes women while including proselytes. [<i>Rashi</i> reads this into the letter ה at the beginning of the word האזרח, reasoning that if the Torah had only written אזרח, without adding the word בישראל, the proselytes would have been excluded. This would make sense seeing that the commandment commemorates an event in the desert, something that the proselytes’ parents were not part of. Ed.] 
      Nachmanides writes that it seems to him that the plain meaning of our verse is that proselytes are included in the requirement to dwell in huts on <i>Sukkot</i>, as <i>the</i> Torah has more than once stated that it applies both to the native born Israelite as well as the proselyte. (Exodus 12,49; Leviticus 7,7; Numbers 15,16, 16,29) The reason that the Torah wrote the words כל האזרח, is to teach that just as native born Israelites are to perform this commandment including their minors, so the proselytes, if they have children who are minors, are to do the same. The commandment cannot be fulfilled by a single representative of the household, the others simply saying “Amen,” such as when the father recites the “<i>kiddush</i>,” or similar, but each male member of the family is to dwell in these huts for seven days.
      [Women do not need to be excluded by a special verse or letter, as they are not obligated to perform positive commandments tied to a specific time frame. Ed.] Another possible reason for the word האזרח may be anyone who is “native” in the sense that he is at home permanently in the land, excluding mariners, traveling salesmen, etc., whose livelihood makes it difficult for them to choose when their ships are at anchor, or for whom it is a great hardship to rearrange their schedules. [This makes no sense at the time when the Temple stood and every male was duty bound to be in Jerusalem at such times. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 43
  
   כי בסוכות הושבתי את בני ישראל, “for I had made the Children of Israel dwell in huts, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> understands this verse as a reference to the clouds of glory that enveloped the Israelites during their march through the desert.
      Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah did not need to spell out what these huts were is that we have already been told of the phenomenon of the clouds of glory that enveloped the Israelites during almost the whole of their journey to the land of Canaan (until the death of Aaron). The meaning of the words is therefore quite clear.
      Concerning the opinion of some commentators that the word סוכות, huts, is to be understood literally, we must assume that at the beginning of the first winter in the desert the Israelites gathered materials that enabled them to construct these huts. Seeing that this had been so, G’d now commanded the Israelites to incorporate something they had made themselves but with the assistance of <i>Hashem,</i> Who had provided the building materials in the desert, to become part of their memorabilia.
      There are also some scholars who explain the reason why G’d saw fit to issue this command at this time, as if He had commanded this already in the summer, immediately after Moses received the Ten Commandments, fulfilling the commandment would have been viewed as self-interest, the sun being too hot, and shade being something urgently needed. Building huts at the time of autumn, approaching winter, and leaving more comfortable quarters in favour of a flimsy shelter, proved that the people who do this are motivated by one consideration only, i.e. to fulfill G’d’s commandment. Remembering the miracles G’d performed for the Israelites in the desert by moving into flimsy huts for a week is definitely a powerful means of identifying with our ancestors.
  
  
  Verse 44
  
   וידבר משה את מועדי ה' אל בני ישראל, “Moses informed the Children of Israel of the appointed festivals of <i>Hashem.”</i>
      Nachmanides comments that seeing the various chapters preceding this one had been concerned with sacrificial offerings, blemishes which would disqualify animals from serving as sacrificial lambs, Aaron and the priests had always been mentioned at the beginning of those pieces of legislation. However, here when the subjects are the festivals, something in which all parts of the people participate equally, Moses addressed all of them. The only two sacrifices mentioned in the whole list of the festivals are the <i>omer</i> and the first two loaves of the new wheat harvest on <i>Shavuot</i>, but as both of these represent the cause of the festival rather than something that needs to be done on account of the festival, there was no reason to single out the priests in connection with this. Seeing that the principal observance of the Day of Atonement was Aaron’s offering a variety of sacrifices, Aaron is addressed in that paragraph specifically (Leviticus)
      If, in the paragraph dealing with blemishes, the Torah addressed Aaron and his offspring as well as the Children of Israel as a whole, there is a special reason for this, also. It is in the nature of blemishes that he or she who is afflicted with such a blemish tries to hide it, as it is something embarrassing. The Torah therefore went out of its way to address everybody separately on that subject, so that nobody could claim that the legislation did not apply to him or her.
      Onkelos, who translated our words as ומליל משה ית סדרי מועדיא דה' ואליפנון לבני ישראל, “Moses spoke about the festivals of <i>Hashem</i> to the Children of Israel and taught them all about them,” meant what our sages said (M<i>idrash Rabbah</i> Song of Songs, 1) when they told us that Moses would teach the laws pertaining to Passover before and during Passover, and the laws that pertain to the Day of Atonement during the days preceding it as well as on that day, and the laws pertaining to <i>Sukkot,</i> in time for the observance of that festival.
      Presumably, he also meant to say that Moses used the opportunity of the approaching festivals to familiarise the Israelites with the rules by which the sages were allowed to manipulate the lunar calendar for the benefit of the farming community. He had been given permission by <i>Hashem</i> to authorise the <i>Sanhedrin</i> to thus bring in line conflicting laws governed by the solar calendar on the one hand and the lunar calendar on the other hand. [Some of the wording is mine. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   צו את בני ישראל, “command the Children of Israel, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the paragraph following as well as the portion commencing with Exodus 27,20-21 both pertain only to the chapters dealing with the building of the Tabernacle, even though it deals with the lighting of the lights in the <i>menorah</i>. The paragraph dealing with the construction of the <i>menorah</i> in Exodus 27 was mentioned there only as it was needed to list the furnishings of the Tabernacle.
      Nachmanides writes that this interpretation does not appear appropriate to him, as the portion is not linked to a paragraph dealing with the <i>menorah</i> at all. Moreover, the Torah had already reported that Moses placed the lights in the <i>menorah</i> in Exodus 40,25, just as he placed the remainder of the furnishings inside the Tabernacle. In other words, both the commandment and the execution of it were mentioned already in the Book of Exodus. Therefore, in Nachmanides’ view the need for the present paragraph is twofold. 1) In Exodus the matter is related in conjunction with the commandment to the Israelites to supply the fuel for the <i>menorah</i> just as they were invited to supply all the building materials for the Tabernacle. The princes are reported as having supplied the initial quantities of the spices for the incense as well as the initial amount of olive oil for the <i>menorah.</i> However, in the Book of Exodus no mention is made of the supply of materials that were being used up on a daily basis. This is so in spite of the fact that the composition of the materials is described as חקת עולם, as a law of unlimited duration. (Exodus 27,21) Those words referred to the manner in which the <i>menorah</i> was to be lit. By now the initial supply had been exhausted and new arrangements had to be made. 2) In Exodus the instructions had been limited for either Aaron or his sons to perform the task of lighting the <i>menorah</i>, nothing having been said about what procedure to follow if the original <i>menorah</i> were to become defunct, or lost, as when the Israelites went into exile, etc. In Exodus the word תמיד, permanently, has not been mentioned in connection with the lighting of the <i>menorah</i>, whereas here mention is made specifically of regulations pertaining to the “pure <i>menorah</i>.”
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   יערוך את הנרות לפני ה' תמיד, “he shall arrange the lights before <i>Hashem,</i> continually. He must not arrange everything outside the Tabernacle and then carry the <i>menorah</i> into the Tabernacle.
  
     תמיד, “continually.“ The word תמיד suggests that this procedure is applicable even on the Sabbath days when lighting fire is prohibited outside the Temple, or when all the priests are in a state of ritual impurity. In <i>Parshat Tetzaveh, (</i>Exodus 27,20-21) no mention is made of the word תמיד seeing that the whole procedure there was addressed only to a single individual, i.e. יערוך אותו, “he is to arrange it,” meaning the subject was only the light in the center of the seven shafts, arms, of the <i>menorah.</i> This light did not burn continually, as it went out when the Israelites had become collectively guilty of sins. In our verse the instructions include all the lights of the <i>menorah</i>, and even though the נר המערבי the light in the center, may have been out, the other lights did not manifest such displeasure by G’d by going out when they would not be expected to do so. They always burned through the entire night.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   והיתה לאהרן ולבניו “It shall belong to Aaron and his sons.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the word והיתה refers to the bread of the <i>minchah</i> offering discussed in verses 5-8. According to Nachmanides the word may include all the other presentations on the altar also. [Even though the word is in the feminine mode and לחם, bread is in the masculine mode. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויצא בן אישה הישראלית, “The son of an Israelite woman went out, etc.” The fact that this paragraph has been inserted at this point, prompted the opinion that this individual blasphemed concerning the commandment of the showbreads, which in his opinion was an inappropriate offering, i.e. offering stale bread before G’d, by leaving it on the table for an entire week. Upon blaspheming, sinning with his mouth, he was called to order by another Israelite, as a result of which an argument ensued when this individual cursed the name of G’d.
      Nachmanides justifies the somewhat obscure introductory word ויצא, “he went out,” here by explaining that this individual “stepped out of line,” by saying what he did. Alternatively, the meaning is that prior to saying what he said he had stepped outside his tent, [presumably in order that his comments would become common knowledge. Ed.] In other words, the resulting argument took place where everybody witnessed it. We need to explain the additional word במחנה, “in the camp,” then as meaning that many people heard it and seized him bringing him to Moses’ tent to be dealt with there.
      The meaning of the words בן הישראלית, “son of an Israelite woman,” and איש הישראלי, “and the son of an Israelite (male),” teach that when a Gentile sleeps with an Israelite woman and this results in the birth of a child, such a child is considered a member of the Jewish people, i.e. when he grows up he is איש ישראלי, “a Jewish man.” The emphasis on the word ישראלי suggests that though he is Jewish, he is not fit for the priesthood, for instance, neither is he a member of any of the tribes of the Jewish people of whom the army was made up of. As a result, he would not share in the distribution of the land of Israel to the various tribes, and he would not have a claim on any of that land by reason of his having a Jewish mother.
      When the <i>Torat Kohanim</i> writes that the meaning of the words בתוך בני ישראל is that this man had undergone conversion to Judaism, this is not to be taken at face value, as he did not need to convert to Judaism, seeing that he had a Jewish mother; the meaning is that this man had undergone the same rules of conversion that every Israelite had undergone prior to the eating of the Passover, i.e. circumcision, ritual immersion, and loss of the requisite minimum amount of blood during circumcision. In other words, outwardly he appeared to all to be a fully-fledged Jew. He had made it plain that he preferred the Jewish people and did not consider himself as a member of his father’s people or religion.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה, “and the Children of Israel did as G’d had commanded to Moses.”
      Nachmanides draws attention to a statement in <i>Torat Kohanim,</i> according to which the words “as G’d had commanded Moses,” included the requirement that all those who had heard the blasphemer were required to place their hands and weight, סמיכה, upon him prior to his being stoned, as well as the requirement to push him down from an elevated wall into a pit, and to hang him subsequent to his death until the evening after his execution.
      Ibn Ezra states that the procedures mentioned in <i>Torat Kohanim</i> became effective from that day onwards for all people who were executed at the command of the courts. Nachmanides disagrees with Ibn Ezra on this, claiming that if so, the legislation to do so would have had to be phrased in the future tense. The plain meaning of our verse is that the Israelites carried out the instructions G’d had given to Moses. There is nothing strange in the Torah describing this execution in more than the minimal number of words, as we have many instances of the Torah doing so, as for instance in connection with the Passover, (Exodus 12,28) or with the census of the Jewish people (Numbers 1,54).
      Personally, (Nachmanides writing) I feel that the reason for the above being apparently repeated is that the instruction was given to Moses individually. When the Torah reports that all the people participated in this execution “as G’d had commanded Moses,” the point the Torah made is that the people did not feel any personal animosity towards this man who had an Egyptian father, but that their participation in the execution was motivated purely by the fact that G’d had commanded Moses that this was what was to be done. They wanted to participate in removing stains on their collective national character by doing so.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
   משפחת גר, “the family of a total stranger.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the Torah refers to a real idolator (non Jew), the word עקר meaning the idolatrous cult itself. The reason why the Torah uses the term עקר, “something to be uprooted, eradicated,” is that the Torah had charged us with eradicating all kinds of symbols and cults in our land. (Nachmanides)
      Onkelos translates the word עקר as an Aramaic word, a correct interpretation, the word literally meaning “root.” The Torah in using this term here criticizes a community in which such cults had been tolerated and had taken root. The reason why the word משפחת, “family of,” had been added is to remind is that tolerating such aliens and allowing them to prosper in our land is the reason why some of our own people have fallen on hard times and are now facing the ultimate degradation of being sold into slavery to families of strangers in their own land. The Torah is adamant that such Jews must be redeemed, and that the cost of their redemption must be paid for by Jewish family members, who had allowed their own flesh and blood to be so demeaned. Although this duty falls upon the immediate family of the person so sold first, the entire Jewish community is called upon being the “redeemer” when the family of the party concerned is either unable or unwilling to perform its duty. In order to make this point crystal clear, the duty of the Jewish community at large is mentioned before the next of kin of the victim of such a sale. The principal reason of the legislation is to prevent a situation from arising in which the victim will prefer the religion of his new masters who may by then have shown him more compassion than his own people. When a Jew has been sold into service to a fellow Jew, the redemption by members of his family prior to the <i>sh’mittah</i> year is something of a voluntary nature, as there is no fear that he will become estranged to his people and to his religion. In the situation discussed here it is an absolute duty. Jews are to be servants (in a contractual relationship) only of their Creator, not servants of servants.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  בהר סיני, “at Mount Sinai.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the reason for the Torah adding the words “at Mount Sinai,” is to inform us that just as the details of the laws of the <i>Sh’mittah</i> year were revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai, so the details of all the other laws were also revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai. Nachmanides queries this although <i>Rashi</i> only copied the words of <i>Torat Kohanim.</i>
      He explains the meaning of <i>Rashi</i> as based on the fact that some laws were repeated in the Book of Deuteronomy, whereas others were not. In connection with <i>Sh’mittah,</i> for instance, the need for the land to remain fallow during that year was not repeated in Deuteronomy, although the need to relinquish overdue debts to the impecunious debtor was. We might have concluded that anything that was repeated in Deuteronomy was something that was revealed to Moses later than at Mount Sinai. <i>Rashi</i> therefore sets the record straight by informing us that all the details of all the 613 commandments had been revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai down to the last detail. Whereas already in Exodus chapter 23,10-12 the subject of the <i>Sh’mittah</i> year had been discussed in general terms, now it is being discussed in greater detail. The Torah reveals that the details had already been given to Moses at Mount Sinai, even though the Torah had seen fit to write these details only now. This, <i>Rashi</i> says, is typical of all the laws of the Torah. If Moses saw fit, shortly before his death, to repeat some of these laws, this does not mean that he had not known about them all long before, ever since his first stay on Mount Sinai. [Numerous commentators understand Nachmanides as explaining that contrary to some laws which were revealed to Moses whenever G’d called him to a meeting in the Tabernacle, the laws of <i>sh’mittah</i> were revealed to him in all their details already long before there was a Tabernacle, in Exodus 23, immediately following the revelation and the giving of the Ten Commandments. The same applies to all the 613 commandments, according <i>to Rashi,</i> [whereas any laws revealed in the Tabernacle may not have been the kind which conform to Maimonides’ 14 criteria for inclusion in the 613 commandments. Ed.] Whatever Moses mentioned shortly before his death in Deuteronomy, were not new laws, as no prophet is entitled to formulate new laws, but were explanations of laws that had been revealed at Mount Sinai, and since the time had not come for them to be practiced, Moses thought it appropriate to publicly discuss them again.
      According to our author, Nachmanides considers that the laws of <i>sh’mittah</i> appeared here in their appropriate place, i.e. up until the words שבת לה' in verse 2 which concludes the headline of the legislation. The conclusive proof that all the laws were revealed in detail at Mount Sinai is from Leviticus 26,56, where the matter is spelled out most clearly.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   שבת לה', “as a kind of Sabbath in honour of <i>Hashem.”</i> Nachmanides observes that in connection with all the festivals the Torah mentions such expressions as שבת or שבתון, describing various degrees of abstention from work, whereas nowhere else do we encounter the expression שבת לה', “a Sabbath for <i>Hashem,</i>” as we find it concerning the weekly Sabbath which is testimony that <i>Hashem</i> has created the universe in six days. (Compare Exodus 20,10 as well as the second version of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy.) It is fairly clear then that the <i>sh’mittah</i> legislation too is meant to pay homage to the fact that G’d created the universe in six stages. Our sages consider the duration of that universe as meant to endure for 6000 years, paralleling the “days” it took to create. The seventh millennium, by contrast, would be of a different order altogether, work in the manner in which we know it not being performed during that millennium. As a result of such considerations, anyone who denies the validity of the <i>sh’mittah</i> in thought or deed is equivalent to someone who denies that G’d created the universe in six days and that there is a world to come beyond the world in which we find ourselves on this planet. This is the reason why the Torah has been so strict with warnings about the dire consequences to the nation if this legislation were to be disregarded, and why there are so many apparently stringent regulations connected to the observance of the <i>sh’mittah</i> legislation. Non-observance of this positive commandment [usually carrying a relatively minor penalty Ed.] is followed by the exile of the nation, a punishment equal to the violation of non-observance of the negative commandments of incestuous or immoral sexual relationships! (Compare Leviticus 27,34)
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   שש שנים תזרע שדך, “you are to sow your field for six consecutive years.” According to Nachmanides the wording is not to be viewed as an absolute commandment, but is similar to the one in the fourth of the Ten commandments ששת ימים תעשה מלאכתך “you shall perform your work on six days, etc.,” meaning that any work which you have to do, you shall do during the six days of the week allocated to the performance of such tasks, whereas on the seventh day you are to rest. (Compare Exodus 20,9)
      According to our sages the law to abstain from work in the field during the seventh year is in the nature of a negative commandment derived from the restrictive statement that you may only “sow your field for six consecutive years.” [Something known in <i>halachah</i> as לאו הבא מכלל עשה, a negative commandment that is a derivative of a positive commandment. In practice, this means that although the Torah phrased the abstention from such work in the seventh year as a positive instruction, he who fails to observe it transgresses a negative commandment. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   את ספיח קצירך לא תלקט, “You are not to gather in the aftergrowth of your harvest, etc.” This verse precludes you from harvesting even produce that grew on your field during that year without your having seeded that field. [The word “harvest” in this context means produce to be stored for future consumption. Ed.] Nachmanides adds that the expression ענבי נזירך in the line immediately following refers to similar spontaneously grown grapes in your vineyard that the owner of the vineyard had not in any way encouraged to grow during that year. The expression לא תבצור in connection with such grapes also means that although the owner may eat such grapes, he must not “harvest” them in the sense that he must not make wine out of them for consumption at a later time. It is the nature of this and similar paragraphs to repeat legislation applicable to the field when speaking about similar activities applicable to the orchard. What grows in the field without the field having been ploughed or seeded is called ספיח, whereas what grows in the vineyard without the latter having been primed in preparation cutting such grapes for storage, etc. is called זמירה, i.e. לא תזמור. The vineyard is called by the Torah here נזיר, akin to the person who vows to abstain from the consumption of wine or grapes, as by contrast to the grain of the field the vines are durable and do not have to be reseeded or replanted year after year. The owner of such field or vineyard or orchard does not enjoy any special privileges <i>vis a vis</i> a person visiting that field and may not partake of such spontaneously grown grapes or grain except for immediate consumption. The Torah requires him to give up any claim of ownership of the land on which these fruit grow. The land enjoys freedom from its owners during that year, i.e. it enjoys a שבת שבתון. Man and beast enjoy what there is to enjoy alike.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   והיתה שבת הארץ לכם לאכלה, “the Sabbath produce shall be for you to eat, etc.” Seeing that the objective is for the earth to enjoy rest, it is in order for you or your servants or the beasts to consume on an <i>ad hoc</i> basis what grows on it during that year 
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   יובל היא, “it shall be a Jubilee;” <i>Rashi</i> explains the term as “something apart,” so that even the year itself is called by a name different from ordinary years. As to the significance of the different name, it is called thus on account of the blowing of the <i>shofar</i> which introduces that year. The term occurs elsewhere for the <i>shofar</i> when the Torah writes: במשוך היובל “when a long blast is blown with the <i>shofar</i>,” (compare Exodus 19,13) This view is shared by other commentators.
      Nonetheless, Nachmanides does not agree, citing that the Torah writes the words תהיה לכם, “it will be for you,” and it would not be appropriate to refer to the “<i>shofar</i>” as a year, i.e. שנת החמשים שנה, “the fiftieth year.” A year (verse 12) can hardly be described as a תקיעה, the blast on the <i>shofar.</i> Furthermore the meaning of the expression שופרות היובלים is a reference to the horns of rams and this is the way <i>Targum Yonatahan</i> renders that expression. It is a fact that the horn used to blow out of on the <i>Yom</i> Kippur of the Jubilee year does not need to be a ram’s horn. The Talmud is quite specific on this. (<i>Rosh Hashanah</i> 26) Why should that year then bear a name that is equivalent to שנת האיל, “the year of the ram?”
      Ibn Ezra explains the word יובל as related to שילוח, as in יבל, [compare the modern Hebrew הובלה, describing transportation of goods, especially moving furniture. Ed.] It would describe the release and dispatch to his home of servants whose period of service was brought to an abrupt halt with the onset of this year. Nachmanides adds that the mystical connotation of the word suggests a return to one’s origin, to original freedom in the widest sense, דרור, being related to דור generation, as Solomon describes the return of man to his roots, i.e. after death as דור הולך ודור בא, (Kohelet 1,4) seeing that at the beginning of the paragraph the Torah speaks only about והעברת שופר תרועה , “you shall sound a broken blast on the <i>shofar,”</i> etc.” Families are to be reunited during that year, something that involves travel, mobility, i.e. יובל. It is noteworthy that the expression יובל for this year appears only after the Torah stated that during that year דרור, freedom is to be proclaimed for all, and those who had been enslaved will return to their original homes and families. Nachmanides quotes additional verses from Scripture showing that יובל does not always mean physical motion, transportation of goods or people, so that a “return” to one’s roots, one’s family, need not be understood only in physical terms, bodily return, but as something more profound.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   מן השדה תאכלו את תבואתה, “you may eat whatever crop the field yields.” <i>Rashi</i> explains the wording to mean that as long as some food is found in the fields, food suitable for the beasts, any food of that year’s spontaneous crop taken indoors by man, may be eaten. When that period has come to an end, the householder has to burn whatever food of that field from that year has not been consumed.     Nachmanides comments that if we accept <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation the words מן השדה, “from the field” in our verse, are not connected to the beginning of the verse. The meaning of the words מן השדה would therefore be that only something grown at the initiative of the field itself, as distinct from the result of the farmer’s efforts are you allowed to eat.     Ibn Ezra explains the verse simply as meaning that you may eat only what the field produces spontaneously without a farmer’s input. [He puts no time limit on the consumption of such produce. Ed.] It is like the rules of the <i>sh’mittah</i> year.(compare verses 6 and 7)     Personally, (<i>Tur</i> speaking), the meaning of the verse is that you must not work the field during that year, neither plant nor harvest seeing that it is Jubilee year, and the year is to be holy for you; however you may bring in from the field whatever it has produced unaided by man. You are to share such produce in equal measure with the poor who may also help themselves to it. The usual seasons are not to be treated as such, i.e. there is no specific time frame during which the above applies, as opposed to normal years. 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   במספר שנים אחר היובל תקנה מאת עמיתך, “you will buy from your fellow on the basis of how many years have elapsed since the last Jubilee year.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the plain meaning of the verse is to warn the seller not to overcharge the buyer. Nachmanides agrees that this is the plain meaning of the text, but adds that if this were so <i>halachically,</i> it would contradict the principle that the term אונאה, an illegal overcharge, does not apply when the object in question is real estate. We are therefore bound to look for a different interpretation of the meaning of our verse(s) here.(compare <i>Ketuvot</i> 99) We therefore need to view each of the verses in this paragraph as unrelated to the verse prior to it or subsequent to it. Verse fourteen speaks of chattels changing hands, something where the laws of אונאה, overcharges, do apply. Afterwards the Torah warns not to become guilty of unfair dealing in the sale of real estate. In verse 17 the Torah repeats the general principle of dealing fairly with one’s fellowman rather than applying the principle of “buyer beware!” which is so prevalent in our society. Verse 17 even includes אונאת דברים, causing damage by the spoken word, though nothing substantive had been denied the purchaser or seller, as the case may be. The Talmudבבא מציעא folio 58 even considers the latter kind of unfair practice as more serious than the former, either because it is not subject to being retracted or because it insults the victim’s body rather than cause harm only to his financial assets.
      Alternately, it is quite possible that if one deliberately cheats one’s customer by misrepresenting the object one tries to sell, one is guilty of violating a negative commandment regardless of whether the object involved is a chattel or real estate, seeing that the Torah here quotes both examples separately as forbidden. The words אל תונו איש את אחיו, followed by the example of the number of years that have elapsed since the Jubilee year, clearly refer to transactions involving real estate. The difference in the law of אונאה when practiced with chattels as opposed to when involving real estate, would only be that in the case of chattels when the overcharge is less than 1/6th of the fair price the transaction is not voided and the vendor does not have to return the excess he has charged. Should the overcharge have exceeded that amount, the transaction is automatically reversed when the buyer becomes aware of having been deceived. When the Talmud stated that the law of אונאה does not apply to transactions involving real estate, the meaning was that even if the overcharge was more than one 6th, the sale is not cancelled, but the vendor must make the appropriate refund. When viewed in this light, <i>Rashi’s</i> explanation does not raise any problems. In any event, it is forbidden to overcharge deliberately, hoping that the purchaser in his desire to acquire said land will forgive the vendor for overcharging him. Our sages arrived at this interpretation because the Torah employed the plural mode in verse 14 when writing וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך...אל תונו, “when you make a sale to your fellow….do not cheat one another” (literally :”cause each other grief.”) The use of the plural here suggests that both real estate transactions and chattels are the subject of this ordinance. Although the Torah spoke first specifically of chattels, i.e. או קנה מיד, “or when he purchased something from the “hand, etc.,” it reverts to the all embracing אל תונו without limiting such transactions to chattels, mobile objects. Seeing that the chattels did warrant special mention, the reason must be that the regulations as to under what conditions such “cheating” results in a reversal of the transaction is bound to be somewhat different from the conditions invalidating a real estate transaction in which one or the other party was not honest.
      It is also possible that the thrust of the whole verse is to warn people to be aware at all times of how many years have elapsed since the last Jubilee year, that knowing the date of the month is not sufficient. Once this is common knowledge, there will not be miscalculations as to the value of the piece of property that is being sold until the advent of the next Jubilee year. This also will preclude the buyer from believing that what he is about to buy will remain in his possession for an unlimited number of years. At any rate, the principle of אונאה, legal consequences that result from misrepre-sentations of objects being sold, applies also to real estate transactions, though the details are different from when someone sells produce in the market at an inflated price. If it applies there, it is obvious that it also applies when chattels or produce is being bought or sold.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why the Torah formulated this paragraph by beginning with the words וכי תמכרו in the plural, is that it describes transactions that take place publicly, in front of eyewitnesses. This is why the Torah also employs the plural mode when writing לא תונו, do not take unfair advantage, addressing the seller, is that usually the seller is more likely to take unfair advantage of the buyer rather than vice versa. After all, it is he who initiates the transaction.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ועשיתם את חקותי, “you shall carry out My decrees, etc.” According to Nachmanides these words refer back to the <i>sh’mittah</i> and Jubilee legislation, seeing that these two sets of laws belong to the category of חקים, whereas cheating belongs to the category of משפטים.
  
     ואת משפטי תשמרו, “and you are to observe My social laws;” Here the Torah refers back to the sale of land, freeing of slaves, etc, which are part of the legislation discussed in the context of <i>sh’mittah</i> and Jubilee year legislation.
  
     וישבתם על הארץ לבטח, “as a result of such observance you will dwell in the land securely.” Israel went into exile as a result of its failure to heed these warnings. The Torah repeats once more:
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ונתנה הארץ פריה...וישבתם לבטח עליה, “and the earth will yield its fruit and you will dwell on it in safety.” This is a promise that you will not have to leave the land of Israel on account of a scarcity of food during the <i>sh’mittah</i> year, or as a result of the observance of these regulations.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   וכי תאמרו מה נאכל בשנה השביעית?, “and if you were to ask: ‘what are we going to it during the seventh year?” According to Nachmanides this is a verse that has been truncated, and the correct wording should have been וכי תאמרו בשנה השביעית מה נאכל, “if you were to ask during the seventh year: ‘what are we going to eat?’” The question refers to where the people’s food supply during the eight’s year will come from. The people were not concerned about their food supply during the seventh year as they had the harvest of the sixth year to depend on which would last them until the harvest time of that year. It was accepted that the basic food supply consisted of the previous year’s harvest. Their concern was centred on the year after the <i>sh’mittah,</i> or the Jubilee year. The Torah therefore lays such concerns to rest by writing:
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ועשת את התבואה לשלוש השנים, “the land will produce (during the sixth year) enough harvest to last for the three years.” This promise was necessary to cover the <i>sh’mittah</i> year of the 49th year which was followed by the Jubilee year during which no work in the fields was performed either.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   וזרעתם את השנה השמינית, ”you will seed in the eighth year, etc.” Here the Torah reverts to the natural state of affairs, planting a crop that will develop without miraculous input by G’d, as did the one in the sixth year. You will not have to extend yourselves especially, as what the land had provided in the sixth year is sufficient until the crop planted in the eighth year had matured in the normal way. <i>Rashi</i> does not explain our verse in this manner.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   והארץ לא תמכר לצמיתות, “and the land (family inheritance) must never be sold in perpetuity.“ <i>Rashi</i> understands the verse as a negative commandment, in addition to the positive commandment for the purchaser to restore the land to the party from whom he had bought it. (Verse13). Failure to restore it is not only violation of a positive commandment, but transgression of a negative commandment also.
      Nachmanides feels that if this were so the Torah should have made the purchaser the culprit, i.e. forbidding him to write a contract by the terms of which he acquired the land in perpetuity, and should not have worded the instruction as a restriction imposed on the seller. This would be parallel to selling a servant in perpetuity, ignoring the law that servants go free in the <i>sh’mittah year.</i>
      It is possible that the verse may be understood as a warning to the seller not to try and bypass the legislation of the Torah, and to secure a better price for himself by promising the buyer that he may retain the land in question in perpetuity, his foregoing the right given him by the Torah to reclaim his ancestral property in the Jubilee year. This warning may be addressed by the Torah to both the seller and the buyer to advise them that by making individual arrangements bypassing Torah law, they both make themselves guilty of a serious violation of the Torah. This is the interpretation of our verse by Maimonides. This would be considered violation of a negative commandment, although such a contract would be invalid to start with, no one being able to legally override laws of the Torah.
      The reason for the legislation as it is written is that if, at the time of the sale, the number of years during which the sale will be effective is part of the document, it is much easier, psychologically, that when the next Jubilee occurs, either during the lifetime of the purchaser or his heir, to effect the transfer of that property back to its original owner. I believe that the kind of negative commandment that we are dealing with here is not the type that carries the penalty of 39 lashes, as do most other negative commandments. Rather, it is in the nature of an explanation by the Torah of its motivation, designed to facilitate the smooth observance of the unusual law, which basically is a reminder that all land in the land of Israel ultimately is the Lord’s and we only administer it on His behalf.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ובכל ארץ אחוזתכם גאולה תתנו לארץ, “In the entire land of your ancestral heritage you shall make provision for the redemption of such lands (when appropriate).” <i>Rashi,</i> in addressing the plain meaning of our verse, assuming that the verses immediately following deal with people that need this redemption of their ancestral land, explains that whereas the seller enjoys the right to redeem his land after two years, either himself or through the good offices of a relative, sees the principal meaning of our verse in denying the purchaser the right to interfere with such a process of redemption.
      Nachmanides writes that he does not agree with <i>Rashi</i> on this, as he sees no reason why the Torah should have written this verse as part of the Jubilee legislation. <i>Rashi,</i> in effect, interprets our verse which deals with a legislation in effect only when the Israelites are predominantly all living on their ancestral land, as discussing legislation applicable also under far less favourable situations, at any time when part of the people live on their land. [An impoverished Jew is to be helped to regain economic independence regardless of the political environment in which the Jewish people find themselves. Ed.]
      According to Nachmanides, the reason why the Torah in our verse speaks of בכל ארץ אחוזתכם, “throughout your ancestral lands,” is to drive home the point that what we consider “our” land, is really still G’d’s land, something that the Jubilee legislation comes to remind us of. The very term גאולה for the transaction restoring land to its original owner or his heir, is parallel to such expressions as גאל ה' את יעקב, “the Lord redeemed Yaakov,” i.e. when G’d took the Israelites out of Egypt, He in effect redeemed their ancestor who had entered exile when he brought his family down to Egypt where they would become enslaved. The land had originally been given (promised) by G’d to Yaakov, so that all his descendants are entitled to a share of it. The difference between the land of Israel and the Diaspora, is that the laws about redeeming land holdings does not and never did apply anywhere except in the land of Israel after the distribution of it by Joshua. The reason the Torah adds the word ובכל, is to make sure we understand that the rules of the Jubilee and the reversal of land sales in that year also applies to the lands conquered by the Israelites under Moses on the East bank of the Jordan river. Seeing that G’d had repeated כי לי כל הארץ, “for the entire globe belongs to Me,” some confusion might have arisen as to within which parameters the Jubilee laws would apply. 
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ואיש כי ימכור בית מושב עיר חומה, “If a man shall sell a house of residence in a walled city,” Nachmanides writes that seeing that if someone is forced to sell his residence for reasons of economic distress, and this is something which the seller feels as very degrading, the Torah permitted him to exercise the right to redeem such a house even during the very first year after he has sold it. Seeing that his house is not the source of his livelihood, the rules pertaining to the reversion of a field to its original owner in the Jubilee year do not apply to the sale of a residence. Loss of one’s house is something one comes to terms with much sooner than loss of one’s primary source of livelihood, i.e. one’s ancestral field. Houses in open areas, as distinct from residential houses in walled cities, serve the owner in supervising his field and as temporary residence for his harvest workers, and therefore the legislation governing the sale of such a house is much more similar to that governing the sale of one’s ancestral field. (verse 31)
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   ואשר יגאל מן הלווים, “and if someone buys a property from a Levite, etc.” Nachmanides writes that from the plain meaning of the text it appears that seeing that the Torah had already stated that the Levites have an unlimited period of time during which they can redeem property they had been forced to sell, (compare verse 32) the right to redeem his property commences immediately, i.e. as soon as he has the necessary means, and nothing is said about his relatives having the right to do this on his behalf. Neither does the Torah indicate if the laws of the Jubilee apply to the Levites, i.e. a return of their property in that year without their having to compensate the buyer of it. This is why the Torah phrases this legislation as אשר יגאל מן הלווים, “if one of his fellow Levites redeems it,” to show that since in the case of the Levites who do not own ancestral land, a Levite has fallen on hard times, it is clear that his house has to be viewed as just as basic to his needs as the field is to the ordinary Israelite. Another Levite, who is his relative, may redeem it on behalf of the one who sold it.
  
     ויצא ממכר בית וגו', “and the house shall go out in the Jubilee year, etc.;” the sale of that house will be reversed, meaning that the sale price was calculated originally on the number of years remaining till the Jubilee so that the price of the redemption will take into account the number of years the purchaser has not been able to live in that house. In other words, the redemption procedures applied to the Levites closely parallels that of the Israelites.
      Our sages interpret this verse as dealing with a situation where a Levite had purchased the house under discussion from a fellow Levite and the Torah would tell us that redemption involving both buyer and seller who are Levites follow the same pattern as that involving ordinary Israelites. According to their words it was assumed that whenever the need for such redemptions arose in ancient Israel, the closest family member of the impoverished person was the first one in line to act as the redeemer. This is where the meaning of the term “redemption” fulfills its truest meaning. We find this documented in Jeremiah I believe that the pattern which determined the respective rank of the redeemer was similar to the manner in which the sages determined the rights of prospective purchasers when someone’s neighbour claimed first right of refusal when his neighbour put up a property for sale which adjoined his own. The subject is called דינא דמצרא in the Talmud. If a third party not in line wished to secure the property in question, he would have had to buy it from the original redeemer. The case of Boaz not being able to marry Ruth until the more closely related redeemer had declined, illustrates this kind of procedure. (Compare Ruth 4,1-9) This is what our verse meant when speaking of someone who “redeems from a Levite, etc.” The Levite in question had redeemed the field of his fellow Levite by paying out the purchaser who had bought that house. Now, someone wishes to buy that house from that “redeemer.” [Possibly, the proceeds of such a sale must be given by the “redeemer” to the original Levite, who might have moved to another town in the meantime. Ed.]
      At any rate, the Torah did not find it necessary to spell out the mechanics of how the Jubilee law works to restore the original property to the one who had owned it ancestrally, and does not then have to compensate the present holder of it in order to ensure that it is legally given back to him. The Levites have a claim on using this legislation in perpetuity. While it is true that basically this legislation applies also to the Israelites, the reason that the Levite was used by the Torah as the classical example of such a situation is in order that we should not think that such property would be distributed amongst all the Levites collectively, instead of the individual original Levite who had felt himself forced to sell it. Consequently such property is redeemed from ownership by an ordinary Israelite, but not from the ownership of a fellow Levite. It will certainly not be removed through automatic redemption from the possession of the redeemer who had been commanded by the Torah to redeem it, i.e. to “rescue” it from the original purchaser.
      This is why the Torah had to make the point that such redemption must occur through another Levite. Only such a Levite has the right to perform such redemption for an unlimited period of time after the original sale even if the original purchaser had been a Levite, and even more so if an ordinary Israelite had purchased that property from the Levite.
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   וחי עמך, “so that he may live alongside you.” This is a positive commandment addressed to you the Israelite with means, to enable fellow Israelites to have secure means of subsistence. The commandment to physically save fellow Israelites’ lives (when they appear to be in danger) flows directly from this verse. The Torah repeats and says:
  
  
  Verse 36
  
   וחי אחיך עמך, “and let your brother live with you.” The line is repeated primarily in order to show the reader how important that consideration is in the eyes of the Torah. Onkelos demonstrates in his translation that he includes the resident stranger as included in the admonition of the Torah to fear the Lord and “let your brother live with you.” Our sages apply the obligation of והחזקת בו, “you shall strengthen him (economically),” to fellow Jews, whereas they understand the commandment “and let him live with you,” as also including the resident stranger. [Anyone checking Onkelos will note that there is another version of the text in Onkelos in which the word דיר, “resident stranger,” does not appear. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 37
  
   נשך ותרבית, “outright interest, or food against repayment by a greater amount, etc.” Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of he text it appears that נשך refers to a loan to be repaid with a fixed amount of interest which runs and is payable concurrently. It is called נשך, “bite,” as the borrower feels as if he is being bitten every time he makes an interest payment. The word תרבית refers to a loan of money for a fixed period at the end of which both principal and interest is due. Seeing that the “interest” does not accumulate even when the principal is repaid after the agreed upon time, the Torah does not describe such a transaction as נשך. מרבית, on the other hand, refers to loans of food or other chattels, not loans of money. Here too the Torah forbids the lender to charge any extra when the harvest time rolls around and the borrower repays him from the new harvest.
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  משפחת גר, “the family of a total stranger.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the Torah refers to a real idolator (non Jew), the word עקר meaning the idolatrous cult itself. The reason why the Torah uses the term עקר, “something to be uprooted, eradicated,” is that the Torah had charged us with eradicating all kinds of symbols and cults in our land. (Nachmanides)
     Onkelos translates the word עקר as an Aramaic word, a correct interpretation, the word literally meaning “root.” The Torah in using this term here criticizes a community in which such cults had been tolerated and had taken root. The reason why the word משפחת, “family of,” had been added is to remind is that tolerating such aliens and allowing them to prosper in our land is the reason why some of our own people have fallen on hard times and are now facing the ultimate degradation of being sold into slavery to families of strangers in their own land. The Torah is adamant that such Jews must be redeemed, and that the cost of their redemption must be paid for by Jewish family members, who had allowed their own flesh and blood to be so demeaned. Although this duty falls upon the immediate family of the person so sold first, the entire Jewish community is called upon being the “redeemer” when the family of the party concerned is either unable or unwilling to perform its duty. In order to make this point crystal clear, the duty of the Jewish community at large is mentioned before the next of kin of the victim of such a sale. The principal reason of the legislation is to prevent a situation from arising in which the victim will prefer the religion of his new masters who may by then have shown him more compassion than his own people. When a Jew has been sold into service to a fellow Jew, the redemption by members of his family prior to the <i>sh’mittah</i> year is something of a voluntary nature, as there is no fear that he will become estranged to his people and to his religion. In the situation discussed here it is an absolute duty. Jews are to be servants (in a contractual relationship) only of their Creator, not servants of servants.
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
   ואם לא יגאל באלה, and if he has not been redeemed by these means,” according to Ibn Ezra the reference is to the elapse of the years which have been mentioned here. According to other opinions, the reference is to the people mentioned whose duty it would have been to redeem him.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   לא תעשו לכם אלילים, “You shall not make idols for yourselves.” This line is addressed to the unfortunate people who have been sold to idolaters. Even while in the service of idolaters the Torah urges such people to make an agreement with their employers that they need not violate primary laws of our faith, such as working on the Sabbath, to retain his belief in the sanctity of the Temple, etc., and to try and make the thrice annual pilgrimage there. 
      Alternately, seeing the Torah had just written that all the Israelites are עבדי, “My servants,” it had to stress that under no circumstances are any of us to try and become someone else’s (idolatrous cults) servants.
      According to the <i>Targum Yerushalmi</i> the word שבתותי does not refer to the weekly Sabbaths but to the <i>sh’mittah</i> years, which the Torah has also described as “G’d’s Sabbaths.”
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   אם בחקותי תלכו....ונתתי גשמיכם בעתם, “If you will follow My decrees…I shall provide your rains at their appropriate times.” Nachmanides comments that the reason that the Torah first lists timely rainfall as the reward for observing G’d’s statutes is that as a result of such rainfall the air of the country is cleansed and made softer, people are healthier, the yield of nature is enhanced and appears more appealing to the eye. As a result of all this, disease becomes more rare amongst the people, etc.; in other words, timely rainfall is an indispensable blessing that forms the basis of all the blessings nature has to offer. When nature provides its bounty, there are no aborted fetuses among man or beast, people and animals grow to their optimal size, man’s lifespan is lengthened, the last and ultimate of nature’s blessings.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  וישבתם לבטח, “and you will dwell in security.” If there were to be famine, G’d forbid, this would result in people leaving the country. 
  
  Verse 6
  
   והשבתי חיה רעה מן הארץ. “I will remove wild beasts from the earth.” Nachmanides accepts the view of Rabbi Yehudah in <i>Torat Kohanim</i> that this verse refers to the removal of ferocious beasts from the land of Israel as the plain meaning. When these beasts observe that the cities are filled with thriving human beings, they will refrain from entering such populated areas. Rabbi Shimon, on the other hand, understands the verse to mean that G’d shall render these beasts harmless as far as the land of Israel is concerned. This appears as the correct interpretation according to Nachmanides. It is a promise that when the Jews observe the commandments they will not have to worry about such problems as wild beasts and the danger to life and property that these represent. As far as the land of Israel is concerned, the norms of the world will return to the idyllic conditions prevailing before man first sinned, when no creature harboured aggressive intentions against man and none of the beasts would even kill each other. Such conditions have been described by the prophet Isaiah 11,6-9 as a period when the wolf shall dwell with the sheep, the leopard will lie down with the kid, etc.” It teaches that the damage and harm caused by such beasts that we know as ferocious, predatory, was never an integral part of such creatures’ nature, but was only the result of their observing man ignore the Creator’s laws, which caused them to copy man’s corrupt ways. We know from the Torah’s report of the creation of all these beasts that they had been meant to feed only on grass, etc. (Genesis 1,30) In other words, the natural disposition of all of these animals is to feed on the vegetation the earth provides, as do the ruminants still, and their becoming flesh eaters was not part of G’d’s original plan. This is also why, originally, man was not allowed to feed on animal tissue. Only after the deluge was the eating of meat permitted to man, certain pre-historic conditions not being restored at that time. At the same time, however, G’d warned the beasts not to attack and maim or kill man, or He would punish them for doing so. (Genesis 9,5). If the animals’ pre-deluge nature had undergone a change for the better during their enforced stay in the ark, G’d would not have had to warn them not to employ their ferocious nature against man.
      The Torah now tells us that if and when life in the land of Israel will proceed on the lines envisaged by G’d for His people, He will neutralize that part of the animals’ nature that would pose a potential threat to their safety.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ונפלו לפניכם לחרב, “they (your enemies) will fall before you by the sword.” Nachmanides writes that first G’d assured the Jewish people that when they would keep His commandments, that if invaded, they would succeed in warding off the attackers and pursue them beyond their borders. He now repeats and reinforces this promise by describing that He would make the Israelites so full of self-confidence that five of them would put twenty times their number to flight. He also simultaneously makes their enemy display their fear of the pursuers. This is an additional promise as it is possible that their enemies would escape the sword by outrunning their pursuers.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the meaning of the repetition is to assure us that even if the enemy would attack repeatedly, they would fall by the sword until they would give up attacking the Jewish state.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ורדפו מכם חמשה מאה, “and five of you will pursue a hundred.” When one is able to pursue 20, one would assume that 100 would be able to pursue two thousand, not ten thousand as described here. Some commentators explain the word מאה in our verse as meaning one hundred times five, i.e. 500 of you would pursue 10000 of the enemy. In this way the Torah’s original ratio would be maintained, but why would the Torah have to tell us something like this, something every youngster can figure out for himself?
      Ibn Ezra writes (referring the reader to his treatise on Hebrew grammar entitled <i>sefer moznayim,</i>) that it is customary for people describing unusual ratios, abnormal quantities, to use the ratios ten, one hundred, one thousand, ten thousand, as basics when discussing multiples. He sees the numbers 1-10 as a unit, followed by the numbers10-100, followed by the number 100-1000, and 1000-10000. He quotes Samuel II 18,3 כי עתה כמוני עשרת אלפים, “even if there were ten thousand such as we, etc.”, as an example for such figures of speech. [He means that the people saying this to their King, David, did not expect David to take their meaning literally. Ed.] The Torah here added an example of a multiple of 20 when describing the miraculous feats that would be performed by the Israelites when assured of G’d’s support.
      Some commentators reflecting on the Torah’s using the term רדף, and נוס as expressions for flight, explain that pursuit, רדיפה of people already running away requires relatively more people, than merely causing them to flee, i.e. נוס , or להניס. Whereas a ratio of 2 to 10000 may suffice for causing the enemy to flee, 1 to 1000 may be needed to ensure effective pursuit of those already in flight. Pursuit is ineffective unless it results in the fleeing warriors being killed. To do this a relatively greater number is required than to merely frighten them into fleeing.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   והפרתי אתכם, “I shall make you fruitful.” According to Nachmanides the meaning is that all the Israelites will not only conceive, but there will be no miscarriages among them. The Torah continues this them by adding והרבתי אתכם, “I shall multiply you,” meaning that you will have many children from each wife. As a result you will become a numerically powerful people.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ואכלתם ישן נושן, “you will eat very old grain.” This is a promise that although you will keep increasing in numbers on the same amount of land, you will have enough grain left over at the end of a year so that even in the following year you will still eat from the previous year’s harvest.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ונתתי משכני בתוככם, “I shall place My Sanctuary among you.” According to Ibn Ezra the meaning is that you should not worry that you will ever experience scarcity of basic supplies seeing that My glory dwells among you, and I am not like human beings whose nature it is to get bored with a certain location and to look for greener pastures.
      Furthermore, even if you will be forced to take up residence in the land of your enemies, where My Sanctuary will no longer be among you, My glory will not abandon you, so that you will have evidence that I will still consider Myself as your G’d, and all that this entails. This was the reason why I took you out of Egypt in the first place.
      Nachmanides explains the words והתהלכתי בתוככם, (verse 12) “I shall be taking walks among you,” to mean that My special providence which guides your fate will be in evidence just as when a king travels through his domain his impending presence will be advertised ahead of time and will be brought to the attention of the masses. He will be recognized as the One supplying his subjects’ needs.
      The Torah, at this stage, makes no mention of the reward for keeping the <i>mitzvoth</i> that accrues to us in the world of disembodied souls after our death. Neither does it mention the reward that accrues to such people after the resurrection of the dead in G’d’s own good time. There is no need to do this as such “reward” is an integral part of man’s having been created as G’d’s most favoured creature. This latter “reward” is automatic unless the creature (man) has forfeited it by committing serious sins without confessing them, repenting them and changing his way of life as a result of such repentance. (Nachmanides had explained his understanding of how this works in his commentary at the end of <i>acharey mot,</i> adding that the concept is rooted in the verse כי נר ה' נשמת אדם, “that the soul of man is part of G’d’s light.” Proverbs) The Torah by repeating all the time the words על הארץ, makes sure that we do not misinterpret the parameters within which all these blessings apply.
      He writes further that although all these blessings are of a collective nature, applying to the people as a whole on the understanding that the majority observes the Torah, as opposed to when the Torah, briefly, spoke about G’d blessing “your bread, etc.,” addressing each Israelite individually, in the singular mode, the difference is that even though collectively we may have lots of food and drink this does not necessarily mean that each one of us benefits in equal measure from such abundance of food and drink. Individual supervision by G’d of our well being, is always in the nature of a miracle, though not what we call a נס גלוי, a manifest miracle. When addressing the people in general terms such as here, this is part of השגחה כללית, G’d’s broad supervision of the nation (or nations as the case maybe) and this is made clear by the emphasis on the ארץ, i.e. nature, providing the visible aspects of these blessings. [Naturally, nature works under the guidance of <i>Hashem,</i> but that guidance is not usually manifest, and man does not attribute crop failures, destructive acts of nature by hurricanes, etc., to divine intervention, but to nature’s caprice. Ed.] Nachmanides quotes such phrases as שלום בארץ, לבטח בארץ, חיה רעה בארץ, חרב לא תעבור בארצכם, as examples of such indirect blessings, blessings emanating from השגחה כללית, G’d’s general supervision of the fate of man and nations. Anyone familiar with rainfall patterns realizes that if beneficial rains occur year after year at times when they are most welcome to the farmer that this is more than nature at work. It proves that nature is “inspired.” In other words, the Torah promises as a reward for collective <i>mitzvah</i> performance, and refraining from violating negative commandments, that “nature” will display its appreciation by making the individual as well as the national lives of the Jewish people free from the major problems life on earth is beset with. This, in turn, will convince the nations surrounding the Holy Land, that the Jewish G’d takes care of His own, and if G’d forbid, we should fail to live up to the standards expected of us, it will be the nations of the world who will be the first ones to attribute our misfortunes to G’d’s displeasure with the Jewish people, as pointed out by Moses in Deuteronomy
      To sum up, when the Jewish people behave in the manner expected of them, their lives will not be subject to natural law at all, but G’d will intervene on their behalf all the time, both manifestly and behind the scenes. Expressions such as אני ה' רופאך, “I the Lord am your Healer,” do not mean that G’d will have to heal our diseases when the medical practitioners are unable to do so, but the expression is an oblique way of saying that we will never even have occasion to call on the services of a physician made of flesh and blood. Righteous people in former times would not call on the services of a physician even when they did fall sick, but they would turn to the prophet during their time. 
      When the Talmud <i>B’rachot</i> 60 states in connection with a short prayer invoking G’d’s help that one should say before undergoing even minor surgery, by adding אין דרכן של בני אדם לרפאות, mistakenly understood as “because man has not mastered the art of healing,” the meaning of the Talmud is that we are not to call on a physician as an alternative to G’d, but that the physician when becoming aware of our sickness is allowed to practice his art, as the Torah issued specific permission for him to do in Exodus 21,19 writing (about the physician) ורפוא ירפא, “he shall certainly provide the healing,” the assumption being that the physician does so at his own initiative. The Torah nowhere gave permission for the sick or injured Jew to turn to the physician instead of turning to G’d. [If many great scholars earned their livelihood by curing the sick, they did so primarily to help gentile patients. Ed.]
      It is interesting that the Torah commanded all of us to pay the physician for services rendered (Maimonides 1,1 <i>hilchot chovel umazik)</i> the reason being that Torah laws do not assume G’d’s miraculous intervention on our behalf, [we must not be arrogant enough to assume that we deserve such miracles. Ed.] After all, the Torah has told us כי לא יחדל אביון מקרב הארץ, “destitute people will never disappear from earth completely.” (Deut. 16,1) [I believe the author uses this verse to make sure that we do not use His intervention in our fates as an excuse not to do all we can to relieve all manner of pain, economic hardship, etc. among our fellow human beings if we feel that we can be helpful to them. Ed.] 
      Nachmanides writes also that the blessings spelled out above never all materialized at any one time in Jewish history, as the conduct of the Jewish people thus far had never been on such a level that we deserved all of these blessings. This is precisely the reason why our sages when speaking of blessings, cite the ones mentioned here as the kind which are reserved for a future after the arrival of the Messiah, as only then will we be on the spiritual level when the conditions are ripe for the fulfillment of all these promises. Fulfillment of such promises as G’d walking with the righteous presupposes a kind of perfect world which is hardly conceivable until our total redemption from the <i>galut</i>.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ואם בחוקתי תמאסו, “However, if you will despise My statutes, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah described the חוקים, statutes, as the laws that the people would refer to with disdain, distaste, is, that no rational justification has been offered by the Torah for these kinds of laws. This is why fools jump to the conclusion that these laws are of no use or value to man. The social laws, משפטים, on the other hand, which any fool can understand as being useful tools in any society and which therefore should enjoy ready acceptance by the people, also do not fare better when they involve the violation of the Sabbath, the prohibition of sexual intercourse with family members or consenting adults, or when it involves forbidden foods. These restrictions are considered as capricious denial of a person’s freedom and therefore, in the right atmosphere, result in one’s feeling revulsion against them and the authority who imposed such laws. The Torah describes the people not observing those <i>mishpatim</i> as excusing themselves by their being revolted at the Creator Who demanded from them to so restrict their desires, i.e. that is the meaning of the words לבלתי עשות את כל המצות, “as a reason for not performing all the commandments.”
      Nachmanides goes on to write that the curses following contain allusions to both the first and the second exile of the Jewish people, as well as the total redemption that will follow the second exile. The references to חמנים “symbols of sun-worship” (verse 30) and גילולים, (man-made idols) (verse 31) were the major sins of the period of the first Temple; G’d predicts that He will have to destroy the Temple which the Torah calls “your Sanctuary,” on account of their sins. (Verse 31) The entire verse is a threat not to accept offerings tendered to Him. As a result of such rejection of even their offerings, the people would experience death by the sword, at the hands of ferocious beasts, as well as pestilence, famine, and, ultimately, exile if all that had not brought about a change in their attitudes. (Verses 32-33). During this exile the land would make up for all the <i>sh’mittah</i> years that the people had not observed while they were enjoying prosperity in their land. The seventy years of the Babylonian exile would match the number of years the <i>sh’mittah</i> legislation had been neglected.
      The redemption from that exile is not described as a real redemption, but only as a manifestation of the fact that G’d had not allowed His covenant with the Jewish people to become severed. (History records that men of the caliber of Daniel, Ezra and Nechemyah, did confess the guilt of their fathers, and this is why the second Temple endured for hundreds of years, though it lacked many features symbolizing the close ties between G’d and His people. The admonitions by Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy, chapter 28,15-68 describe the destruction of the second Temple and the vicissitudes that the remnant of the people would experience during the far longer second exile. During that lengthy paragraph the Torah does not refer to specific sins as it had done in our portion here. On the contrary, the wording there suggests that even relatively minor disobedience and failure to observe Torah in its entirety by all the people could bring about such a catastrophe as is described there most vividly. In fact, we know that during the existence of the second Temple large sections of the people did devote themselves to intensive Torah study and to meticulous observance of the Torah’s commandments, and still the Temple was destroyed and the people experienced terrible times, all because too many of them had become guilty of senseless hatred of one anther, totally unjustified and unjustifiable animosity between different sections of the society. The reason why the Torah does not bother to mention the manifestation of G’d’s displeasure by His refusal to accept the people’s sacrifices, is that heavenly fire had never resumed to consume these sacrifices as it had done during the hundreds of years that the first Temple had stood.
      In the admonition in Deuteronomy 28,49 we find the following line: ישא ה' עליך גוי מרחוק מקצה הארץ וגו', “<i>Hashem</i> will bring a nation against you from afar etc.,” a reference to the Romans, a nation described a speaking a tongue you are not familiar with. It is a nation not knowing the meaning of pity, etc. It is clear that these lines do not refer to the Babylonians who were relatively close at hand, and whose tongue the Israelites certainly were familiar with. The Assyrians who exiled the ten tribes while the Temple remained standing were even closer to the land of Israel in terms of physical distance. Seeing that the Jewish people had their historical roots in those Mesopotamian regions, the Torah in verse 49 in that chapter most certainly could not have referred to either one of those nations. It is clear from reading the remainder of that chapter that the exile we still find ourselves in at the time of writing these lines, is the one referred to by the Torah in that chapter in Deuteronomy. Verse 36 in which Moses predicts that the victorious nation will appoint a king over the Jewish people whom they never had heard of, is also clearly a reference to King Agrippas, (Herod). It was during his reign that the uprising against the Romans in the year 66 occurred which ended with the destruction of the second Temple.
      The covenant referred to in our portion is the one that we have to thank for the presence of the <i>Shechinah</i> during all the years of the first Temple, whereas the covenant in Deuteronomy, which enabled the Temple to be rebuilt, was of an inferior type of relationship with <i>Hashem,</i> seeing that only the כבוד השם, “G’d’s honour”, manifested itself during the over four hundred years that the second Temple was standing. This is what was meant by the author of <i>Torat Kohanim</i> who describes the admonitions in our portion as having originated from G’d Himself, directly, whereas those in Deuteronomy were initiated by Moses. [Reflecting the far weaker bond between G’d and His people during that era. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   מכלות עינים, according to Ibn Ezra the diseases described here cause the afflicted person to feel that he had lost his eyesight. The expression מדיבות נפש describe the psychological havoc wrought by these diseases in those who suffer them. Some commentators understand the word עינים here as referring to the eyes separating from the rest of the body.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ונתתי פני בכם, “I will set My face against you.” A reference to G’d’s anger. We find the word פנים used in this sense in connection with Hannah in Samuel I 1,18, when the prophet describes Hannah as having been appeased by the blessing of the High Priest Eli.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   שבע על חטאתיכם, “seven ways for your sins.” According to Ibn Ezra the number seven here is not to be taken at face value, but it is a number representing some whole unit, some indivisible unit, such as Bileam asking Balak to build for him “seven” altars (Numbers 23,28), or Hannah’s prayer in Samuel I 2,5 claiming that the barren woman had given birth to “seven” children. [At that time, at least, she had given birth only to one child. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   קרי, Ibn Ezra writes that according to the opinion of many scholars, the expression is unique throughout Scripture, meaning that the person so described is so full of self confidence or obstinacy, that he fears nothing and no one. Others hold that the word is related to מקרה, happenings which are popularly attributed to pure chance. If so, the Jewish people are described as instead of taking their misfortunes as a sign of G’d’s displeasure, they attribute their misfortunes to pure chance. Still a third view understands the expression as describing a hindrance, obstacle, as in הוקר רגלך, “restrain your foot from going to a certain place.”
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   והשמדתי את במותיכם, “I will destroy your lofty buildings.” The meaning of this verse is that once the retribution starts there will no longer be a place from which to offer the prayers and to plead with G’d to halt the process. The reason is that G’d will destroy the locations of the altars where such prayers might have been accepted by a G’d so inclined.
  
     וגעלה נפשי אתכם, ”for My essence will despise you.” For as soon as I withdraw My Presence from you, your cities will be ruined.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   והשמותי את מקדשיכם, “I will utterly destroy your sanctuaries.” Note, that while G’d was in a benevolent state of mind He had described these sanctuaries as “My sanctuaries.” As soon as the Israelites became habitual sinners He no longer associated His name with these sanctuaries. Having first spoken only of the destruction of the cities and sanctuaries in the Jewish state, He now speaks of: 
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   והשמותי אני את הארץ, “I will make the whole land desolate.” This is a reference to the entire Holy Land.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   אז תרצה הארץ, “Then the land will be appeased.” 
      Ibn Ezra, quoted only by Kimchi, explains the meaning of the word in Chronicles II 30,18 as תשלים, “complete, in the sense of “making up for lost time.” He quotes a parallel in Chronicles II 36,21 עד רצתה הארץ את שבתותיה, “until the land has made up for its Sabbaths.” The meaning is that only then will the guilt of the Jewish people be expiated. (Compare Isaiah, 40,2).
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
   ואכלה אתכם ארץ אויביכם, ”the land of your enemies will devour you.” This is characteristic of all people who are exiled to a strange country. The change of climate and water by themselves result in their being decimated in numbers.
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
   או אז יכנע לבבם הערל, “perhaps then their unfeeling heart will be humbled.” <i>Rashi</i> understands the word או in our verse as similar to Exodus 21,36 או נודע כי שור נגח הוא, “but if it becomes known that the ox is wont to gore.” [<i>Rashi</i> often views the word או as meaning: “if.” Ed.]
      Nachmanides considers that the meaning of the word here is that the Torah offers two different scenarios for the duration of the exile. It will either last until the people’s uncircumcised heart will become humbled, or until their sins have been expiated (in full) due to the length of the exile. The word או refers to what follows, i.e. “or the exile will last until the people experience a change of heart, and confess their guilt, etc., or it will last for such a long time that time itself will expiate for their sins as their suffering has been so prolonged.”
      After the Torah had already mentioned that the people did confess their guilt (verse 40) we would have expected that at that point G’d would remember them kindly, i.e. that He would remember His covenant with the patriarchs, but we would certainly not have expected to be told at this point that G’d would exile people who had just confessed their guilt.
      In tackling this apparently incomprehensible development described here, Ibn Ezra says that in verse 41 G’d takes credit for having brought about this confession, saying that the reason He had treated them so harshly, exiling them to a foreign and inhospitable country, was designed to bring about their confession and repentance. [In other words, whenever G’d chastises, exacts retribution, the purpose is not revenge, but punishment is G’d’s instrument in eventually refining His people by means of their experiences. Ed.]
      In my own view, (still Nachmanides writing) the meaning of these verses is that after the people have confessed their guilt G’d would relate to them בקרי, with casualness, bringing them to the land, [the land of Israel] but that they would not conquer it as did Joshua, but it would still be populated by their enemies who would cause them much grief as we know from Nechemyah 4,5 and Ezra chapter 9 (Ezra’s prayer) [The second commonwealth was firmly established as Jewish both physically and spiritually only many years after Zerubavel’s return there with about 43000 of his fellow Jews. In his prayer, Ezra had described himself and his fellow Jews as slaves in their own land. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
   והארץ תעזב מהם, “and the land will be bereft of them.” Nachmanides explains that even after Cyrus’s permission to return to the land of their fathers it took 19 years before the land was sufficiently firmly in the hands of the returning Israelites until the <i>shmittah</i> regulations could be observed again after the Temple had been completed etc. etc. Chapter 10 in Nechemyah describes some of the formalities in restoring sanctity to the land of Israel. In short, our verses are a preview of what happened to the Jewish people during the period of Ezra and Nechemyah, after the return to their homeland.
  
     יען וביען.”because and because;” according to Ibn Ezra the One “because” refers to the people having despised G’d’s social legislation, משפטי מאסו, whereas the second “because” refers to their having been revolted by G’d’s statutes, וחוקותי געלה נפשם.
  
  
  Verse 44
  
   לא מאסתים לכלותם, “I did not despise them to the extent that I would wipe them out completely. I chastised them only sufficiently to discipline them by means of chastisements until they would humble their hearts.
  להפר בריתי, ”to violate My covenant.” The covenant which I swore to them.” Even though they, on their part have violated this covenant, I will not annul it seeing that I am G’d.
  
  Verse 45
  
   וזכרתי להם ברית ראשונים, “I will remember for them the covenant with the ancients.” Nachmanides sees in this a promise that G’d will remember the covenant with the ancients (the patriarchs) both when the Jewish people are in the Holy Land and when they will be in exile. He sees in the words לעיני הגוים, “in full view of the gentile nations,” an allusion to the enduring nature of G’d’s special relationship with the Jewish people.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the meaning of the words וזכרתי להם ברית ראשונים, refer to the covenant concluded at the revelation at Mount Sinai; [after all the era the Torah refers to here when speaking of the exile of the Jewish people is more than 1000 years in the future, so that people alive at that time will consider that covenant without problem as “the covenant concluded with the ancients.” Ed.]
      There are some scholars who understand the words ברית ראשונים, ”covenant with the ancients” as the covenant concluded with the patriarchs in which G’d promised redemption from Egypt after bondage and harsh treatment. According to this opinion this is why the Torah here has added “whom I took out of Egypt in full view of all the nations.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   איש כי יפלא נדר, “if a man articulates a vow, etc.” According to Nachmanides this paragraph is also conceptually linked to the admonitions we have read in chapter 26. It was told to Moses already at Mount Sinai [see commentary at the beginning of chapter 25. Ed.]
      Seeing that part of this chapter deals also with the Jubilee year legislation inasmuch as it is relevant to redeeming matters declared sacred as a result of vows made, the thread has not been broken ever since the beginning of chapter 25, and the additional aspects of the legislations dealing with vows in which man declares someone or his equivalent sacred in terms of that person or object’s valuation only rounds out that section of legislation. To confirm this, the Torah, at the end of our chapter writes once more that all the aforementioned commandments were commanded by G’d to Moses to the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai [already. Ed.] What follows from now on was told Moses in the Tabernacle.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   אך בכור אשר יבוכר לה' בבהמה לא יקדיש אותו, “However, a firstborn that will become a firstling for <i>Hashem</i> among livestock, one must not consecrate;” <i>Rashi</i> understands this to mean that such a firstling as is mentioned in our verse must not be consecrated to be an offering of a different category. [Based on <i>Torat Kohanim,</i> seeing that such a firstling does not belong to the “owner” in the first place.]
      Nachmanides does not view this verse as a prohibition, but as a reminder that there is no need to consecrate such an animal as the Torah had already conferred the status of “a consecrated” animal on that beast.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   ואם בבהמה הטמאה ופדה בערכך , “and if among the ritually unclean animals, (he had mistakenly consecrated such a firstling), etc.” <i>Rashi</i> claims that this verse is not relevant to the legislation involving firstlings at all, but refers to someone consecrating a ritually unclean beast as an offering to the Temple treasury. [Consecrating it as an offering for the altar would be without legal value, as it is a non-starter. Ed.]
      Nachmanides, attempting to circumvent the need to explain the verse as referring to a subject that was discussed in a different context, tries to paint a scenario in which our verse would be relevant to the sequence in which it appears. He writes that it is possible that seeing that another kind of ritually unclean beast, namely the donkey, is exempt from what appears to be stated here, the Torah repeats that any other ritually unclean beast cannot legally be consecrated even if one had in mind to redeem it, as in the case of the donkey. (Compare Exodus 34,20) Such an animal which had been “consecrated” through ignorance of its owner may be redeemed without financial premium by anyone other than the owner who had “consecrated” it, seeing that it had never attained the holy status of a firstling.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  כל חרם אשר יחרם מן האדם לא יפדה מות יומת, “Any condemned person who has been banned from mankind shall not be redeemed but shall be put to death.” <i>Rashi</i> understands the scenario of which our verse speaks as being the following: A man has been convicted of the death penalty. While he is <i>en route</i> to his execution, someone vows to give to the Temple treasury an amount equal to the value of this person, i.e. considering his age, etc., such a vow is meaningless in terms of Jewish law, and the person making such a vow does not have to give anything to the Temple treasury. (Based on <i>Erchin</i> 6) Nachmanides adds that according to the plain meaning of the text our sages are of divergent opinions concerning the above. The Torah had previously stated that anyone consecrating man or beast or chattels and land which he himself owns forfeits the right to redeem such as it automatically becomes the property of the priests and has already lost the status of being something consecrated. However, if someone consecrates something, i.e. the equivalent monetary value of something or someone whom he does not own, such property or people would not become the property of the priests. The classic example is that when the Israelites would go to war and vow to G’d that if He would grant them victory they would apply the law of חרם to such property, none of it would revert to the priests, seeing that the party or parties having made such a vow did not have in mind that the objects in question would become the priests’ henceforth, but they vowed not to personally benefit from that part of the loot. The warriors’ whole intent was to destroy. We find in Judges 21 that when the men of Yavesh Gilead had failed to honour [or even to be present during the taking of that oath, I am not clear about this. Ed.] the collective oath by all the tribes not to give any of their daughters to a member of the tribe of Binyamin as a wife, that 12000 men were dispatched as a punitive expedition against the inhabitants of that town and that only 400 virgins were spared, the ones who were then given to an equivalent number of young men from the tribe of Binyamin who had survived the civil war. Surely, if it had been legally possible to redeem the inhabitants of Yavesh Gilead, the people would have done so in preference of having to honour their oath, especially considering that their High Priest Pinchas was with the people at that time. Yonathan, son of King Shaul, had unwittingly become guilty of not honouring an oath by his father so that his father felt legally obligated to execute him. (Samuel I 14,27) Surely, if not for our verse here, there would not have been a need to proceed with the harsh measures envisaged by the utterance of a careless oath if redemption had been a legally acceptable option. I found further in <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> chapter 76 on the Book of Judges that Rabbi Akiva is quoted as equating the word חרם in our portion with the word שבועה, oath. He derives from our verse that any High Court or legally appointed king, is entitled, especially, when all the tribes are represented when he declares such a decree, to impose the death penalty for violating an oath that bound the entire Jewish people to perform or to refrain from performing a certain task as the case may be. When we read in the above quoted chapter concerning Yonathan son of king Sha-ul that the people did redeem him, this was because Yonathan had been instrumental in performing a miracle and it became evident that Yonathan had not violated the oath knowingly. [Some suggest that the King asked the High Court to release him from an oath that had been ill conceived. Ed.] If so, we can understand Yiphtach’s cardinal error, due to arrogance, when he had failed to seek “redemption” from his vow, seeing he had never meant to sacrifice his only daughter if G’d were to grant him victory. He had mistakenly been under the impression that his vow (oath) was valid and could not be annulled. He was not unaware of the legislation enabling such annulment, but assumed that a leader of the nation could not avail himself of an option like this. It had not occurred to him that a vow to offer someone as a burnt offering, when that someone is essentially disqualified as an offering on the altar, has no legal validity at all. [Even if instead of his daughter being the first to welcome him, a cockerel had done so, he would not have had to kill that cockerel, as it is essentially not fit as an offering on the altar. Ed.] According to the opinion of our sages it is likely that our verse here contains a number of legal points, some relating to a person who is already guilty of execution by the Court, others governing how the Israelites were to conduct themselves during the forthcoming campaign to conquer the land of Canaan, as well as the rules governing someone who becomes guilty of acting in defiance of an oath by the King or an ordinance by the country’s highest court.
  
  Numbers
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וידבר ה' אל משה במדבר סיני באהל מועד, ”<i>Hashem</i> spoke to Moses in the desert of Sinai, in the Tent of Meeting.” Nachmanides writes that now that the laws pertaining to sacrificial offerings had been concluded, the Torah moves on to discuss laws governing the Tent of Meeting. G’d had already warned concerning the sin of entering the Tent of Meeting in a state of ritual uncleanness as well as against offering sacrifices which were in a state of ritual unfitness.
      Now the Torah wishes to restrict the presence of non priests in the Tabernacle and its immediate surroundings in the desert, similar to the restrictions imposed on the Temple and its immediate surroundings on Mount Moriah in the future. Non priests who violate these rules are subject to the death penalty by stoning. The Torah also forbids looking at sacred furnishings normally inside the Tabernacle, but exposed to potential view seeing that the Israelites were so often on the move, and the whole Tabernacle had to be dismantled each time, and the holy objects had to be carefully wrapped before being transported on the shoulders of the Kehatites. All of these precautions were designed to prevent the people from entering sacred grounds <i>en masse</i> and falling victim to the warnings issued.
      The Torah issues detailed instructions about the wrapping of these furnishings, by whom and where the parts of the Tabernacle were to be guarded. Seeing that the Torah in the Book of Leviticus had interrupted some of these subjects by writing about the <i>sh’mittah</i> and Jubilee years, of which we had been told that these instructions had been issued to Moses while he was on Mount Sinai, the Torah now mentions that the instructions reported here were communicated to him in the Tent of Meeting. There had been no direct communication from G’d to Moses since the time the Tabernacle had been assembled and inaugurated in the first month of the second year. The desert of Sinai is mentioned here again, as the people had not moved from there, since arriving at Mount Sinai on the first day of <i>Sivan</i> in the first year of the Exodus until the 2oth of <i>Iyar</i> of the second year. [Almost an entire lunar year. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   שאו את ראש, “take a census of the whole community.” <i>Rashi</i> on Numbers 31,26, explains the use of the expression שאו ראש, as “take a count of the heads,” [in the sense of according value to the head of each person so counted. Ed]
      Nachmanides [who apparently had a different version of <i>Rashi</i> in which the words שאו ראש are compared to the command to an executioner to behead his victim Ed.] who understood these words in a derogatory sense, raises the question why it should be interpreted derogatively. He points out that in <i>Midrash Rabbah</i> on this verse the interpretation is one that is complimentary to the Jewish people, quoting G’d as telling the people that He had given them the highest rank, ראש, among the nations in a number of areas. One example for the admissibility of such an interpretation is when Joseph interprets to the head of the cupbearers of Pharaoh that he will be reinstated to his former position, saying ישא פרעה את ראשך, “Pharaoh will raise your head, etc.” (Genesis 40,13) On the other hand, should the Israelites fail to qualify for G’d’s benevolence, the same words may signal their impending destruction, as in the case of the chief of the bakers who was also told of his impending fate by Joseph employing the same introductory words.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   כל יוצא צבא בישראל, “every one who goes to join the army among the Israelites.” <i>Rashi</i> comments that we learn from this verse that no one under the age of twenty is to join the army, something that corresponds to what we learned in <i>Avot,</i> בן עשרים לרדוף, “at the age of twenty one has matured enough to give chase.” (<i>Avot,</i> 5,25) It is possible to interpret the words כל יוצא צבא, as referring to all the men old enough to participate in general assemblies of the people. We know that every such general assembly is described as צבא, as for instance in לצבא צבא לעבודה באהל מועד, “to take part in the assembly around the Tent of Meeting in order to perform service” (Numbers 4,23). Another example of such a meaning of the word צבא would be the well-known term צבא השמים, “heavenly assemblies.” (Deut 4,19 and 15 other examples throughout the Bible) This is the reason why men participating in wars are not just described as חיילים, or אנשים לבושים בדים, “soldiers, or men wearing uniforms, but as יוצאי צבא, similar to יוצאי שער עירו, (Genesis 24,34) “all those assembled in the public square of his town.”
  
     תפקדו אותם, “you are to count them.” Nachmanides writes that the use of the term פקידה instead of ספירה for counting is meant to show that each individual so counted was elevated to a higher status than he had possessed prior to being counted. He was brought to the special attention of G’d’s benevolent supervision of his individual fate. We find an example of the use of the word פקד in this sense when it did not involve counting at all, in Genesis 21,1 וה' פקד את שרה, “<i>Hashem</i> had remembered Sarah specifically, etc.” In our context the term implies that all the men so counted would henceforth enjoy G’d’s special individual protection. This became evident when we do not read about the armies of the Jewish people suffering any casualties with the single exception of the attack by the Canaanites after the death of Aaron, and even then the sole casualty, i.e. a captive, appears to have been a civilian. (Numbers 21,1) Instead of being counted head by head, each soldier tendered a silver coin of the value of half a <i>shekel,</i> as atonement for any sin he might have been guilty of at the time he was counted. When Yoav reluctantly counted part of the Jewish people at the insistence of King David, (Samuel II chapter 24) we find that the prophet describes the result of the census as מספר מפקד, this appears to mean that the total was arrived at after counting the number of silver coins tendered. We believe that the reason why G’d was so angry at the counting was not at the manner in which the census was taken, but was on account of the entire census having been unnecessary as no military threat existed at the time against the Kingdom of David. He wanted to glory in the vast number of subjects he ruled over. It is also possible that the word מספר there is justified as David commanded Yoav also to count men under 20 years of age, i.e. from 13 years and up. Doing this may have been the reason why he was punished, as he had never been permitted to count the people below the age of 20. One of the reasons G’d does not want the entire Jewish population to be counted may be because then the promise that they are as numerous as the stars, i.e. beyond man’s ability to count them, would not be true. When, in the above mentioned chapter when Yoav counted the people, there appears a line saying “the entire Jewish nation numbered one million three hundred thousand (including the men from the tribe of Yehudah) that could handle a sword;” this does not mean that all of these people were fighting in the front line, it merely means that all these people were physically fit and healthy, and in case of need could be mobilized for war. The sick, the elderly, and the handicapped were not included in that count, as no one can boast about being the ruler of such people.
  
     לצבאותם, “according to their legions.” There were numerous legions, the army of each tribe representing one legion.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   לראובן, Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why the members of the tribe of Reuven were counted first was because chronologically speaking, he was the first born of Yaakov’s children. Once all the children of Leah had been counted, the Torah switches to Joseph who was Rachel’s first born. Ephrayim was counted first, in accordance with the rank accorded him when Yaakov blessed him on his deathbed, switching hands in order to place his right hand on him. This was followed by counting the tribe of Dan, who was the senior son of the maidservants of Leah and Rachel. Then followed Asher, who was the leading tribe in the camp of Dan. He in turn was by followed by Naftali, who represented the senior son of Leah’s servant maid.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   קרואי העדה, “the above named were so described as their importance was such that no decisions were taken unless these men were present.”
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ואת כל העדה הקהילו באחד לחודש השנית, “They called together the whole assembly on the first of the second month, etc.” Nachmanides points out with what alacrity Moses went about his task, in taking the princes on the very day he had received the instructions from <i>Hashem;</i> he assembled the whole community and began the task of taking the census. Clearly, the taking of the census was a task that could not be completed on that day, but took considerably longer.
  
     ויתילדו על משפחותם לבית אבותם, “they established their genealogy according to their families, according to their father’s household.” <i>Rashi</i> claims that each of the people concerned submitted a booklet containing the respective family tree. They also supplied witnesses that testified to their true ages, i.e. when each one of them had been born, (as explained by Onkelos)
      Nachmanides writes that it appears quite unreasonable to suggest that each person had to document his claim to which family he belonged and when he had been born. He claims that the meaning of the words ויתילדו וגו', simply mean that they identified themselves as belonging to certain families in certain tribes, the family being defined in terms of the respective fathers. The entire procedure had been commanded to Moses, more or less to the last detail, i.e. these people all came to the entrance of the Tabernacle to present themselves for the count; the census takers did not make house calls. The only ones who did not present themselves at that time were the members of the ערב רב, the mixed multitude who accompanied the Israelites when they left Egypt, all people who were not natural born Jews. Each person made a verbal declaration in front of Moses and the respective leader of his tribe that he was so-and-so and was of age. Moses deposited the coins according to the respective tribe of the person who tendered it, so that he knew at the end how many men of military age each tribe had contributed to the grand total. Proof that this was the procedure may be seen when at the second count no mention is made in the Torah of the line ויתילדו על משפחותם, neither is the expression במספר שמות לגולגלותם, “according to their headcount” repeated there. (Compare Numbers chapter 26). The reason why there was no need for this at the time of the second census was simply that the division into tribal units had already been made on the occasion of the first census and those records were readily available. When these people were counted as members of individual families, it appears that there was no objection to the “headcount.” They did not then have to present a coin or shard. There also was no need at that time for the respective princes of each tribe to be present during the count.
      Ibn Ezra says that the word ויתילדו means that each one had to inform Moses and his tribal prince of the date and year of his birth.
      Some commentators say that the reason why we find here the words במספר שמות, “according to the number of names,” added, was to teach us that none of them had changed the name by which they had been known in Egypt.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   לבני יוסף לבני אפרים, Nachmanides writes that Ephrayim, the younger son of Joseph was given precedence over his older brother Menashe and Joseph’s genealogy is linked to him both here and when it came to the “flags,” the groupings of three tribes each around their flags, seeing that he was the one in his group that was the flag bearer, and also because he was numerically a much larger tribe (41.500) than his brother tribe Menashe. (32.500) However, on the occasion of the census in the 40th year in the wilderness of Moav, you will note that the tribe of Menashe (52.700) had in the meantime become more numerous than Ephrayim. (32.500) They also received their ancestral land before Ephrayim, seeing that half the tribe remained on the East bank of the Jordan with the tribes Reuven and Gad. He also took precedence when the Torah reports the names of the tribal heads in charge at the time of the entry of he people into their ancestral land. (Numbers 34, 23-24) On the other hand, although Ephrayim’s representative of the 12 tribes during the mission of the spies is listed first, Joseph himself, in that connection, is linked directly to Menashe. (Numbers 13,8)
      In trying to understand the various occasions when the respective brothers Ephrayim and Menashe appear in different sequences, perhaps the fact that just as Joseph, who, in his youth was guilty of slandering his brothers, Menashe, i.e. the spy representing the Tribe of Joseph-Menashe, Gad, did join the majority in slandering the land of Israel, as opposed to the representative of his younger brother Ephrayim, i.e. Joshua, who did not. Moses may have listed Ephrayim first, without mentioning that he was part of the tribe of Joseph. (Numbers 13,8) This may serve as a reminder that sometimes the son commits the same type of error as had his father. (Compare <i>daat z’keynim baaley tossaphot</i> Numbers 13,11)
      Ibn Ezra explains that the army was made up of 12 tribes excluding the tribe of Levi, so that the tribe of Joseph was represented by his two sons Ephrayim and Menashe. There were four army groups of three tribes each placed in the four directions of the surface of the earth. Leah had 6 sons, Seeing that the tribe of Levi, descended from one of Leah’s sons was not included in the men serving in the army, the first camp, (flag) comprised of the tribes Reuven and Shimon, both from the sons of Leah, co-opted a third, Gad, the senior son of Leah’s maid Zilpah. The second camp (flag) was comprised of the tribes of Yehudah, who was joined by tribes descended from his younger brothers Issachar and Zevulun. The third camp contained only tribes descended from Rachel, i.e. Ephrayim, Menashe and Binyamin. The fourth camp was comprised of Dan, Asher and Naftali. Naftali was the younger one of the three tribes comprising that camp. He was listed first in order that the flag of that camp be guarded by the senior son of Rachel’s maidservant Bilhah. The reason why Yehudah’s group was placed at the head and Dan’s at the rear, was that these two tribes excelled in valour and in the art of warfare.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
   ויהיו כל הפקודים, “the grand total of all the men thus mustered, etc.” Nachmanides, in searching for a reason why the Torah had to tell us the total again, seeing it had already told us the number of men that were counted in each tribe, claims that this is the manner in which kings conduct themselves when they take a census of their subjects. However, he admits that he does not know why G’d commanded Moses to do so. He speculates that possibly the Torah wanted the people to reflect on the fact that a family who had numbered only 70 souls and children included, had grown within the relatively short period of 211 years to comprise at least two and a half million souls when allowing for the people under 20 and all the women. 
      It is also possible that the Torah did proceed here in the manner human kings proceed before going into battle, counting totals in addition to the number and composition of each army group. After all, when the Jewish people left Mount Sinai they were poised to begin the conquest of the land of their forefathers, and if they had not insisted on spying out the land (something that consumed 40 days) they would most likely have found themselves at war within a few days of their departure, Moses himself described the distance to the boundary of that land as only 11 days’ march (Deuteronomy 1,2) Moses, when inviting his father-in-law to join the people had told him that they were about to depart for their ultimate destination. (Numbers 10,29) It was necessary for both Moses and the princes to know the numbers of each tribe and army group in order to be able to account for each soldier after the campaign, and to determine if there had been any casualties and how many there had been. Although, in the event there were none, Judaism, i.e. the Torah, does not base its calculations on supernatural miracles occurring.
  
  
  Verse 47
  
   והלוים...לא התפקדו בתוכם, “But the Levites’ census was not included in that of the other twelve tribes.” Nachmanides writes, that notwithstanding the fact that up until then no directive had been given to count the Levites separately and according to different criteria, Moses realized on his own that he was not meant to include them as an integral part of that census. One of the reasons was that whereas a leader had been named for each of the other tribes, no one had been appointed as the leader of the tribe of Levi. At any rate, while Moses was in doubt how to proceed, he would not arrogate the decision to himself, and as soon as he had concluded the counting of the other twelve tribes, G’d told him how to proceed with the Levites. He called Aaron, in order to give him the honour, seeing that he was the de facto leader of the tribe. Perhaps this is the reason why we find dots on the word ואהרן (verse 39) i.e. a hint that Aaron was in Moses‘ company when G’d told him how to count the Levites. Subsequently, in 4,46 as well as in 4,36 and 4,45 we are also told about the respective leaders’ presence during these counts, as everything had to be done with the approval of all the notables concerned. The same applied to the division of the tasks to be performed by the various groups of Levites, each group headed by descendants of one of the three sons of Levi, son of Yaakov.
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
   , והלוים יחנו סביב למשכן העדות, “and the Levites shall encamp around the Tabernacle of Testimony.” Nachmanides writes that what the Torah records here as applicable to the Tabernacle, henceforth would become applicable to the Temple, and the division of the Levites into משמרות, guard duty whose components were the same, and who alternated with one another regularly, formed the pattern for the many hundreds of years that the Temple stood in Jerusalem. The words ושמרו את משמרת וגו' refer to night duty performed by the Levites in guarding the Tabernacle. They would walk around the Tabernacle at night ensuring no unauthorised person would attempt to enter it. The priests guarded the inside of the Tabernacle, whereas the Levites guarded it from the outside.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וידבר ה' אל משה ואל אהרן, “<i>Hashem</i> spoke to Moses and Aaron. Ibn Ezra explains that the reason why Aaron was addressed also was that his sons had to place the various furnishings of the Tabernacle on the shoulders of the priests.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   איש על דגלו באותות, “each man by his flag, according to its insignia.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that each flag had coloured insignia woven or embroidered on it reflecting the appearance of the respective gemstone of the tribe on the breastplate of the High Priest. Ibn Ezra writes that each flag had a pattern that easily identified the tribe it belonged to; (possibly reflecting the definitions used by Yaakov when he had blessed his sons before his death.) They could also have reflected the images seen by the prophet Ezekiel in his famous vision of the <i>merkavah.</i>
       Ancient sources have recorded that the Tabernacle was located in the center of the four army groups. In the space between the Tabernacle and the army groups (presumably in peace time accompanied by the various families of the soldiers), the Levites arranged their huts around the Tabernacle. The details have been described in the ספר יצירה. The respective sides of the camp which was square in shape, began with the east side, the army group headed by the tribe of Yehudah, as per G’d’s command in response to the question who should lead the army. [Compare <i>Bamidbar Rabbah 2,10</i> on Judges 1,1-2 Ed.]
      The army group headed by the tribe of Reuven was situated on the south side in order to accord some honour to the biologically oldest son of Yaakov. The third army group under one flag comprised the tribes of Rachel’s descendants who were situated in the west, with the group comprised of sons of Zilpah and Bilhah in the north. 
      I have seen further in the <i>Midrash</i> that just as <i>Hashem</i> created 4 directions on earth, (north, south, west and east) so He surrounded His throne in the heavens with four such directions, the throne of His glory being the loftiest of them all. When telling Moses how to arrange the army groups around the Tabernacle, He told him that what He was directing Moses to do corresponded to the pattern in which the hierarchies in the heavenly regions were arranged. East, the source of the original light, would be represented on earth by Yehudah, who represented the concept of Royalty. He would be flanked by Issachar, who represented the concept of Torah Issachar would be flanked on his other side by Zevulun, who represented the concept of wealth. This concept had been envisioned by Yaakov, who in his blessing of Zevulun (Genesis 49,13) had said זבולון על חוף ימים ישכון, that “Zevulun would make his residence on the shores of the sea.” It has also been said of him (and of Issachar) (Deuteronomy 33,19) כי שפע ימים יינקו, that “they will be nourished by the riches of the sea.” [An allusion to Zevulun sharing his wealth with Issachar, enabling the latter to devote himself exclusively to the study of the Torah. Ed.] This group would be the first one to march ahead of the rest of the camp, as we know from ויעבור מלכם לפניהם, “their king would always march ahead of them” (Michah 2,13).
      The direction south is representative of the beneficial dews and the rains that dispense G’d’s blessings on earth. This direction would be represented first and foremost by Reuven, who had distinguished himself as a penitent, and thus had revealed himself as possessing a virtue which is very dear to <i>Hashem</i>, a virtue which evokes G’d’s mercy for His creatures. He was flanked by Gad, possessed of the virtue of גבורה, strength and endurance in the face of overwhelming odds. They had the camp of Shimon between them, to help him atone for the sin at Shittim that had decimated that tribe whose members had permitted themselves to be seduced by the Moabites and Midianites. (Numbers 25) They marched in second position, seeing that the virtue of repentance is second only to Torah itself. Seeing that Reuven had excelled in repentance and this is an important virtue, one which brings to the fore G’d’s virtue of רחמים whenever G’d encounters penitent sinners, it was appropriate for the tribe of Reuven to be positioned in second place.
      West is the direction in which G’d’s storage chamber of snow, hail, and frost as well as heat is stored; the tribes of Ephrayim, Binyamin and Menashe were placed there, seeing that Binyamin’s territory would house the Temple, it was appropriate that he would be positioned in the direction where the <i>Shechinah</i> is presumed to be. North is the direction from which darkness (of the spiritual kind) is presumed to emerge when it does. It was appropriate that the tribe of Dan would be positioned there, as it was this tribe who played a leading role in the re-introduction of idolatry in Israel, King Yerobam later on being the exponent par excellence of this. [Judges 18 describes that the tribe of Dan hired themselves a phony priest and instituted idolatry in their newly conquered territory, formerly known as Layish. These offshoots from the tribe of Dan, who called their new city “Dan,” continued in their idolatrous ways until the first Temple was destroyed. The tribe of Asher was especially blessed, as was the tribe of Naftali, also part of that army group, something that offset the spiritually negative vibes associated with the Danites.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   וצבאו ופקודיהם, “its army and their count, etc.” Whatever is written in this verse and the verses following up until the end of the chapter, is all part of what G’d told Moses and Aaron in verse one of our chapter. In other words, Moses did not count the Israelites for a second time at this stage. Similarly, the paragraph (verse 32-34) also does not contain new information gathered at that time, but these are G’d’s words, not made public by <i>Hashem</i> until now, in order to reveal that since the original count 20 days before the people moved away from Mount Sinai, not a single Israelite had either died by natural causes or become unfit to be part of that army for some other reason. Clearly, this was worth reporting as in view of the enormous number of people involved this was a miracle of no small dimensions.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   אליסף בן רעואל. Nachmanides writes that it is an accepted practice in the Holy Tongue to sometimes change the name of the father of the person concerning whom the Torah reveals some important fact. [In Numbers 1,14, 2, 7,47, 10,20 the father of this tribal leader Elyassaph is referred to as דעואל, Ed.] He was known by both names, each complimentary in its way. Hence the Torah mentioned both names. The former name reflects דעואל,s intellectual attachment to <i>Hashem,</i> the latter his emotional attachment to <i>Hashem,</i> Whom he viewed as his shepherd.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ואלה תולדות אהרן ומשה....בהר סיני, “And these are Aaron’s and Moses’ immediate biological offspring…at Mount Sinai.” Nachmanides explains the apparently irrelevant mention of the words: “at Mount Sinai,” as well as the absence of any names of Moses’ children, by saying that Aaron’s children were also considered as if they were Moses’ children seeing that they learned the Torah from their uncle Moses, and we have it on the authority of our sages that anyone teaching someone else’s children Torah is accorded the merit of being the (spiritual) father of such a youngster. Moreover, the Torah hints by the wording of this verse that although these children of Aaron had not been anointed as priests until over nine months later, from the day, G’d in His mind, had already designated them to become priests at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai. These appointments had not only been for life, but hereditary, whereas the other appointments, such as the leaders of the tribes, did not have their root already at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai, nor were those appointments hereditary. One of the reasons why the chapter commences with the descendants of Aaron is that seeing that we will be reading about the count of the Levites shortly, it is appropriate to commence with the children of the leader of the tribe of Levi.
      Looking at the plain meaning of the text the meaning of the words “the descendants of Aaron and Moses,” is simply that seeing that Aaron’s sons had been especially anointed to become priests, they were in a category all by themselves compared to the other members of the tribe of Levi. If the tribe of Levi was considered “holy,” then the priests so anointed were considered “holiest of the holy.”
      The allegorical commentaries, <i>drush,</i> support this approach, seeing that Moses’ own children have not even been mentioned, the Torah failing to add: “and these were the offspring of Moses, etc,” especially in view of the fact that the <i>Midrash</i> told us that even Aaron’s sons were considered as if they had been Moses’ own, how is it then that Moses’ own have not even been mentioned?
      Some commentators hold that inasmuch as in connection with the count of the other tribes the Torah speaks of “in the desert of Sinai,” whereas when the sons of Aaron are mentioned these are referred to in conjunction with Mount Sinai, the reason is that their father had already been chosen by G’d to be the High Priest even before the people left Egypt, whereas the other Levites had only been chosen as special in the desert. [After the firstborn had participated in the sin of the golden calf. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   וימת נדב ואביהו לפני ה', “and Nadav and Avihu had died in the presence of <i>Hashem,</i> etc.” They died as a direct act of G’d. We find a similar expression used in Numbers 14,37 when the Torah reports the death of the 10 spies who had reported negatively on the people’s chances to conquer the land of Canaan.
  
     על פני אהרן אביהם, “during the lifetime of their father Aaron.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the expression על פני means “during the lifetime of.”
      Nachmanides elaborates that what the Torah means is not that the sons who died had not had already functioned as priests during the lifetime of their father, in the sense of “substituting for their father.” All four sons had been anointed as priests and had functioned or were ready to function as priests. [After all they died on the very first day that Moses had handed over service in the Tabernacle to the priests, as we know from Leviticus Ed.] The reason that the Torah adds the words על פני אהרן אביהם, is only that seeing the Torah had spoken of the priests who had been anointed, it was made plain that these two had also been properly anointed. They were potentially High Priests just as their father was in practice.
      I, personally believe, (author speaking) that the words על פני אביהם refer to the beginning of our verse, i.e.לפני ה' as in Chronicles I 24,2 we also read the words לפני אביהם, not על פני אביהם, followed by the words ובנים לא היו להם ויכהן אלעזר ואיתמר תחתיהם, “and they were not survived by children, and Eleazar and Ittamar became priests in their stead.” [Just as in our verse here. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   וידבר ה' אל משה במדבר סיני, “<i>Hashem</i> spoke to Moses in the desert of Sinai.” Nachmanides writes that seeing that the last communication by G’d to Moses had been introduced with the words ביום דבר ה' את משה בהר סיני, “on the day that G’d had spoken with Moses on Mount Sinai,” the Torah draws attention to the fact that this most recent communication took place in the desert of Sinai, when Moses was not in the lofty regions where he had existed for 40 days without bread and water. 
      [I wonder at the difference in the nuance of וידבר את משה, and וידבר אל משה, the former perhaps suggesting a more intimate relationship between G’d and Moses while the latter was on the mountain. Ed.]
      At any rate, the Torah wants us to know that the appointment of the Levites as a tribe more holy than the others had not surfaced or been revealed to Moses already on Mount Sinai, i.e. before the sin of the golden calf. Only the sons of Aaron, as part of the tribe of Levi, had already been designated as possessing a holier status at Mount Sinai, even though they had not been told about it at that time.
      The Levites were different from the other tribes even in the manner in which they were counted. Whereas the general census of the other tribes began with males who had attained the age of 20, the male Levites were included in the count as soon as they had attained the age of one month. Even so, their total number amounted only to some 22000. They were counted from one month old although they could not perform their function until they had attained the age of 30. According to Nachmanides, at the time of the count of the Levites only some 8000 had attained the age of 30. At the time when the count took place the Holy Ark had not yet been carried, as since being placed in the Tabernacle (holy of holies) the Israelites had not moved from their encampment around Mount Sinai. Moreover, moving the Holy Ark was forbidden on pain of death. The reason why the Levites numbered relatively few members was that while in Egypt, the members of that tribe never had to perform hard labour, for just as Joseph at the time had exempted the priestly caste in Egypt from having to sell their property in order to secure food supplies from his storage chambers, the Egyptians had recognized already then that the Levites were to the Israelites what the priests were to the Egyptians. The phenomenal increase in the numbers of the other tribes had been G’d’s reward, compensation to them for the Egyptians having tried to hold down their birthrate by imposing a cruel regime on them, one involving back-breaking labour. 
      It is also possible that the tribe of Levi was not so blessed, as Yaakov on his deathbed had failed to accord them the generous blessings he had bestowed on the other sons. Although the tribe of Shimon, at this stage, had become quite numerous, in spite of having shared Levi’s fate in Yaakov’s blessings, by the time the Israelites entered the Holy Land, their numbers had been drastically reduced also.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   משפחות הגרשוני אחרי המשכן יחנו, ימה, “The families of Gershon were encamped behind the Sanctuary, in a westerly direction.” The Torah makes a point of mentioning the Sanctuary before mentioning the fact that the Gershonites were encamped there. We find a similar pattern when the Torah describes the encampment of the Merarites in verse 35. This was due to the fact that the members of the Kehatites, who were charged with transporting the Holy Ark on their shoulders during the journeys, had to be encamped immediately adjoining the Sanctuary. The Merarites and Gershonides carried items that were transported on the wagons donated by the 12 princes. (Ccompare Numbers 7,3-11). It is also interesting that the Torah mentions the name of their leader first, as the location did not have anything special to commend it, when giving details of the encampment of the three families of Levites the names of the heads of the family of Gershon and Kehat are mentioned only after the location where they placed their tents, whereas the place of encampment of the Merarites, i.e. in the north, the name of their leader, Tzuriel ben Avichayil, is mentioned before we are told the location of their encampment. The reason is that the Gershonites had their tents in a most honoured position to the west of the Sanctuary, next to the Holy of Holies, and adjoining the flag of the camp of Reuven, the most senior of the tribes. The Kehatites who were encamped in the south of the Sanctuary, also were next to the camp of Ephrayim, the senior tribe of the family of Rachel. In the case of the family of Merari, who were encamped in the northerly direction, the Torah first tells us of the name of their leader, who was more distinguished than the leader of the tribe of Dan, descendant of one of Rachel’s maids.
      Nachmanides writes that the Torah deliberately did not begin by describing the watch being kept on the Tabernacle as starting from the east, [although that was the entrance to the Tabernacle. Ed.] not as when the Torah listed the direction where the army groups were encamped, listing the eastern group first, because the Levites did not post guards at the entrance to the Tabernacle, only the priests, i.e. Aaron and his surviving sons did that, alternating with Moses and Moses’ sons. [Nachmanides tries to show that the order in which the Torah describes everything here reflects the fact that order of preference was very important in every detail. Perhaps, this very fact later on led to distinguished people answering the rebellious call of Korach, who appealed to all those who felt that they had somehow been slighted. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ונשיא נשיאי הלוי אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן, “and the leader of the Levites’ leader was Eleazar, son of the High Priest Aaron.” Eleazar was the leader of the three leaders of the families of Gershon, Kehat, and Merari. 
      Ibn Ezra writes that the word נשיאי carries both itself and the following word הלוי with it, so that the meaning of the sequence ונשיא נשיאי הלוי אלעזר is: “and the prince of the respective leaders of the Levites was Eleazar.”
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
   תחת כל בכור בבני ישראל, “in place of every firstborn of the Children of Israel.” According to Nachmanides the firstborn males of Israel had attained the status of being sanctified ever since Exodus 13,2 when G’d had told Moses to sanctify the firstborn to Him, seeing that He had not killed the Jewish firstborn when the Egyptian firstborn had been slain. There were in the meantime very many firstborn who had never been redeemed, as up until now it had not been revealed to whom the money for redeeming them was to be given. They were therefore in a state of arrested sanctity, unable to all perform priestly duties, and unable to lead ordinary lives. It is possible, as argued by our sages, that some of them had performed as priests. Nachmanides adds, that as far as he personally is concerned, it is most unlikely that all these 22000 firstborns had been born during the year that had elapsed since the Exodus, as we have no reason to believe that the people had multiplied at such a rapid rate since they had been in the desert. The count included all the firstborn, including the many who had been born prior to the Exodus. All of them were redeemed now for the Levites. The 273 for whom no matching Levites could be found, were redeemed for 5 shekels each, the money being given to Aaron and his sons, as became the law for all subsequent generations.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ונתנו עליו כסוי עור תחש, “they shall place upon it a covering of <i>Tachash</i> hide.” Nachmanides writes that the Holy Ark was first wrapped in the curtain of blue wool that divided the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies; after that the <i>tachash</i> hide cover was used to wrap both the Holy Ark and the dividing curtain around them. This was unlike the procedure used with the other furnishings of the Tabernacle, such as the table, the golden altar and the <i>menorah</i>. The latter were wrapped in a cover of <i>tachash</i> hide only. The reason why so much more care was used to wrap the Holy Ark was the fact that its sanctity was greater than that of the other furnishings. It was desirable that the blue wool curtain be visible through the <i>tachash</i> hide as it reminds us of the blue sky, which in turn reminds us of <i>Hashem</i> whose throne is in the heavens beyond.
      Other commentators hold that the<i> tachash</i> hide was used to cover both the Holy Ark and the other furnishings, the former having first been wrapped in the dividing curtain.
  
     ושמו בדיו, “they shall position its staves.” Some commentators understand the word ושמו as meaning: ”they shall adjust,” i.e. the staves were to be adjusted as the Kehatites carried the Ark on their shoulders. Others understand the expression as referring to the positioning of these staves through the rings in the Ark in a manner that assured their proper balance prior to their being hoisted on to the shoulders of the men carrying it. The rings were considerably wider than needed to insert the staves into them. The staves were, however, not to be withdrawn from the Ark altogether.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   לחם התמיד עליו יהיה, “and the constant bread shall remain on it.” According to Nachmanides the meaning of the verse is that the show breads be remaining on the actual (flat surface of the) table, as opposed to the superstructure on which they rested when the Tabernacle was in its operational mode. The bread was then wrapped in the blue wool cover. The various appurtenances of the table, such as the spoons, dishes, shelving tubes, etc. (compare Exodus 25,29), would be placed above. This procedure was necessary in order to keep the actual breads and the appurtenances apart from one another when the people were on the move. The appurtenances were then covered with a cloth made of wool dyed scarlet. This colour was appropriate as the table symbolized the crown of a king, which in turn symbolizes the attribute of Justice. The other appurtenances that were wrapped in blue wool symbolized the crown of Torah. The cover of the main altar situated in the courtyard was made of purple wool, an intense red, as the altar upon which so much blood was sprinkled on a daily basis was close to that colour anyway. 
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ופקודת אלעזר ...הכהן, שמן המאור, וקטורת הסמים..פקודת כל המשכן וכל אשר בקודש ובכליו, “the supervision of Eleazar, son of Aaron the Priest, was the oil for illumination, the incense of spices the supervision of the entire Tabernacle and everything in it.” In other words, Eleazar was the keeper of all the items mentioned, and would hand to whoever had occasion to use any of these items during the performance of their duties, the correct quantities needed to perform their task.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the expression פקודת כל המשכן means although there were also subordinate tasks and supervisions, some of which had been entrusted to his brother Ittamar, the Torah wanted us to know that Eleazar was the person responsible for the overall functioning of all matters pertaining to the Tabernacle. Seeing that he was the person in charge, the Torah singles out his supervising the oil for illumination and the spices for the incense as being Eleazar’s specific concern
      Nachmanides writes that Ibn Ezra’s commentary is not correct, seeing that we have another verse in which Ittamar’s functions are specifically spelled out (Numbers 4,28, 4,31 <i>et al</i>) In those instances no mention is made of Eleazar. Also in Numbers 3,32 Eleazar is described only as the chieftain of the various chieftains of Levi whose task it was to look after the sacred objects and guard their well being. It is clear from there that what are referred to are the objects to be carried by the members of the group of Levites headed by the descendants of Kehat.
      Therefore, in Nachmanides’ opinion, the meaning of the expression פקודת כל המשכן must be the looking after the oil for illumination, the spices for the incense, the ingredients for the daily <i>minchah</i> offering, the oil for anointment, and other matters pertaining directly to the Tabernacle. It included all the items listed in this paragraph. They are summed up when the Torah writes (4,15) “and Aaron and his sons shall finish covering the holy, and all the holy utensils when the camp breaks up, in order to journey.” At that point the Torah had spoken of Aaron and his sons (pl.), whereas in the verse following, the specific duties of Eleazar are detailed separately. Eleazar was the treasurer or administrator for the three leaders of the Levites as well as the keeper of the furnishings entrusted to the Kehatites, whereas Ittamar was the treasurer of the Gershonites and Merarites. Seeing that the Torah did not mention that Eleazar engaged in carrying any utensils, as it had done in connection with all the other Levites, it seems clear that his task was merely that of a supervisor. He ensured that the other Levites were handed whatever it was they needed to transport, and that when the camp came to rest that they handed back whatever it was they had been carrying during the most recent journey of the people. According to a view expressed in the Jerusalem Talmud as understood by <i>Rashi,</i> Eleazar, personally carried the quantities of spices, a heavy load indeed, seeing that at certain periods of the year 365 portions of such incense were kept in stock, ready and prepared for use. He also carried a full year’s lighting oil supply, surely a very heavy load indeed. (183 login=slightly over 100000 ccm) As far as the daily <i>minchah</i> offering is concerned, we do not know the quantity of components kept in store at all times in the Tabernacle’s storage room. At any rate, it appears that Eleazar must have been of a very powerful physique, like Yaakov who rolled the heavy rock single-handedly, if as reported in the Jerusalem Talmud, he did indeed carry all this by himself.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ולא יבואו לראות כבלע את הקודש ומתו, “but they shall not come and look as the holy is being wrapped lest they die.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the word כבלע means: “when it is being covered.” 
      Ibn Ezra understands the verse to mean that people must not approach and look on when the dividing curtain that enveloped the Holy Ark was being removed from it prior to it being placed back in the Tabernacle. However, he adds that the word כבלע, based on the word בלע as in בלע המוות, “banish, remove death,” refers to the dismantling of the Tabernacle prior to the people’s journeying. The very process of the dismantling must not be watched by people who had no part in performing that duty.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   נשא את ראש, “take a census, etc.” The expression נשא for counting in the sense of “elevating” is used only with the Kehatites and the Gershonites, but not with the members of the family of Merari The reason is that Gershon was especially distinguished by reason of being the eldest of the sons of Levi, whereas Kehat was distinguished by reason of his having been chosen to carry the Holy Ark, etc. This is also why the Torah adds the words: גם הם, “they too,” when speaking of the Gershonites, as their distinction was only by reason of heredity rather than merit, and that although they did not perform the task of carrying parts of the Tabernacle that had been sanctified, they nonetheless qualify for this kind of census. When speaking of the members of the family of the Merarites, the Torah neither uses the term נשא nor the term גם הם.
      My sainted father, the רא'ש said that the expression גם הם refers to the previous census when the Levites were counted from the age of one month and up. On that occasion the order in which they were counted began with the Gershonites (3,18) seeing that Gershon was the eldest of the three. Now, when the count includes only men who had reached the age of 30 and could therefore begin to perform their allocated tasks, Kehat is counted first as he carried the most sacred furnishings of the Tabernacle, and they had been chosen to carry the holy vessels on their shoulders, as opposed to items of lesser sanctity which were transported by the wagons. The Torah therefore had to write the words גם הם, “they too,” to make plain that these Gershonites were also to be counted from the age of 30 and up at this junction.
      In connection with both Gershon and Merari, the Torah uses the expression כל הבא, whereas in connection with the Kehatites the Torah speaks of כל בא (compare 4,3) The meaning of the letter ה is that these Levites came of their own volition, did not wait to be assigned their tasks. This was natural, seeing that they had to take part in the dismantling of the Tabernacle. At that stage there was nothing as yet for the Kehatites to do. They had to await Moses’ call to indicate that the time had come to wrap up the Holy Ark, etc.
      In connection with both the Gershonites and the Merarites, the Torah speaks of לעבוד עבודה, “to perform heavy labour,” whereas in connection with the Kehatites the Torah speaks of לעשות מלאכה, “to carry out the work.” The duties performed by both the Gershonites and the Merarites involved strenuous physical labour. The Kehatites’ duties were easier to perform.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ומכסה התחש אשר עליו, “and the covering of <i>Tachash</i> hide which was over it, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that the verse abbreviated the description, omitting reference to the covering consisting of the ram’s hides dyed red, which also covered the Tabernacle. (Compare Exodus 36,19) Some commentators believe that both of these coverings were glued to one another so that they formed one cover.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   על פי אהרן ובניו תהיה כל עבודת בני הגרשוני, “all the work of the Gershonides is to be performed according to the instructions of Aaron and his sons.” <i>Rashi</i> writes that Ittamar was the son of Aaron who was in overall charge of all these activities. [<i>Rashi</i>, based on <i>Midrash Rabbah</i> explains that there is no contradiction with the verse following, which names Ittamar, exclusively, as the executive supervisor. Ed.]
      Nachmanides disagrees with <i>Rashi</i>, saying that if it were so why would Aaron and his other son be referred to in our verse at all? He therefore explains the words in our verse to mean that Aaron and sons appointed different members of Gershon and Merari to be responsible for specific functions, say the loading of the beams on to the wagons, etc., Ittamar was supervisor of all of the Merari’s activities, whereas Aaron and Eleazar supervised the activities of the Kehatites and Gershonites.
  
     ופקדתם עליהם במשמרת, “you are to appoint their entire burden as their charge.” From these words we learn that Moses was present at the time when Aaron and sons made these various appointments. However, once these appointments had been ratified by Moses, Ittamar was the supervisor on site, the one to whom any queries would be directed if doubts about anything arose. His task was in particular to ensure that all of the many items that had been moved from the Tabernacle would be replaced in good order as soon as the people made camp.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ועמודי החצר סביב ואדניהם ויתידותם ומיתריהם, “and the pillars of the Courtyard all around and their sockets, their pegs and their ropes, etc.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the sockets and pegs mentioned in our verse were needed to support the pillars mentioned in our verse.
      Nachmanides, commenting on this, writes that he does not know how these pegs could have been of any use to the pillars. Moreover, Nachmanides could not see in what sense the pegs of the pillars would have been different from those of the קלעים, the curtains of the courtyard that were transported by the Gershonites. He arrives at the conclusion therefore that the pegs and their ropes mentioned must have been the ones used to hold down the curtains covering the Tabernacle as a roof, and that these were the ones looked after by the Gershonites, whereas the ones pertaining to the pillars of the courtyard and their ropes were the ones looked after by the Merarites.
  
     ובשמות תפקדו את כלי משמרת משאם, “you shall appoint the people keeping watch over these various utensils by name.” In other words, every person in charge of carrying a single beam, etc., would be assigned to “beam # such and such.” What the Torah mentions here in connection with the Merarites applied in equal measure to Gershonites and the Kehatites. You should not think that seeing the Merarites carried heavy burdens there might have been some who tried to shirk their duty.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
   ופקודיו אשר צוה ה' את משה, “and his count coincided with what <i>Hashem</i> had commanded to Moses<i>.” Rashi</i> writes that all those mentioned by name were between 30 and 50 years of age.
      Nachmanides writes that if that had been so the subject of the word ופקודיו would have to be Moses.
      Ibn Ezra explains that the words איש איש, refer to Gershon, Kehat, and Merari, respectively, whom Moses had each appointed individually to specific tasks as we have explained earlier. This would be the meaning of the word ופקודיו, i.e. “the tasks to which each person had been appointed.” It is possible to understand the word אשר as part of the plain meaning, i.e. that Moses had assigned to each of the three brothers Gershon, Kehat, and Merari, his specific service, or task respectively. Each of these brothers in turn carried out his designated task in accordance with what G’d had instructed Moses to convey to them. This involved appointing many individuals to many individual tasks.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  וישלחו מן המחנה , “they are to expel from the camp, etc.” After the Torah had organized the encampment of the Israelites around the Tabernacle, the instructions are now issued to remove people afflicted with varying degrees of ritual impurity from the camp in order to prevent the entire camp from becoming infected with ritual impurity which would drive away the <i>Shechinah</i> which rested above the encampment. Not only the ritually impure but also the mixed multitude that had joined the Jewish people at the Exodus were separated from the camp seeing that the latter did not belong to any of the twelve tribes.
      Seeing that the Torah had already touched on specific rules applicable to converts such as the mixed multitude who could not be part of the regular encampment due to their legal status, it also appends here the laws pertaining to proselytes who died without leaving behind legal heirs, and the kind of guilt offering someone had to bring if he had wronged a convert by stealing from him and the convert had died before restitution had been made. (Verses 6-8)
  
     כל צרוע וכל זב וכל טמא לנפש, “anyone who is afflicted with the skin disease known as <i>tzoraat,</i> or experiences a seminal emission defined as <i>zav</i>, or who is impure due to some kind of direct or indirect contact with the body of a deceased human being.” The three categories of ritual impurity listed here are capable to contaminating others, whereas a person experiencing a normal seminal emission while personally ritually impure does not confer his impurity on others. Hence he does not need to leave any of the tree camps constituting the encampment of the Israelites in the desert.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   איש או אשה, “man or woman, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah mentions a woman here, although it is not usual for women to rob proselytes, is that we might have thought that if a woman had been guilty of this crime she would not have to do more than make restitution without adding the fifth mentioned here as a penalty; to make sure we do not err in this matter the Torah made sure that we understand that man and woman are subject to the same rules. [Nachmanides presumably is bothered that the Torah did not simply write אדם that would have included man and woman. Ed.]
  
     למעול מעל, “by committing treachery.” The Torah means that the guilty party not only stole, but swore an oath in the name of <i>Hashem</i> denying that he had done so. Seeing that the basic sin had already been discussed (Leviticus 5,15) and the only thing different here is the status of the victim, the Torah was very brief here. It goes on to mention: 
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   וכל תרומה לכל קדשי בני ישראל, “and every portion from any of the holies that the Children of Israel bring, etc.” The point of the verse is to inform us that the portions spoken of by the Torah are henceforth the private property of the priest who had received them, and anyone stealing it from them is treated as having robbed the priest. 
      Alternately, the meaning of our verse is that at this point the Torah completes previous legislation about the rights and duties of the priests, seeing it had not yet discussed certain aspects except obliquely with words such as מלאתך, and דמעך (Exodus 22,28). Not only that, but mention of the tithes at the end of the Book of Leviticus 27,30 does not include the תרומה to be given to the priests at all. Therefore the Torah complements the legislation at this stage by speaking both about תרומה and other holy gifts of even higher degrees of sanctity, i.e. קדשי בני ישראל. Both revert to the priests to whom they have been allocated, and become their personal property.
      The מנחת סוטה, meal offering to be presented by the woman accused of but not proven guilty of marital infidelity, is not mentioned in Leviticus at all, seeing that it is a meal offering resulting from a husband’s jealousy, not a free will offering like other meal offerings. This offering does not contribute to the atonement of that woman at all. (Verse 15-17) At this point the legislation governing meal-offerings is completed.
      Similarly, the Torah uses this opportunity to fill us in about the offerings a <i>Nazir</i> has to bring at the end of the term he vowed to abstain from ritual impurity and any grape-related products. After the Tabernacle had been erected and laws about maintaining ritual purity had been introduced, the <i>Nazir</i> legislation also became something of an actual rather than something theoretical. During the term of abstinence the <i>Nazirites</i> used to throng around the entrance of the Tabernacle, hoping to be useful in its service in some manner. Moreover, the Torah thought it appropriate to deal with the subject of the <i>Nazirite</i> at this juncture as a female <i>Nazirite</i> serves as the model for the exact opposite of the <i>Sotah,</i> the wife who by her conduct aroused the suspicion in the mind of her husband that she had indulged in marital infidelity.
  
     וכל תרומה לכל קדשי בני ישראל, “and any portion from all the holies that the Children of Israel bring.” Nachmanides writes that the plain meaning of the verse is as if the Torah had written that seeing that there is no official minimum amount for such a gift set by the Torah [as opposed to the tithes. Ed.], the word כל may be understood as “any.” Such a gift is not one that may be demanded by the Levites or priests, but until it is offered as a totally voluntary offering the priest has no claim on it whatsoever.
      In the <i>Sifrey</i> our verse is interpreted as speaking of the <i>bikkurim,</i> the respective first fruit of each of his crops the farmer brings to Jerusalem, seeing that offering is on occasion referred to as תרומה. The words יקריבו אותה are also understood as the owner having the choice to which priest he wants to give these gifts.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו, “A man’s holies shall be his.” Nachmanides writes that the proper understanding of these somewhat enigmatic words is that all the holies someone has consecrated that were not obligatory are his to dispose of. The reason that the Torah had to write this was that we might have thought that as soon as something is described as קודש לה', “holy unto <i>Hashem,</i> it might have become the property of the Temple treasury or the priests administering same. Examples of this legislation are the second tithe, which the owners and his family consume in Jerusalem, or produce of a new orchard in the fourth year after it has been planted, known as נטע רבעי, which the owner may also consume in Jerusalem. Even the holies that have been given by the donor to the priest become the priest’s in the sense that anyone stealing them from the priest is not dealt with as if he had stolen from the Temple treasury, but is considered as having stolen the priest’s private property. Thus even other priests are not able to steal fro their colleagues claiming that it is all property of the Temple treasury.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   לא יצוק עליו שמן, “he shall not pour oil over it.” This is to prevent this offering from becoming something “enhanced” as luxury. Nachmanides adds that this is in line with the opinion of the commentators who consider this offering in the nature of a penalty, [although the woman’s status has not yet been determined. Ed.] Proof, according to these commentators, is the fact that the kind of cereal, i.e. barley, basically animal fodder, which is stipulated here is to remind us of the low rank in terms of their spiritual level, of the person offering this meal offering. [Note that although the husband tenders this offering, the Torah describes it as “her offering.” Ed.] By not having oil added to make it tasty, and being prepared from inferior type of cereal, the Torah makes the point that it is not too welcome, according to these commentators.
      Nachmanides, adds however, that in his own opinion, the expression מנחת קנאות, “a meal-offering of jealousies” refers to the beginning of the verse to remind us that the woman at this stage is presumed guilty, and it would not be appropriate for a guilty person such as she to possess the effrontery to approach G’d with a meal offering from her own funds. The husband offers the meal offering as kind of a mute appeal to <i>Hashem</i> to show that he had not falsely accused his wife, and was entitled to have been jealous of her as a result of her behaviour.
      The reason why this meal-offering consists basically of barley, i.e שעורים is a play on words, the conduct of that woman regardless of whether she actually committed infidelity, being one that is “hair-raising,” in the sense of שערת השם, provoking G’d’s anger. Seeing that the letter ש with the dot on the left side sounds like the letter ס, her conduct sets of a “storm,” סער of outrage in heaven. The author quotes Jeremiah 23,19 וסער מתחולל על ראש רשעים יחול, “a whirling storm shall whirl down upon the heads of the wicked,” to make his point. He also quotes Judges 7,13 where the צליל שעורים, the loaf of barley bread, in the dream of the Midianite soldier foreshadowed the defeat of his people at the hands of the Israelites. [Additional quotes are provided on the subject. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   וביד הכהן יהיו מי המרים המאררים, “and the bitter waters shall be in the hand of the priest.” Nachmanides writes that numerous commentators describe these waters as bitter, מים מרים, as the Torah supposedly names these water so in light of the ultimate tragic results that are likely to occur after they have been drunk by the <i>Sotah.</i> The Talmud in <i>Sotah</i> 20 however, says that the priest adds something to this water that ensures that it will taste bitter. The purpose is to awaken the woman to her endangering herself by toying with her future by denying her guilt and ignoring the fact that G’d Himself will bring it to light. This would explain the line in verse 22 that describes graphically that the waters in question will have the power of bringing a curse upon those who drink it while guilty.
      As to the plain meaning of the text, Nachmanides continues, he believes that as soon as the woman in question drinks these waters they will prove to taste sweet to her just as ordinary drinking water. If she was guilty however, once these waters have entered her entrails, they will display the devastating effect described in our paragraph. She may even disgorge these waters, after their having turned bitter. The expression מאררים refers to the effect that these waters have upon the guilty woman drinking them, i.e. they act as a curse.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   אם לא שכב איש אותך ואם לא שטית טומאה תחת אישך, “if a man has not lain with you, and you have not strayed in defilement with someone other than your husband, etc.” Nachmanides writes that we are dealing here with what at first glance appear to be two conditions, whereas in reality they are one and the same condition. How so? 1) You did not have sexual relations with someone other than your husband. 2) In a manner that would make you defiled <i>vis</i> a <i>vis</i> your husband. The reason we have to explain the verse in this manner is that if it were not so, the word איש in the first part of the verse would include her husband, so that she could not possibly swear that she had never had sexual relations with her husband. The words:לא שטית טומאה תחת אישך, therefore must mean that by drinking these waters she swears that while married to her husband, i.e. תחת אישך, she had never done anything as a result of which she would have become defiled for her husband.
      It is possible that the fact that the word איש which lacks the prefix ה describing which man it refers to, is intended to mean that the woman is asked to swear that she had not lain with the man of whom she has been suspected and accused of having lain with. In that event, we would deal with two separate conditions, the first one speaking of a specific sexual misdemeanour with a specific person, whereas the second one broadens the area of her oath to include any other hitherto unsuspected sexual involvement that would make her defiled for her husband.
      Ibn Ezra explains the first condition as involving rape, sexual relations by her with another man against her will, whereas the second condition would speak of a sexual relationship with another man in which she had been a willing participant.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ואת כי שטית, “but you who have strayed, etc.” According to Nachmanides the words above relate to the words יתן ה' אותך לאלה וגו', “may <i>Hashem</i> render you as a curse, etc.” in verse 21, so that we may understand the sequence as follows: “may you who have strayed and lain with someone other than your husband become a curse, etc.” The reason why the Torah repeated the introductory words והשביע הכן once more in verse 21 is not that the priest adjures the woman a second time, but seeing that so many words had intervened since the words above in verse 10, the reader might have lost track of the proper meaning.
      Ibn Ezra explains that the first time we encounter the words והשביע הכהן the priest adjures her in the name of <i>Hashem,</i> but not spelling out the nature of the curse, whereas the second time in verse 21 he adjures her on pain of a curse spelling out precisely what would happen to her. This, according to Nachmanides, cannot be right, as an oath in the name of the Tetragram cannot possibly be linked to a conditional word such as אם. This would be tantamount to using the name of the Lord in vain.
      Our author draws attention to another anomaly in these verses, In verse 19, where the priest allows for the possibility that the woman is in fact not guilty of what she has been accused of, the possibility that she might have defiled herself is mentioned only after the possibility that she is innocent, and the words תחת אישך appear at the end of that phrase, whereas in verse 20 the words תחת אישך, “other than your husband,” appear before the priest spelled out that she had thereby defiled herself. Also, while in verse 19 where the possibility of the woman being innocent of the accusations leveled against her is mentioned first, the priest speaks to her directly, i.e. “you have done, you will be found pure, etc.,” in verse 21, where she is presumed guilty, priest phrases her sin in such a manner that even coitus interruptus would make her liable to the same punishment as if the act had been completed. This is implied in the words ויתן איש בך את שכבתו, “another man has lain with you,” (verse 20). The words יתן ה' are spoken by the priest when he turns his face away from her already, signaling his disgust. This is why the Torah did not add the words אל האשה, i.e. “to the woman directly.”
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   וכתב את האלות האלה הכהן בספר, “The priest shall inscribe these curses on a scroll, etc.” The Jerusalem Talmud (<i>Sotah</i> chapter 2) explains the reason for these various elements in the procedure. מים, water, represents the origin of life, return to one’s origin. עפר, dust represents man’s ultimate destination. כתב, the scroll, symbolizes that all man’s actions are being recorded in anticipation of his giving an account of himself after his soul has departed from him.
      Nachmanides writes that it is remarkable that this is the only legislation in the Torah that relies on Divine intervention to establish a truth we were not able to establish on our own. This was a נס קבוע, a predictable miracle available for the rare instances described in our chapter. This legislation, i.e. its application, was predicated on the fact that the vast majority of the Jewish people would be Torah observant, so that the case of a woman being suspected of infidelity was an exception. As soon as the moral standards of the Jewish people deteriorated so that marital infidelity became more frequent, Divine intervention of this nature came to an abrupt halt. While marital infidelity had been a rare exception this very Divine intervention to determine if the accusation was true was liable to act as a deterrent to straying wives. As soon as the mores of the people changed, such an intervention would no longer have been a deterrent, on the contrary G’d’s effort to restore harmony between man and his wife would have been wasted. The prophet Hoseah 4,14 speaks about this when he says: לא אפקוד על בנותיכם כי תזנינה ועל כלותיכם כי תנאפנה כי הם עם זונות יפרדו ועם הקדשות יזבחו, “I will not punish your daughters for fornicating, nor your daughters-in-law for committing adultery; for they (the husbands or fathers) themselves turn aside with whores and sacrifice with the prostitutes.” The meaning of Hoseah’s statement is not that those guilty of such sins will escape retribution seeing that their husbands are not better than they are, but it means that their husbands cannot invoke the legislation discussed in our chapter seeing that they themselves are no better. The waters described in our paragraph are effective only if the jealous husband is himself free from any extra marital indiscretion.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   According to the opinion of the sages of the <i>Midrash, t</i>he legislation dealing with the Nazirite follows hard on the heels of that dealing with the <i>Sotah,</i> the woman suspected of marital infidelity, as what may have inspired the Nazirite to impose the vows upon himself he is described here as doing is that he had seen the disgrace which the <i>Sotah</i> had brought upon herself by giving in to her temptations. The <i>Nazir,</i> ideally speaking, uses his vows to reinforce his determination not to fall victim to excess consumption of alcohol, etc. We learn from Hoseah 4,11 that זנות, יין, ותירוש יקח לב, “lechery, wine, and even new wine destroy the mind.” Allowing the hair on one’s head to keep growing without restraint is a conduct diametrically opposed to the people, mostly young men, who style their hair excessively, something that Joseph was considered guilty of as the commentators say on the beginning of <i>parshat vayeshev.</i> Our sages have always objected to people who are overly concerned with their exterior. Extreme growth of one’s hair leads a person to worry that he may not contract ritual impurity; such a concern in turn leads one to strive for holiness. In practice, the <i>Nazir</i> voluntarily imposes upon himself a mode of conduct that every priest is duty bound to observe from his earliest youth.
      This brings us to the question of why the Torah demands that at the end of his term of such abstention the <i>Nazir</i> has to bring a sin-offering, חטאת; surely we would have expected the very opposite, that the Torah would compliment him on his vow! Nachmanides draws attention to the fact that the Torah does not offer an explanation for this. 
      According to the plain meaning the reason appears to be clear. The person who had assumed the vow of being a <i>Nazir</i> would indeed have been lauded if he had not placed a time limit on his spiritual elevation. The fact that he is content to voluntarily lower his spiritual <i>niveau</i> is something that must be criticized. The sin offering is the vehicle by means of which the Torah calls such a <i>Nazir</i> to order. We know from Amos 2,11 ואקח מבניכם לנביאים ומבחוריכם לנזירים, “I will choose from amongst your sons some as prophets, and from amongst your young men some as Nazirites,” that the prophet equates the prophets with the Nazirites. Just as the former is appointed for lifetime, so it is expected that the Nazirite will maintain his status indefinitely. Seeing that the Torah wrote of the <i>Nazir</i>: כל ימי נזרו קדוש הוא לה', that he will remain holy only as long as he is a <i>Nazir</i>, it is clear that he requires atonement for voluntarily abandoning his lofty status. 
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   כי יפליא, If someone clearly utters, etc.” He either separates himself from the community or he does something mysteriously different, seeing that most people follow the inclinations of their greedy hearts.
  
     נדר נזזיר, “a vow of abstinence.” Generally this is a vow to abstain from wine, alcoholic drink. Some commentators relate the words נזר to ”crown,” i.e. the Nazirite adorned himself with a spiritual crown. He placed G’d’s “crown” on his head, so to speak.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   זאת תורת הנזיר, “this is the law with respect to the Nazirite.” Concerning the offering the <i>Nazir</i> has to bring at the end of the term of his vow of abstinence, Nachmanides writes that the unusual words קרבנו אשר ידור לה', ”his offering that he is to vow to <i>Hashem,</i>“ may mean that he must not have any additional thoughts in mind when bringing the prescribed offering, and the word זאת in the above verse may draw our attention to the fact that the relative value of the offering is not determined by his financial ability, as it is in the case of many sinners where the Torah settles for even a meal-offering when the party obliged to bring the offering is in financial difficulties, but is a fixed standard, involving three mammals and a meal-offering. He may even be expected but not be obligated to add another animal or two corresponding to his ability.
      It is also possible to explain our verse as saying that if at that time the <i>Nazirite</i> simply says: “this is my offering for my vow,” this is sufficient, seeing that as soon as he had made the vow to become a Nazirite he had been aware that at the end of the term he would have to bring the offerings in question.
  
     מלבד אשר תשיג ידו, “apart from what he personally is able to afford.” This is an encouragement to the wealthy Nazirite not to be content merely with the offerings specified in the Torah.
  
     על תורת נזרו, “in addition to the law governing his abstinence.” Here the Torah spells out once more that whereas it is commendable for the Nazirite at the end of his vow to voluntarily add more offerings, it is forbidden to present less than the offerings stipulated in our text. It may also mean that if this Nazirite had vowed at the beginning of his period of abstinence that he would offer X number of sacrifices at the conclusion of his term, then all these sacrifices fall due on the day his period of abstinence comes to an end. He would therefore not be allowed to drink wine until he had offered all these sacrifices. The above coincides largely with <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   כה תברכו, “Thus shall you bless, etc.” The fact that the Torah wrote the details of the priests’ blessing to the Jewish people immediately after the passage dealing with the Nazirite is to be understood as an oblique reminder that the priests are not to bless the people while they are intoxicated, i.e. after having drunk even a single glass of wine. The paragraph following this short passage deals with the erection of the Tabernacle, seeing that was the first occasion when the priests were commanded to publicly bless the people. They were commanded as of now to always perform this duty, and when the blessing was pronounced on the holy grounds of the Tabernacle/Temple they would invoke the Ineffable Holy Name of <i>Hashem</i> while doing so. When the priests bless the people outside the Temple they may not use that name. When performing the blessing in the Temple, they would recite it as a single blessing, i.e. as if it was all a single verse, whereas when doing so outside the Temple the blessing would be divided into three verses although the total number of words would be the same and identical. The blessing when pronounced inside the Sanctuary is directed exclusively at the Holy Name of <i>Hashem.</i> [there is no one around to answer “Amen” in the Sanctuary. Ed.]
  
     אמור להם, “saying to them.” The reason why the word אמור is uncharacteristically spelled with the letter ו is that the priests actually bestow six blessings in these verses, i.e. יברכך, ישמרך, יאר ה פניו, יחונך, ישא ה' פניו, ישם לך שלום.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהי ביום כלות משה, “It was on the day that Moses completed, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the meaning of the word כלות, completing, as opposed to הקים erecting, is to tell us that on the first day when the Tabernacle was put up to become functional, i.e. on the seventh day of the מילואים, the consecration rites, Moses did not dismantle the Tabernacle as he had done on the previous days. Whereas G’d had spoken to Moses on the first of those seven days from inside the Tabernacle and He communicated to him all the chapters of the Torah beginning with the first chapter of Leviticus. He issued all the laws about the sacrifices, both animal and meal offerings. On the eighth day of the consecration rites, i.e. after their conclusion, G’d communicated to Moses the legislation about what may and may not be eaten (Leviticus chapter 11) All these laws contain some aspects of the legislation pertaining to sacrificial offerings, the maintenance of the Tabernacle, and the service to be performed in it by the priests. Having dealt with these aspects, the Torah proceeds to describe the donations of the people and the princes that enabled the Tabernacle to have been erected. The donations of the princes were brought between the 8th and the 19th day of <i>Nissan.</i>
  
     ואת המזבח ואת כל כליו, “and the altar and all its appurtenances.” Conceptually, these words belong to the beginning of our verse, i.e. להקים, Moses did not only erect the Tabernacle on that day but also the altar etc., as he had been doing for the previous seven days. He also performed the anointing, etc. all on that day.
  
     וימשחם ויקדש אותם, “He anointed them and sanctified them.” Nachmanides, quoting Ibn Ezra writes that the anointing was done with the special oil for anointing described in Exodus chapter 30, whereas the “sanctification” was accomplished by taking the blood from the sin offering as we read in Leviticus 8,15ויחטא את המזבח ואת הדם יצק אל יסוד המזבח ויחטאהו לכפר עליו, “he purified the Altar; he poured the remaining blood upon the base of the Altar and he sanctified it to provide atonement for it.” Nachmanides disagrees with Ibn Ezra, basing himself on similar language used by the Torah when describing the sanctification of the Tabernacle, and at that sanctification there certainly was no blood involved. (Compare our verse above)
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויביאו את קרבנם, “they brought their offering, etc.” Nachmanides, in justifying the Torah’s referring to the wagons presented by the princes as קרבן, a sacrificial offering, writes that seeing that these wagons were an indispensable part of the entire process known as service involving sacrificial offerings, claims that their description is קרבן are quite correct. He cites as proof for his approach Numbers 31,50 ונקרב את קרבן ה' איש אשר מצא כלי זהב וגו', “we have brought an offering each man who has found golden vessels [in the loot of the war against the Midianites. Ed.] There too the term קרבן, is applied to man-made items. The gold in question was brought as a gift to the Temple treasury.
      It appears that what motivated the princes to bring the wagons was that they could not imagine that the Levites would be able to carry all these heavy beams on their shoulders, nor that they would be able to carry the heavy silver sockets of each of those beams. They therefore brought these wagons without their having been requested. It was customary in those days that Royalty and similarly highly placed individuals would transport their belongings on wagons.
      It is also possible to interpret the words ויביאו את קרבנם לפני ה' שש עגלות צב וגו', to mean that the six wagons transported the sacrificial offerings of the princes, whereas the 12 oxen transported the wagons. The oxen and wagons came to a halt before the entrance of the Tabernacle, and then G’d commanded Moses to also accept the oxen and the wagons from them as gifts for the Temple treasury. As a result, both the oxen and the wagons now became לעבוד את עבודת המשכן “tools to perform the service connected with the work connected with the Tabernacle.” Subsequently, the princes took their respective sacrificial offerings and presented them in front of the Altar. They had meant originally to all present all their offerings on that very day. At this point in time, G’d told Moses that they were to present these offerings one prince at a time, one day at a time. This is why there was no need for the Torah to write קח מאתם, “accept it from them,” in connection with the princes’ respective sacrificial offerings. Why would Moses not accept these offerings until G’d had given him specific instructions to accept them? What they had been doing was no more than commonplace; however, in connection with the oxen [too old for the Altar as animal sacrifices, Ed.] as well as for the wagons Moses did have to have special instructions to accept these also. It is a norm in our holy tongue to describe even what is being transported on the wagons as being a part of the wagons, similar to when the prophet in Kings I 18,19 speaks of אוכלי שולחן איזבל, which, of course does not mean that “people were eating Izzevel’s table,” but that “people were eating food at Izzevel’s table.”
      It is possible that the meaning of the word צב in our context is: “loaded with,” as in Isaiah 66,20 where these “covered wagons“ are understood as being loaded with many travelers each. In that case the Torah describes the six wagons as fully loaded with the various sacrificial offerings of the princes.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   נחשון בן עמינדב למטה יהודה, “Nachshon, son of Aminadav, of the tribe of Yehudah.” It is noteworthy that the title of these princes, i.e. נשיא, is mentioned with all of them except with the prince of Yehudah. This was a lesson to the other princes to be humble and not to introduce themselves with their title when asked who they were. A classic example is when Yehudah begs Joseph to accept him as a slave instead of his brother Binyamin, and he says ישב נא עבדך תחת הנער עבד לאדוני, “let your servant take the place of the lad as your servant, my lord.” (Genesis 44,33) We find similarly that David is described as דוד הקטן Samuel I 17,14, [although as opposed to his older brothers he had already been the king’s court musician. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   וקרבנו, “and his offering, etc.” At this point the Torah wrote an apparently superfluous letter ו at the beginning of the word וקרבנו, seeing Nachshon was the first one of the princes to offer his קרבן, so that a prefix connecting it to something previous appears totally uncalled for. Similarly, we find an uncharacteristic letter ו in the word עתודים, rams, in verse 17. [On the other 13 occasions when that word occurs in the Torah it is always spelled defective, i.e. without the letter ו. Ed.] The reason for these exceptions is to draw our attention to 6=ו new developments which occurred on that day. 1) It was the first day on which priests performed their functions. 2) It was the first day that the priests began the daily routine of blessing the people. 3) It was the first day on which the publicly financed sacrificial offerings in the Tabernacle were presented on the Altar. 4) It was the first day of the first month of the year. 5) It was the first anniversary of the calendar reform introduced in honour of the Exodus from Egypt. 6) On that day the first red heifer was burned and its ashes preserved to enable the Israelites to purify themselves.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the meaning of the additional letter ו at the beginning of the word וקרבנו is grammatically completely justified in view of the Torah having written previously in verse 12 that Nachshon was the first of the princes to offer this particular offering. The Torah continues therefore by listing the details of his offering.
      Of the princes who offered the parallel offering on the second day, (verse 18) the Torah writes: הקריב קרבנו, although at first glance these words appear superfluous, because so much verbiage had been written since verse 12. We have similar examples of such apparently superfluous verbiage when the Torah writes (Genesis 22,7) ויאמר יצחק אל אברהם אביו ויאמר אבי!, “Yitzchok said to his father Avraham, saying: “My father!” You will note that the Torah does not bother to write the word הקריב, ”he presented the offering,” in connection with any of the other 10 princes. This was in order to be as brief as possible without becoming misleading.
  
     סלת בלולה בשמן למנחה, “filled with fine flour, mixed with oil, as a meal-offering.” Nachmanides writes that the princes consecrated the Altar with all the different kinds of offerings that would be offered on it in the future; this was the reason why they also offered meal-offerings on this occasion. Seeing that neither the incense offering nor the sin offering were of the categories that qualified for free-willed offerings, special dispensation had been required to enable them to present these offerings. Seeing that the guilt offering, אשם and the sin offering, חטאת are in respect of inadvertent transgressions, they are basically the same kind of offering so that the guilt-offering is not mentioned separately.
      It is possible that what is legislated here is a מצוה לדורות, not just a one time legislation, but whenever a Temple and an Altar would be inaugurated, the same procedures would apply, and that would explain why when Solomon consecrated his Temple he performed rites called חנוכת הבית, as did the men of the great Assembly when the second Temple was consecrated. (Compare Chronicles II 7,5 and Ezra 6,15) In all these instances the people initiating these rituals had divine inspiration and G’d subsequently anchored what they had done in the Holy Scriptures, eternalizing it..
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
  
  
  Verse 56
  
  
  
  Verse 57
  
  
  
  Verse 58
  
  
  
  Verse 59
  
  
  
  Verse 60
  
  
  
  Verse 61
  
  
  
  Verse 62
  
  
  
  Verse 63
  
  
  
  Verse 64
  
  
  
  Verse 65
  
  
  
  Verse 66
  
  
  
  Verse 67
  
  
  
  Verse 68
  
  
  
  Verse 69
  
  
  
  Verse 70
  
  
  
  Verse 71
  
  
  
  Verse 72
  
  
  
  Verse 73
  
  
  
  Verse 74
  
  
  
  Verse 75
  
  
  
  Verse 76
  
  
  
  Verse 77
  
  
  
  Verse 78
  
  
  
  Verse 79
  
  
  
  Verse 80
  
  
  
  Verse 81
  
  
  
  Verse 82
  
  
  
  Verse 83
  
  
  
  Verse 84
  
   זאת חנוכת המזבח, “this was the consecration of the Altar, etc.” In this instance the Torah had first familiarized us with all the details of the ritual, and then proceeded to summarize it once more. <i>Rashi</i> says that the reason why the Torah summarized all this once more was to teach us that the weights described here were so accurate that when each bowl or basin had been weighed individually, and when subsequently they were weighed collectively, the total corresponded precisely to the multiple we were led to believe. 
      Nachmanides writes that he did not understand what <i>Rashi</i> had in mind when he wrote these lines, quoting Rabbi Moshe <i>Hadarshan.</i> What possible advantage could we gain from having this information? If he considered the fact that the weights correspond to one another as so remarkable that this was considered a miracle, what purpose would this miracle serve? G’d does not work miracles unless they were needed. If it was something natural, why did this fact deserve special mention? <i>Rashi</i>, i.e. Rabbi Moshe<i> hadarshan,</i> wanted us to learn that ordinary vessels are not judged by the same standards as holy vessels, vessels used in the Temple. When ordinary vessels are weighed you will find that their weight varies slightly each time they are being weighed. When holy vessels are weighed they weigh precisely the same each time they are put on the scales.
      Rabbi Nathan described an experiment performed with the vessels used in the Temple. (Second Temple) according to which the vessels were not only melted down, but coins were minted from them. Subsequently, the coins were melted down and reconverted into the original vessels. It was found that there had been no loss of the original weight at all. All of this proves that already originally the gold used in those vessels was of the most refined kind, so much so that it contained no dross that would be burnt off during the repeated processes of melting those vessels down. Nachmanides concludes that the lesson to be learned from all this is that G’d honours those who fear Him. The princes brought all their various offerings on the same day, a day that all of them had agreed upon previously, so that it would become unavoidable that one of them would get his turn before his colleague when they lined up. Each prince would be given his flag in recognition of his offering. The order of the days in which the offerings were accepted on the altar corresponded to when the prince in question had received his flag. It was important to G’d (the Torah) that each prince and his offering would be named individually, as this was part of the honour paid to them by G’d. This is why the Torah did not write simply: “on the first day Nachshon brought the following offering, and he was followed by 11 other princes presenting duplicates of Nachshon’s offering”, although the Torah would have saved about 75 verses if it had done so. The reason for summarizing the offerings once more was to convey that the second prince had not needed to be inspired by his predecessor, etc., but that all had presented themselves at the entrance of the Tabernacle already on the first of <i>Nissan,</i> the first day when such offerings could be brought.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   בהעלותך את הנרות, “when you kindle the lights, etc.” The day on which the Tabernacle was erected was comparable to the day on which the universe was created. This is why just as the report of the creation of the universe began with G’d commanding that there be light, the Torah here begins with detailing how Aaron should kindle the lights of the <i>menorah.</i>
      The reason why the paragraph dealing with kindling the <i>menorah</i> was placed immediately after the paragraph describing the gifts of the princes on the occasion of the consecration of the Tabernacle, is, as <i>Rashi</i> has pointed out already, that Aaron had been upset that he had apparently not been given a role in those rituals. In order to set his mind at rest, G’d told him that He had reserved a more important role for him even than that of the princes, i.e. the kindling of the <i>menorah.</i>
      Nachmanides questions <i>Rashi’s</i> comments, asking why G’d consoled Aaron with the kindling of the lights, when He could so easily have pointed out to him that since he had been chosen for presenting the most welcome of the offerings, the incense, surely he must have realized that he had not been overlooked? There is a long list of sacrifices that is acceptable to <i>Hashem</i> only if offered by Aaron, or the High Priests after him, respectively, so that his mental depression seems totally unjustified?
      We must therefore try and understand the allegorical explanation quoted by <i>Rashi</i> in the name of the<i> Midrash Tanchumah</i> as referring to the Hasmoneans in the distant future, Aaron’s descendants, consecrating the entire Temple anew by lighting the <i>menorah</i> with oil that had been miraculously blessed by <i>Hashem</i> so that it burned for longer than could be expected (8 days instead of one day). Whereas on this occasion the inaugural rites were performed by members of the other tribes, not including the kindling of the lights, on that occasion, in the distant future, the kindling of the lights would become the central feature in the whole rededication of the Temple to the service of <i>Hashem.</i> Moreover, the consecration of the Temple in the days of the Hasmoneans was a more significant event than the consecration of the Altar, seeing that the Altar can only perform its function [the burning of animal sacrifices, etc. Ed.] as long as there is a Temple, whereas the consecration of the Temple by the Hasmonean priests was something of an enduring nature, seeing that we commemorate that event [the annual eight day celebration of Chanukkah and the kindling of the lights every evening. Ed.] still nowadays long after the Temple has been destroyed and there is no longer an Altar on which to offer animal sacrifices. It is clear therefore that the consecration of the Tabernacle was of a subordinate significance when measured against the millennia of Jewish history.
      Ibn Ezra states that the reason why the Torah attached our paragraph to that of the princes’ offerings is to teach that G’d communicated with Moses also at night, seeing that at least one light of the <i>menorah</i> would be burning around the clock. Nachmanides claims that Ibn Ezra’s comments do not conform to the opinion of our sages who claim that G’d communicated with Moses only during the day. [Rabbi Ch. Chavell, in his notes on Nachmanides’ commentary, points out that Abravanel has already justified Ibn Ezra’s commentary, and that what the sages meant was only that Moses did not receive communications from G’d at night, i.e. in a dream, such as other prophets. Ed.]
      Nachmanides adds that the sequence of the subject matters in our portion is justified, seeing that with these details about the kindling of the <i>menorah</i> the whole legislation pertaining to the offerings in the Tabernacle is concluded. The subject of the <i>menorah</i> and its function had commenced originally in Exodus 27,20 with the words: ואתה תצוה את בני ישראל ויקחו אליך שמן זית זך כתית למאור להעלות נר תמיד, “you are to command the Children of Israel that they shall take for you pure, pressed olive oil for illumination, to kindle the light continuously.” In that verse the <i>menorah</i> had not even been mentioned. The impression left from that verse had been that the <i>menorah</i> be lit at all times as long as the <i>menorah</i> was itself in a usable condition. Should the <i>menorah</i> be stolen, become dysfunctional, etc., we would have assumed that the command to keep it lit would automatically have become redundant. This is why the Torah in Leviticus 24,4 elaborates על המנורה הטהורה יערוך את הנרות לפני ה' תמיד, that “Aaron shall arrange the lights on the ritually pure <i>menorah</i> before <i>Hashem</i>, continuously.” The condition that enables kindling the <i>menorah</i> is that it is in a state of ritual purity. Now, in our portion, when the Torah concludes with the subjects of the offerings, after the Tabernacle has been completed and become functional, the details of the seven lamps on the <i>menorah</i>, the décor on its arms, etc., are repeated once more. Even the fact that the lamp on the center shaft was more important than the three arms on either side of it is mentioned, seeing the lights on the arms were burning in the direction of the center shaft.
      The Tabernacle is not mentioned in our paragraph at all, as had it been mentioned we might have concluded that the need for the <i>menorah</i> existed only in the Tabernacle, a structure that was not equipped with windows. Solomon’s Temple, however, which had a number of windows, might not require artificial lighting during the daytime, at least. To avoid our arriving at such faulty reasoning the Torah skipped mention of the word “Tabernacle,” or its equivalent in our paragraph.
  
     בהעלותך את הנרות, “when you kindle the lamps, etc.” I am puzzled by the fact that here G’d apparently singled out Aaron for receiving these instructions, without including his sons at the same time. After all, any ordinary priest is entitled to perform the kindling of the lights on the <i>menorah</i>. When thinking about this it occurred to me that there is no problem seeing that the wording of what Moses was to tell Aaron was not a command at all. Aaron had not been told to light, i.e. תעלה, the lamps, but had been informed about the sequence in which the <i>menorah’s</i> lamps were to be lit. The same sequence would have to be followed by any priest who performed the ritual of kindling these lamps. It is possible that by addressing Aaron in the first instance, the Torah, alluded to the miracle of Chanukkah which occurred in the days of the Hasmoneans when they miraculously discovered a cruse of ritually pure oil, and a descendant of Aaron was able to proceed with the kindling of the <i>menorah</i> without having to wait a number of days until new oil would be prepared.
      Nachmanides writes that perhaps the words מחוץ לפרוכת יערוך אותו אהרן, “outside the dividing curtain Aaron is to arrange for the kindling of the lights” (Exodus 27,21), were an indication to Moses that his brother had been chosen for this task so that he understood the word ובניו which follows, as referring to after Aaron would have died, although subsequently not only the High Priest was allowed to perform this rite. This is also why the Torah reports in verse 3 that Aaron performed this rite, i.e. that as long as he was alive he would not delegate this task even to his sons.
  
     אל מול פני המנורה יאירו שבעת הנרות, “its seven lamps shall illuminate towards the center shaft of the <i>menorah.”</i> The commentators all ask that the wording is misleading, seeing that only 6 of the lamps can direct their light towards the center shaft. They answer that what is meant is that whereas the lamp on the center shaft illuminates the area perpendicularly above it, the other six lamps direct their light either to the left or to the right. Altogether there would be seven lamps.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   וזה מעשה המנורה, “and this was the workmanship of the <i>menorah:”</i> Ibn Ezra writes that the wording of the Torah here is to be understood as pointing to the unique workmanship with which this <i>menorah</i> had been made.
      Nachmanides writes that the words וזה מעשה המנורה מקשה are to be read together, meaning that the unique feature of the workmanship of this <i>menorah</i> was that it was cast completely out of a single chunk of gold and then hammered into the desired shape. This feature was to be preserved throughout the generations whenever for whatever reason the <i>menorah</i> in the Temple had to be replaced. The fact that only this feature, מקשה has been repeated here, whereas the decorative features on the arms of the <i>menorah</i> have not been repeated here indicates that the indispensable feature was the fact that the entire <i>menorah</i> was to consist of a single chunk of gold. [When the people could not afford gold, a chunk of silver would also be acceptable. Ed.] (based on <i>Sifrey</i>)
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   קח את הלוים, “take (aside) the Levites, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra the reason why this paragraph was written here is to teach us that whereas only Aaron would perform the kindling of the lights, there were many other functions connected with the Temple service in which the Levites could participate, thus lightening the burden of the priests. [My edition of the Ibn Ezra describes the Levites as having been scattered among all the tribes, and they were now to be concentrated in one area. The same supposedly applied to the other tribes, also. Ed.]
      Nachmanides writes that after the firstborn and the Levites had been counted, they lined up in front of Moses awaiting his instructions. They were presented with the wagons that the princes had donated ready to commence their diversified duties around the complex occupied by the Tabernacle. There was an immediate need to ritually purify the Levites, who previously had not needed to be especially concerned about this in their daily routines.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   הזה עליהם מי חטאת והעבירו תער על כל בשרם, “sprinkle upon them water of purification, and let them pass a razor over their entire flesh.” Ibn Ezra points out that the shaving of their flesh had preceded their being sprinkled with the waters of purification. [He derives this from the switch by the Torah from the singular הזה, an instruction to Moses, whereas the word והעבירו is in the plural, referring to something the Levites had already done.]
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ואקח את הלוים, “I shall take the Levites, etc.” Ibn Ezra comments that in spite of the fact that G’d had already said (past tense) לקחתי אותם לי, “I have taken them for Me,” (8,16) it is the style of the Torah to repeat what had been said before if an interruption had occurred in the interval, one that interferes with one’s trend of thought. (Verse 17 which provides historical background) The Torah is saying that as soon as the Levites had been singled out by G’d, He handed them over for instruction in their duties by the priests.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   וינף אהרן אותם תנופה...ויכפר עליהם, “Aaron performed a waving motion with each of them,…..and he provided atonement for them.” Ibn Ezra again explains that at that stage the atonement had already been provided for them. [The steps leading to their atonement had already been described in the previous verse. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   מבן חמש ועשרים שנה ומעלה יבוא לצבא צבא, “from 25 years of age and up he shall join the legion of service.” <i>Rashi,</i> in commenting on the apparent contradiction in Numbers 4,3 where the Torah gives this age as 30, says that the Levites are to commence training for their duties from the age of 25 and to assume those duties once they have attained the age of 30. 
      Nachmanides commenting on <i>Rashi,</i> says that if so, the meaning of the words לצבא צבא have to be understood as the Levites joining the community of their older colleagues from that age and stand there observing how their senior colleagues performed their duties and to familarise themselves with the details of all the laws governing their activities. This would also explain the absence of the words לעבוד עבודה, “to perform service,” as we are used to reading in connection with this.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the people counted by Moses and Aaron were indeed the thirty year olds, whereas here the Torah calls upon those who knew that they were at least 25 years old to come forward on their own. Such relatively young men were allowed to perform duties although they were not promoted to the status of supervisors over other Levites. In those days, while people did not necessarily keep track of each year they had lived, they did keep track of decades they had lived, as it was commonly known that certain changes in one’s body are experienced with the passing of every decade. Turning 25 did not leave a noticeable impression on their bodies, so that there was no point in counting 25 year olds. Everybody knew when he turned 30.
      Ibn Ezra claims that the Levites were employed to perform heavy duties from the age of 30 and up, whereas until that age they were allowed to perform only duties carried out within the confines of the Tabernacle. Nachmanides does not accept this, as the Torah uses the term לצבא צבא both for the 25 year olds and for the ones above 30 years of age.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  ולא יעבוד עוד, “and he shall work no longer.” This does not mean that a Levite above the age of 50 will “retire,” but that he will no longer perform the kind of physical labour involving carrying heavy loads either on his shoulders or otherwise. He will, however, participate in such tasks as opening the Temple’s gates, sing in the choir accompanying the priests’ sacrificial service, etc., etc. This is <i>Rashi’s</i> understanding of the words ולא יעבוד עוד.
     Nachmanides questions <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation saying that if correct the Torah would not have placed an age limit on the Levites’ participating in the choir, and if so why were the Gersonides and the Merrari-ites counted from the age of thirty and up only to the age of 50 seeing that neither of them had to perform such physically strenuous labour as the Kehatites even when they were younger than 50 years of age? He claims therefore that the Levites above the age of 50 were also excluded from participating in the choir accompanying the Temple service, and this was the reason why the other two groups of Levites are counted only if they were between 30 and 50 years of age. [At this point, at least according to this editor’s understanding of both the versions available to us, Nachmanides and the <i>Sifrey,</i> matters become a bit confusing, and I believe the simplest solution is that in the desert when the functions of the Kehatites were different from that of the other Levites as they had to carry the Holy Ark on their shoulders, etc, they might have completely retired from activities in and around the Tabernacle, whereas once there was a permanent Temple instead of a collapsible structure, there no longer was such a distinction between the members of the Kehatites and the other Levites. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   בשנה השנית לצאתם מארץ מצרים, “during the second year, counting from their Exodus from Egypt.” This verse proves conclusively that the Torah has not imposed upon itself the rule of reporting events in historical sequence only, a rule known as אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה. It is stated specifically that the Book of Numbers commences with events which took place in the second month of the second year, whereas here the Torah backtracked to the first month of that year. The Israelites observed the Passover only once during all the years they were in the desert, i.e. on the first anniversary of the Exodus. One of the reasons was that the Israelites were not able to perform the rites of circumcision due to the northern wind which blew in the desert, exposure to which presented a health risk to the babies. Had they not sinned by accepting the majority report of the spies, they would not have had to wander in the desert and would have been in the Land of Israel before they would have had to observe a second Passover. Uncircumcised males are forbidden to partake of sacrificial meat, something unavoidable in performing the Passover ritual. 
      [This editor has never understood this reason, as the natural increase of the Jewish people was about 2.5 percent annually, and it would have taken over 20 years before the majority of the male Israelites would have been uncircumcised. Why would the majority not perform such an important commandment because a minority was unable to? Ed.] 
      Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah did not follow chronological sequence here was that before listing commandments issued to the people in the desert, the Torah wanted to complete the legislation pertaining to the erection of the Tabernacle, its inauguration, and to report on the composition of the encampment as it was to remain throughout the time the Israelites were in the desert. Seeing that the commandment to offer a Passover in the desert, at least according to some of our sages, was a one-time legislation, the record of this legislation and its performance could be deferred until this point.
      It is possible that mention had to be made of this commandment once more as in Exodus chapter 12 where we read about this legislation originally, it had never been stated that the commandment would remain in effect throughout the generations. [I do not follow, as in Exodus 12,14 this has been spelled out. Ed.] Now G’d wanted the people to perform these rites in order to remind them of what had happened exactly one year ago and to recall how many overt miracles G’d had performed in bringing about the people’s redemption from slavery. It was not necessary in the desert to write again the details of the seven day festival of <i>matzot,</i> etc., as being commandments that must be performed by the body they were automatically valid for all posterity.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   בין הערבים תעשו אותו, “you shall prepare it in the afternoon.” The various procedures connected with offering the Passover are all included in the words תעשו אותו, “prepare it.”
  
     ככל חוקותיו וככל משפטיו תעשו אותו, ”you shall make it according to all its decrees and its laws.” Here the Torah means to include the laws governing the eating of the Passover, such as that it must not be eaten on the day it was slaughtered but only on the night following it; as had been pointed out in chapter 12 in Exodus already, as well as the fact that similar rules apply to the people offering the substitute Passover known as פסח שני, by people who had been unable to do so on the proper date due to being ritually impure on account of contact with the dead.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   בדרך רחוקה, “on a remote road.” The dot over the letter ה in the word רחוקה alludes to the respective opinions concerning the distance the traveler has to be from the Temple at sunrise of the 14th of Nissan, the day the Passover must be slaughtered. One sage holds that anyone more distant than the threshold of the courtyard of the Temple during the period that the slaughtering was in progress is included here, whereas the other sage holds that a distance of approximately 30000 cubits, equivalent to the distance of the Hasmonean town of Modiin from Jerusalem constitutes “remote” in the sense that if the person was ritually impure he was equated with someone too far distant to be able to reach Jerusalem on that day. (compare <i>Pessachim</i> 69)
      Nachmanides writes that although in connection with the substitute Passover known as the “second Passover,” nothing has been written concerning the distance of a potential pilgrim from the Temple on the morning of the day the Passover must be slaughtered, the same rules that apply to someone offering the Passover on the 14th of <i>Nissan</i> also apply to a person who is permitted (commanded) to offer it on the 14th of <i>Iyar</i>. He who omitted offering the first Passover even deliberately, is still commanded to make up for this on the 14th of Iy<i>ar,</i> whereas someone who on the morning of the 14th of Nissan was beyond Modiin and thus legally free to wait until the 14th of <i>Iyar,</i> is nonetheless permitted to offer his Passover on the 14th of <i>Nissan</i> if he managed to reach the Temple gates while the slaughtering was still in progress. (by driving or flying instead of walking). In fact, such a person is accorded special praise for having made the effort when legally he need not have exerted himself.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   וכי יגור אתכם גר, “when a proselyte shall dwell amongst you, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why in connection with proselytes the Torah emphasized how and under what circumstances he may observe the Passover rites, whereas nothing like this is said about his observing most of the other commandments, is because the parallel paragraph in Exodus 12,48 applied only to converts that had converted prior to the Exodus. If the Torah had not repeated the legislation here, we would have thought that these converts were not obligated to observe the Passover in the desert or subsequently, as their fathers had not been redeemed from slavery, never having been slaves in Egypt.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   וביום הקים את המשכן, “and on the day the Tabernacle had been erected, etc.” now the Torah resumes the report of the Israelites’ journeys in the desert, prefacing it with the reminder that the clouds of G’d’s glory covered the Tent of Meeting by day and that it would be replaced each evening by a fire visible all night. The movements of these clouds or the fiery appearance would signal that the people were to either break up and move, or make camp, as the case might be. Audible signals were heard by means of the trumpets, as we shall be told in chapter 10
  
     כסה הענן את המשכן לאהל העדות, “the cloud covered the Tabernacle that was a Tent of Testimony.” Nachmanides interprets these words as showing that the cloud only covered the actual Tabernacle, not the courtyard surrounding it.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ובהאריך הענן, “and when the cloud remained stationary for a longer period, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the meaning is that the people were not always content that the cloud remained in the same place for a long period as it delayed their progress toward the Holy Land. Nonetheless, the people observed G’d’s expressed will, and the Torah compliments them for this. This is why the Torah added the otherwise superfluous words that the people honoured G’d’s wish by not breaking camp until told to do so. Similarly, when the motion of the cloud signaled that they were to continue their journey although they had only pitched their tents on the day before, they did not complain but obeyed G’d’s wish without protest. On occasion this meant that after a whole night’s journey, and making camp in morning, they had to break camp and move on within literally, a number of hours. Although such uncertainties about their movements must have taken a toll on their nerves, it is recorded to their credit that they did not express discontent about this, ever.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   על פי ה' יחנו ועל פי ה' יסעו, “They would encamp according to the word of <i>Hashem</i>, and they would break camp and commence their journey according to the word of <i>Hashem.”</i> This has been repeated once more to tell us that this pattern continued for all the forty years they were in the desert. Previously, the Torah had described the people as journeying followed by their making camp, whereas here the pattern is reversed and their encamping is mentioned ahead of their breaking camp. The Torah wanted to stress that on all occasions the glory of <i>Hashem</i> accompanied them.
      It also appears to me that the verse that concludes with ובמקום אשר ישכן שם הענן, שם יחנו בני ישראל is the verse to which the words על פי ה' יסעו apply, to tell us that after having encamped according to the word of <i>Hashem,</i> they also commenced journeying again only at the command of <i>Hashem.</i> On the other hand, when we read על פי ה' יסעו, the Torah follows with the report that the people started to journey at the command of <i>Hashem,</i> by adding that they did not continue but they encamped at the command of <i>Hashem</i> although they might have preferred to keep on journeying toward their ultimate destination.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   עשה לך שתי חצוצרות כסף, “make two silver trumpets for yourself!” The trumpets were to be made of silver instead of gold, in order not to remind <i>Hashem</i> of the golden calf each time they would be used. The sound, otherwise, would be associated with the loud noise the Israelites made when they danced around that idol. (Compare Exodus 32,18)
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ונסעו המחנות החונים תימנה, “and the groups encamped to the south shall start marching.” Nachmanides writes that the correct interpretation of our verse is that two blasts of <i>teruah</i> will be trumpeted, one to alert the people of the eastern camp to start moving, followed by another alerting the people in the southern camp to get moving. This is why the Torah wrote:
  
     תרועה יתקעו למסעיהם, after already having written ותקעתם תרועה שנית ונסעו המחנות וגו', “you will trumpet a second <i>teruah</i> and the camps in the south will get moving.” Apparently, there was a third <i>teruah</i> signaling the people encamped on the west side to start moving, and a fourth <i>teruah</i> when the time had come to signal to the fourth group, the ones encamped to the west of the Tabernacle to start moving and to make up the rearguard, as it were.
      Ibn Ezra writes that there was no trumpet blast after the easternmost camp had began to move. He offers proof for what he writes by pointing out that the Kehatites and with them the priests who did the blowing of the trumpets traveled ahead of the flag (army group) of Ephrayim. [How could they signal to army groups a long way behind them? Ed.]
      In the Sifrey the opinion is voiced that just as there were trumpets blown for setting the eastern army group and the northern army group in motion, the same may have been done in order to set the two other army groups to get moving. The author does not express a definitive view as to how many such <i>teruot</i> were blown to get the people moving.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   וכי תבאו מלחמה בארצכם, “when you go to war against an enemy who has invaded your land, etc.” Onkelos translates this verse as וארי תעלון לאגחא קרבא בארעכון, “when you go out to fight a battle in your land, etc.” If that were correct, then the letter ל as the prefix to the word מלחמה would be absent in our verse and the meaning would be “if you go to war,” or “when you go to war.” This in turn would raise the question why the Torah here uses the word תבא instead of the word תצא that is standard for describing a war fought outside the boundaries of the Land of Israel. (Compare Deut. 20,1; 21,10; 23,10) Possibly, the Torah alludes to the fact that the trumpets were to be made use of in the manner described only in a war which is defined as מלחמת חובה, an obligatory war, not an expansionary war, a מלחמת רשות. All the wars described with the introductory words: כי תצא, are wars which are not obligatory, as proven by the fact that it was possible to dodge the draft and to return home after having answered the original roll call, as elaborated upon in Deut. In our verse the Torah speaks about an obligatory war, and this is why the term יצא is not mentioned here. This is also why the Torah adds the word בארצכם, “in your land,” i.e. you have been invaded. According to <i>Sifrey</i> our verse speaks of wars both within our borders or without, but in either case we are the victims of aggressive neighbors. The letter ו at the end of the word תבאו is therefore quite unnecessary and may be used in lieu of the missing letter ל in front of the word מלחמה. 
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ויסע דגל מחנה יהודה, “The flag of the camp of the tribe of Yehudah journeyed, etc.” Whereas the Torah writes the word נסע, when reporting the other camps as starting their respective journeys, in reporting that the camp of Yehudah began its journey the Torah wrote ויסע, using the inverted future mode. In terms of the respective numerical value of these two words, it results in Yehudah being shortchanged 40 as the word ויסע=146, whereas the word ונסע amounts to 186. This may be an allusion to the tradition that the bones of Yehudah were constantly in restless motion in their coffin throughout the 40 years that the Israelites wandered in the desert; a delayed retribution for his leading part in the sale of Joseph to the Ishmaelites.
  
     ועל צבאו, “and in charge of its army, etc.” Nachmanides writes that he did not know why the Torah at this stage mentions the princes in charge of each army group once more. If the Torah meant to tell us that all of these princes were still alive, we already know this from Numbers We have a tradition that from the day of the count reported in that chapter until the beginning of the journey of the Israelites from Mount Sinai not a single Israelite died. Perhaps what the Torah wanted to hint to us is that during the journey the respective prince always marched at the head of his army group and generally performed the functions incumbent upon him, issuing instructions to his tribe and ensuring that these instructions were carried out. Each tribal leader performed the function performed in later periods by the כהן משוח מלחמה, the priest anointed especially for duty during expansionary wars.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   והורד המשכן, “The Tabernacle was dismantled.” The meaning of the paragraph starting with ויהי בשנה השנית in 10,11 is to describe the journey of the Tabernacle, i.e. the camp of the Levites traveling surrounded by the various army groups, as <i>Rashi</i> has outlined when he described that as soon as the army group of Yehudah had started marching the sons of Aaron would lower the dividing curtain in the Tabernacle and would wrap up the various sacred furnishings. When these had been wrapped, the Levites, i.e. Gersonides and Merarites, took apart the beams comprising the walls of the Tabernacle and loaded them onto the wagons, etc. These wagons with those Levites would be traveling behind the army group of Yehudah, ahead of the army group of Reuven.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ויאמר משה לחובב, “Moses said to his father-in-law Chovav, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that Re-uel was the father of Tzipporah, as we know from Exodus 2,18 ותבאנה אל רעואל אביהם, “when they came home to their father Re-uel, etc.” Chovav was the brother of Tzipporah and he is identical with Yitro, for the Torah wrote that Moses said of him: (verse 31) ידעת חנותנו במדבר, “you are familiar with where we are encamped in the desert,” and it is also written in connection with Yitro (Exodus 18,5) אל המדבר אשר הוא חונה שם, “to the desert where he was camping” (Moses). If someone were to argue that Yitro was Moses’ father-in-law, the answer is that it is the custom of the Torah to refer to the father of the girl as well as to her brother as חותן, proof being the line לחובב בן רעואל המדיני חותן משה after it had already been made clear that Chovav was a brother of Tzipporah.
      Many commentators are of the opinion that Chovav and Yitro are identical, that he was the father of Tzipporah, whereas Re-uel was the grandfather. As far as the words אל רעואל אביהם is concerned, this is no different than when the Torah quotes Yaakov as referring to אלוקי אבי אברהם, the “G’d of my father Avraham,” when we all know that Avraham was Yaakov’s grandfather and not his father.
      Nachmanides writes that Moses pleaded with Chovav to accompany the Jewish people, saying to him in general terms והטבנו לך, “we will treat you well;” Chovav understood this to mean that the Jewish people would let him share in the spoils of war but that he would not receive a share of the Land of Israel as an ancestral piece of land. This is why Chovav replied that in that case he would prefer to return to a land that was his own, where he was not just tolerated as a newcomer to whom one had accorded a courtesy. When Moses became aware of Chovav having misunderstood the nature of his offer, he changed his approach by begging Chovav not to abandon him and the Jewish people, seeing that he had already become so valuable to them by having served as their eyes. He added that they would share with him all the good G’d were to do for His people on an equal basis. He hinted that Chovav would receive a portion of the land as an ancestral heritage. Nachmanides believes that Chovav accepted this offer and bases himself on the Jerusalem Talmud (<i>Bikkurim</i> 1,5) where the descendants of the Keyni, (Yitro’s offspring) are granted the right to refer to the land of Israel as their heritage and they read the passage about <i>bikkurim</i> just as does any natural born Jew whose ancestors had been slaves in Egypt. Their claim is based on Moses having said to Chovav לכה אתנו, “please join us,” in our verse above.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   וארון ברית ה' נוסע לפניהם דרך שלשת ימים, “and the Ark of the Covenant of <i>Hashem</i> journeyed before them a three–day distance.” According to <i>Rashi</i> this was the Ark containing the broken pieces of the first set of Tablets. This Ark traveled ahead of the main body the distance normally covered in three days’ march.
      Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text neither the Ark nor the cloud preceded the people at all in terms of physical distance; the Torah describes that the Ark and the cloud would move for three days uninterruptedly without taking time out to make an even temporary “pit stop” until the evening of the third day. On that evening the cloud came to rest in the desert of Paran, and this is the meaning of the words לתור להם מנוחה, “to espy a suitable resting place for them” in our verse. The people would not make camp until they had reached that location. They then proceeded to re-assemble the Tabernacle and they brought into it the various furnishings, first of all the Holy Ark. What is not clear is whether during these three days the people marched also at night.
      Ibn Ezra writes that when the Torah wrote in verse 21 that the Kehatites journeyed and erected the Tabernacle before the people arrived, refers to the Kehatites journeying behind the first two flags, (army groups) does not apply to the first time the people moved away from their 11 months encampment at the bottom of Mount Sinai. During that journey the Ark did travel a distance of three days’ march ahead of them.
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   ויהי בנסוע הארון, “Whenever the Ark would journey, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> writes that this short paragraph that is bracketed within two inverted letters נ has been inserted here in order to separate one unhappy occurrence from the next one. According to his opinion the Israelites deviated from G’d’s path already during the three days of their very first march away from Mount Sinai. The group of people described as אספסוף, rabble, (11,4) already cultivated a craving for meat, thereby rebelling against the manner in which <i>Hashem</i> had fed the people thus far.
      Nachmanides has difficulty with <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation, pointing out that the unhappy occurrence mentioned in verse 1 of chapter 11, preceded the craving of the people for a meat diet. This פורענות, is followed by the rabble’s craving for meat immediately, without any intervening verses in verse 4. Where then did the verses 35 and 36 in our chapter separate one unhappy event from another? Nachmanides concludes that what <i>Rashi</i> meant was that the moving away from Mount Sinai (verse 33) was the first of the unhappy events which occurred so frequently from now on. The <i>Midrash</i> describes the moving away of the people from the spiritually lofty environment of Mount Sinai as similar to a child turning its back on the books from which he is supposed to absorb useful information.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהי העם כמתאוננים, “It happened when the people were in a frustrated mood looking for things to complain about;” Nachmanides, quoting Ibn Ezra who considers that the root of the word מתאוננים is און, (as in Job 15,35) does not agree, saying that there is no reason why the Torah should gloss over the people’s sinful behaviour by being so oblique. We have no other instance where the Torah downplays the people’s errant conduct.
      Nachmanides therefore believes that the correct interpretation is that when the people now faced the terrible desert, they became full of misgivings and fear as to how they would fare on the journey ahead of them. He therefore understands the word מתאוננים as in Lamentations 3,39 מה יתאונן אדם חי גבר על חטאיו?, “Of what shall a living man complain? Each one of his own sins.” Such a negative attitude by a nation that should have looked forward with joyful anticipation to coming ever closer to the promised land, was considered as sinful by <i>Hashem.</i> He had shown them ample proof of making their lives tolerable even in the desert, and they had no reason to be despondent. When we view matters from this perspective we can understand why the Torah writes in verse 4 וישובו ויבכו גם בני ישראל, that the Children of Israel wept a second time, etc.” The first time had been what we read about in verse 1. The people had not learned a lesson from the heavenly fire that had claimed many lives among the people. 
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויקרא שם המקום ההוא תבערה, “He called the name of that place <i>Taveyrah.”</i> According to Nachmanides theמקום ההוא refers to the edge of the camp where the heavenly fire had descended the people called <i>Taveyrah,</i> and they did not move on from that place, as it was at that very same location that they cultivated their craving for meat. Subsequently, they called that whole town or that place קברות התאווה, “graves where the victims of inordinate desire were buried.”
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   התאוו תאוה, “they induced a craving in themselves.” Nachmanides writes that actually they did not lack anything at all as they had enough manna to satisfy each one of them, and they were able to satisfy their palates by wishing how that manna should taste each time they ate it. However, they abused these powers of imagination and wished the manna to taste revoltingly in order to have an excuse to complain about not getting proper food.
  
     ויאמרו מי יאכילנו בשר, “they said: ‘who is going to feed us meat?’” Nachmanides explains this request by saying that not all the people had meat to eat on a daily basis, even though most of them had access to meat on frequent occasions, as a good part of the people owned livestock and they would slaughter them regularly. The adults would eat of these animals, whereas the younger people were not so lucky. The fact is that, seeing that they spoke of “remembering we used to eat fish in Egypt without needing to pay for them,” (verse 5) indicates that as far as even fish were concerned they could do no more than ”remember” it 
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   זכרנו את הדגה אשר נאכל, “we remember the fish we used to eat, etc.” Nachmanides understands these words literally, pointing out that the Egyptian fishermen would employ the Jews and would let them eat the fish they did not think they could sell at the local fish market. The various vegetables mentioned in our verse were so plentiful in Egypt that even Hebrew slaves could afford them, or that they dug them out of the ground and no one would protest this. We have the Torah on record as comparing the whole of the land of Egypt to a garden full of greens. (Genesis 13,10) [The author paints one or two additional scenarios that would explain the words in our text. They are of speculative character. Ed.]
      Some commentators do not understand the word דגה as fish at all, but view it as a simile describing abundance, as in Genesis 48,16 וידגו לרוב בקרב הארץ, “may they proliferate abundantly.” Accordingly, the people would have been complaining about the abundant sources of food they had enjoyed in Egypt and the variety, compared to what they condescendingly described as the monotonous diet of manna.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   נפשנו יבשה, “our life is parched;” Nachmanides describes the emotional state of the Israelites as having “died out,” due to the many different cravings they had been experiencing. Alternately, he writes, the meaning of the phrase could be that whereas natural foods provide the body with moisture, lubricating it, they did not experience such feelings when eating manna, but felt parched instead.
  
     בלתי אל המן עינינו, “we have nothing to look forward to but manna.” Even the food that we live on now, i.e. the manna, we must always hopefully and expectantly look for it if it will materialise, and we have no stored surplus enabling us to experience peace of mind; rather we need to crave for it, never knowing if it will materialise. In response to these spurious complaints the Torah gives us details in verse 7-9 of the multifaceted uses the manna could be put to. Even its external appearance was extremely pleasing to the eye.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   טעמו כטעם לשד השמן, “it tasted like a dough kneaded with oil.” The Torah testifies that this answers the accusation that the manna was completely dry-tasting, saying that, on the contrary, it contained elements which made it taste moist without requiring the people to even have to add an additive in order to make it moist tasting. After eating it the person having eaten it would feel very refreshed.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   האנכי הריתי, “did I conceive this people?” Nachmanides writes that Onkelos’ opinion that the words mean “am I their father,” which is based on the phrase ברכות הורי, “the blessings of my fathers” (Genesis 49,26) is an expanded version of the role of fathers who are viewed as if they had conceived, as without the insertion of their semen in the mother’s womb the mother could not have conceived.
  
     אם אנכי ילידיתיהו, “did I perhaps give birth to them?” Am I their mother the one who has given birth to them? The scholars who concentrate primarily on the plain meaning, פשט, take the opposite approach, saying that the word הריתי should be understood as referring to a mother, Moses asking if he, a man, should really be expected to relate to the Jewish people as a mother is expected to relate to them, i.e. to carry them in his bosom as a mother carries her baby, etc. The verb ילד is used by Moses to describe a father’s part in producing a child, as in ויולד את נח, (Genesis 5,28) whereas the verb הרה is used by Moses to describe the mother’s input, as in ותהר את מרים “she became pregnant with Miriam.” (Chronicles I 4,17) This is why Moses illustrates further כאשר ישא האומן את היונק, “as the nurse carries a suckling.”
      I believe that Moses spoke in terms of what mothers have to go through before they have a baby, followed by the possibly far greater difficulties in raising their children. A mother is constantly reminded of her pre-natal pains, etc. whenever the children do not act in a manner that compensates her for the pains endured before they came into this world.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   לא אוכל לבדי שאת, “I cannot carry this burden all by myself.” Nachmanides writes that Moses did not request that the elders become his assistants in his supplying meat for the people, for where would they take it from? Moreover, he was quite aware that even if a large number of providers would be appointed, whenever they would find reason to complain these complaints would continue to be addressed to him, seeing that it had been he who had taken them out of Egypt, and the source of all their complaints were always traced to that event. What Moses hoped to accomplish by having the elders appointed was that if the people had a number of leaders, by the time the complaints would be transmitted to him if they proved beyond the competence of the elders to deal with, the people’s anger and fury would have at least partially spent itself seeing that the elders would have tried to blunt their anger and frustration.
      It is also possible that Moses thought that once the people found out that the elders possessed holy spirit and were able to prophesy, they would show loyalty to these prophets and not gang up on Moses as they had been in the habit of doing. They would therefore demand from these divinely inspired elders to satisfy their various cravings.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ואם ככה את עושה לי, “and if this is how You deal with me, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> says that the feminine mode in the word את instead of אתה when addressing <i>Hashem,</i> is an allusion to the fact that Moses’ spiritual reserves were close to being exhausted.
      Nachmanides writes that he did not understand <i>Rashi’s</i> conclusions about the use of the word את, seeing that Moses employed this pronoun of G’d while addressing Him. 
      According to the plain meaning of the text the pronoun את is indeed found being used when addressing a male as in Ezekiel 28,14: את כרוב ממשח הסוכך, “You-who have been anointed to act as protector, etc.” [According to this Moses would accuse G’d of treating him as no longer deserving to be regarded as possessing the strength expected of a male. Of course, Moses would have brought this upon himself by his self-admitted inability to deal with the people’s challenges. Ed. Rabbi Chavel cites an interesting commentary on our verse by Rabbi Wolf Heidenheim.]
  
     הרגני נא הרוג, “”then kill me now!” Moses requested that G’d dispatch one of His agents to kill him even by the sword used by a human being, as he considered it preferable to die at the hands of a human being to continuing to live a life full of frustration. Alternately, he asked for a different mode of death, and he used the word הרג, as one would say המיתני, “arrange for my death forthwith.”
  
     ואל אראה ברעתי, “so that I will not have to watch my wretchedness.” The words call to mind when Jonah said to G’d repeatedly טוב מותי מ.., It is better that I die (now) than…” (Jonah)
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   אשר ידעת כי הם זקני העם ושומריו, “whom you know to be the elders of the people and its officers.” Ibn Ezra writes that there are elders who are not qualified to perform both the tasks G’d describes here.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   וירדתי ודברתי עמך שם, “I will descend and speak with you there.” Nachmanides writes that the meaning of this verse is that at the time when G’d would speak with Moses the transfer of some of his Holy Spirit to the elders concerned would take place, with these elders experiencing part of the conversation between G’d and Moses. This is not equivalent to what G’d had described in Numbers 27,20 as מהודך, “part of your glory,” when He instructed Moses to appoint Joshua as his successor. Interestingly, when G’d carries out in verse 25 what He had said to Moses here, we do not read a single word about the subject of G’d’s conversation with Moses. This was a departure from all other occasions when G’d was described as speaking to Moses. The reason is that here the whole purpose was for G’d to address these elders via Moses. The latter neither heard G’d’s voice, nor did they have any visual communication such as a dream in which G’d appeared to them. G’d spoke to Moses, and the elders, thanks to the transfer of some of Moses’ Holy Spirit, became instantly aware of a conversation between G’d and Moses being in progress. This is also the meaning of what we read in verse 25: ויתנבאו ולא יספו, “they prophesied but did not continue to do so.” In other words, they were not able to call on their prophetic spirit themselves but had been given such inspiration only with Moses as the vehicle. The meaning of the words 
  
     ואצלתי מן הרוח אשר עליך, “I will deposit some of the spirit that is upon you placing it on them.” The meaning of the word אצל wherever it occurs is that that which is described as being נאצל is being arrested in a certain static condition, forever remaining dependent on its source. A well known example of the use and meaning of that word is found in Kohelet 2,10, “וכל אשר שאלו עיני לא אצלתי מהם, “and I did not deny, hold back from granting, anything which my eyes desired of the joys available in this world.” Similarly, when we read in Exodus chapter 24 about the אצילי בני ישראל, the reference is to the aristocracy of the Israelites, the ones who considered themselves apart from the multitude. When the word נבואה is used, however, the Torah speaks about a divine inspiration which comes from G’d directly, is not dependent on the input by another human being.
      Ibn Ezra understands the word ואצלתי as meaning something similar to אקח מאשר אצלך, “I will take something which is beside you, i.e. I will not thereby diminish what is yours.”
      Some commentators understand the meaning of אצילות as being similar to המשכה, “drawing something away.”
      Personally, I tend to believe that as long as the elders were being indirectly inspired via Moses that they could divine what it was that G’d expected of them and would command the people in any matters relating to the welfare of the people in all the happenings that the Torah reports as having occurred in the desert. This is the meaning of the words: ונשאו אתך במשא העם, “they will assist you in carrying the burden of the people.” They were informed of all that Moses would instruct the people to do; everyone would share this knowledge with his tribe. As a result, Moses would no longer carry the weight of their complaints all by himself.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   לא יום אחד, “not for one day, etc.” The meaning is “not for one day only are you going to eat meat;”
      Nachmanides holds that if someone eats, אוכל something for a number of consecutive days, or performs other tasks עושה, for a number of consecutive days, this is not described by the word אוכל or עושה respectively, and if someone eats something for 30 days consecutively it would be inappropriate to say that he has eaten for 20 days. [According to Rabbi Chavell, Nachmanides’ problem is why the Torah wasted time writing “not one day, not two days, not five days, not ten days, not twenty days, but a whole month of days.” He concludes that unless the Torah had added the words עד חודש ימים, “until a whole month of days,” I might have understood the days mentioned previous to that as not being consecutive days. In that event, eating meat at intervals for, say, twenty days would not have resulted in one’s becoming revolted at the mere sight of meat. It follows that the meaning of the words לא יום אחד, ולא חמשה ימים is not to be understood as we might think at first glance, but that they mean that if someone eats meat for a day, or he eats meat five days out of seven days in the week, his reaction to such a diet is completely different to someone who eats meat for 30 days consecutively.
      Alternatively, the Torah emphasized that the people would learn that when their craving would be indulged by G’d in accordance with their wishes, they would find out to their distress that what they thought would be a blessing could turn into a curse. Indulging a craving for meat without restraint has negative consequences that are not experienced when one eats vegetables or fish for the same number of days consecutively. G’d did not provide the people with a corresponding amount of fish and vegetables, although they had yearned for this also, as what had caused them to break out in weeping had been their unsatisfied craving for meat.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the choice of the Torah of the numbers 2,5,10,20 is not arbitrary but “two” is double of “one.” “Five” represents the number of fingers on one hand, “ten” is double that number, i.e. the fingers on two hands, twenty” is double that number again, i.e the number of fingers plus the number of toes.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   עד אשר יצא מאפכם, “until it comes out of your nose, etc.” They would gorge themselves on such large quantities of meat for an entire month that they would finally become revolted by it, and would vomit it. Eventually, they would view meat as something not fit to eat.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   הצאן ובקר ישחט להם, “are sheep and cattle going to be slaughtered for them?” Nachmanides writes that there can be no question but that the plain meaning of the verse corresponds to the opinion voiced by Rabbi Akiva in <i>Chulin</i> 16-17 where he stated that the emphasis in our verse is on the word ישחט, as he holds that in the desert it had been permitted to kill animals by stabbing instead of slaughtering. The Torah now draws attention to the fact that after the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai this was no longer the case. He also holds that the eating of meat that had not first bee consecrated as an offering on the Altar had never been forbidden. Moses, in this instance queried if the herds of the Israelites were sufficient for their needs for a whole month even if all their livestock were to be slaughtered. The idea that they deserved a miracle did not even cross his mind.
      Onkelos also thinks that way. However, the subject is problematic as pointed out by Rabbi Shimon who said: “how can we even suspect that a person such as Moses whom G’d Himself had described as trustworthy in His entire house, should harbour any suspicions of G’d’s inadequacy in any domain? The very question Moses voiced creates the impression that he queried G’d’s ability to provide what He had said He would provide, no matter how He would go about it?”
      Ibn Ezra answers the problem by saying that Moses’ premise had been that surely the problem faced by the people was not the kind that would cause G’d to employ supernatural means in order to solve it. He thought that G’d reserves resorting to miracles only in order to demonstrate that predictions of His prophets will come true, and the prophet will be legitimized when that happens.
      This explanation also does not satisfy me, seeing that G’d had already performed miracles to prove the authenticity of Moses as a prophet when He provided the people with the quail in Exodus 16,11-13 as well as when He responded to the people’s complaints that they did not have what to eat, by supplying them with the heavenly bread, the manna, starting in Exodus The same was true when G’d had told Moses to strike the rock at <i>Massa um’rivah</i> and produce a constant flow of drinking water for the people. (Exodus 17,7)
      I believe that the correct approach is that whenever G’d takes the trouble to perform miracles for the Children of Israel the purpose is for their benefit, i.e. they can recognize the miracle as being for their benefit. The only times G’d employed miracles as an act of the מדת הדין, the Attribute of Justice, is when He punished Israel’s enemies or oppressors by intervening in their fate by miracles, such as the ten plagues, or the drowning of the Egyptians in the Sea of Reeds. Therefore, when G’d predicted that the people will ultimately be revolted by the very meat they were craving, Moses had no reason to believe that G’d planned to perform a miracle for them by providing them with a liberal meat diet. 
      As soon as G’d told Moses that the meat He would provide would become revolting to the people, he realized that G’d did not plan to intervene by miraculous means. This is what evoked Moses’ wondering how this gigantic undertaking could possibly be performed by natural means.
      G’d informed Moses that he had been mistaken, that G’d was able to meet the demands of the people even without invoking supernatural means. This is why He asked the rhetorical question: היד ה' תקצר, “Is <i>Hashem’s</i> power inadequate then?” You will note that here the Torah does not phrase G’d’s answer as had the angels who promised Avraham that he would be the father of a baby boy a year hence. (Genesis 18,14) At that time, this was the answer to an unspoken question by Sarah that she had first denied thinking. The angels employed the phrase היפלא מה' דבר, “Is anything too wonderful for <i>Hashem</i> to do?” This referred to G’d performing miracles, as the Torah had been on record repeatedly that Sarah was not only barren but did not even possess a womb. (Genesis 11,30, <i>Yevamot</i> 64) In the event, G’d did not even have to divert the wind so that the quails touched down around the area where the Israelites were encamped, as opposed to when He brought on the plague of locusts, (Exodus 10,13) or when He dried out the bottom of the Sea of Reeds. (Exodus 14,21) The only new element in what occurred here was the inordinately large number of quails that landed around the camp of the Israelites.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   משרת משה מבחוריו, “the servant of Moses from his youth.” Ibn Ezra writes that some commentators understand the word מבחוריו to mean that Joshua was one of Moses’ most devoted servants, whereas others view the word מבחוריו as if it were glued to the words משרת משה, meaning that he had been a servant of Moses from his earliest youth. This latter explanation cannot be correct as what is described here occurred only in the second year of the people’s being in the desert, and we have no evidence that Joshua who was only about 24 years younger than Moses already served in that function in Egypt. I believe that the proper explanation is that Joshua was one of several men who attended to Moses’ needs. 
  
     אדוני משה כלאם, ”my lord Moses, lock them up!” Nachmanides writes that the reason why Joshua said this was that Moses was in the habit of communicating G’d’s words to the people and he thereby also caused some of his spirit to devolve on the elders who stood around him at the Tent of Meeting. By prophesying in a location far removed from the Tabernacle, the two men, Eldod and Meydod, had presumed to arrogate to themselves a status similar to that of the elders. He therefore wanted them confined, as they behaved as if challenging Moses’ authority.
      Alternately, Joshua suspected these two men to be false prophets or that they were out of their minds and deserved to be locked up to prevent them causing further harm. Moses, in his characteristic modesty, replied:
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ומי יתן כל עם ה' נביאים כי יתן ה' את רוחו עליהם", “Would that the entire people of <i>Hashem</i> were prophets! If <i>Hashem</i> would only place His spirit upon them!” Moses wished that G’d were to inspire the people with prophetic spirit without having recourse to his own spirit from which such Holy Spirit would be diverted “second hand,” so to speak. He expressed the wish that the entire people be so endowed.
      Judging from the writings on the subject by our sages, it was an old established custom in Israel that no one would make prophetic announcements regarding future events while there was a prophet of greater stature alive. The reason for this custom was that anyone failing to abide by this custom would appear as if he were handing down <i>halachic</i> decisions in the presence of his teachers, something absolutely forbidden, possibly on pain of death at the hands of Heaven. [Compare <i>Berachot</i> 31. Ed.] People endowed with such spirit would form part of the entourage of their spiritual mentor, and they are generally referred to in the Books of the Prophets as בני הנביאים, disciples of the prophets. Moses apparently held that when a Rabbi or prophet does not stand on ceremony and does not feel insulted when someone junior to him makes such pronouncements, then his personal attitude governs the matter and the disciple is not held culpable although other Rabbis or prophets would have taken exception to what they considered a lack of respect towards people known as more learned or endowed with greater prophetic spirit. 
      In the Jerusalem Targum the words כלאם are translated as “deny them holy spirit,” based on Psalms 40,12 לא תכלא רחמיך ממני, “do not withhold Your Mercy from me.”
      The deeper significance of the incident is that Joshua thought that seeing that both Eldod and Meydod were amongst the people whose names had been submitted as candidates for membership in the council of the 70 elders that their ability to prophesy was of the same category as that of the other 70 elders who had received their “holy spirit” via Moses and not directly from <i>Hashem.</i> Seeing that only 70 people were meant to form this illustrious council, Joshua thought that these men had to be stopped from walking around the camp prophesying, as the other elders could do so only while next to Moses and the Tabernacle. Moses responded that it was wrong to assume that it was in Moses’ interest that the seventy men should be able to prophesy only while next to him and next to the Tabernacle; on the contrary, if he had his way the entire people would be endowed with a far more comprehensive layer of Holy Spirit, and there was no need to assume that Moses was interested in keeping the monopoly of Holy Spirit for himself. He was most certainly not jealous of anyone so endowed by G’d.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   ויגז שלוים מן הים, “it blew the quail from the sea.” The quail had not now been created for the benefit of the Jewish people, in fact nothing new had been created. The only extraordinary aspect of the whole phenomenon was the unusually large number of quail.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ותדבר מרים ואהרן....האשה הכושית, “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses….on account of the Cushite woman (whom he had married).” 
      Ibn Ezra writes that some people claim that Moses had been king in the land of Cush for many years and had married a Cushite woman in that country. Onkelos, on the other hand, translates the word כושית as describing Tzipporah’s physical beauty. Although generally speaking, the term is derogatory, Miriam is described as referring to Tzipporah as we refer to a blind man by calling him סגי נהור, “endowed with exceptionally good eyesight.” [This makes Miriam’s comment a sarcastic one. Ed.] I consider it most unlikely that Miriam used a term that is used as a complimentary one and turned it into an insulting one. Tzipporah, apparently was dark-skinned, similarly to the Negroes of the land of Cush. Tzipporah’s being a Midianite, people who live like Bedouins in a hot climate, with constant exposure to the sun, was therefore not unlike the Negroes in her skin colour.
      Miriam and Aaron suspected that Moses had separated from Tzipporah due to the colour of her skin. They could not imagine that Moses’ separation from Tzipporah was connected to his status as a prophet, and that is why they asked the rhetorical question: “does G’d only speak to him, did He not also speak to us?” They implied that the status of being a prophet does not require for the prophet to abandon normal family life, as they had not abandoned it either.
      Other commentators believe that Miriam and Aaron criticized Moses for not having married a woman of better lineage, of more aristocratic background. They considered themselves as superior to Moses because of their wives or husbands being of superior background. In other words, they used the word Cushite as a derogatory term. Miriam contrasted Aaron’s wife the sister of Nachshon, who was of impeccable heritage with that of Moses, who in her opinion, had married “beneath” him, socially and culturally. She added, if one were to say that nonetheless Moses himself remained of superior statute on account of his prophetic abilities, they themselves had also been found worthy of having communications from <i>Hashem.</i>
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   והאיש משה עניו מאד, “and Moses was an exceedingly humble person.” According to Nachmanides this line has been inserted here to explain why G’d Himself had to defend Moses’ virtue. Moses, was unable, by definition, to defend his conduct without in the process losing his reputation as a truly humble and modest, unassuming person. [Imagine how he would have appeared in the eyes of both Miriam and Aaron if he had used the very arguments on his own behalf that G’d used on his behalf! Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   פתאום אל משה ואהרן ואל מרים, “suddenly, to both Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.” Nachmanides writes that Moses was not present when G’d spoke to Aaron and Miriam. Nonetheless, the prophetic vision came to all three of them simultaneously. The significance of the word פתאום lies in the fact that at that time neither of them had prepared themselves for receiving a prophetic vision. In fact, Aaron and Miriam were only granted their prophetic vision in honour of Moses, as otherwise they had never received such communications without having first prepared themselves for this in some manner. All the commentators agree that the word פתאום indicates that the recipient of such perceptions had been totally unprepared for them. The word applies only to Aaron and Miriam, since Moses never needed to prepare himself in order to be on G’d’s “wavelength,” in order to be able to immediately assimilate anything that G’d wished to tell him. 
      Onkelos translates the word פתאום as meaning בתכף, as meaning “immediately, without delay.” G’d intervened while Miriam and Aaron were still speaking to one another about this subject.
  
     צאו שלשתכם, “go out all three of you, to the Tabernacle.” G’d wanted that Moses should be there and should become aware that G’d Himself defended Moses’ virtue and his reputation. They would also become aware that G’d did not pardon Miriam and Aaron their slander unless Moses himself did so by pleading on their behalf.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויקרא אהרן ומרים, “He summoned Aaron and Miriam.” He called them aside so that He would not have to dwell on Moses’ virtues in his presence, [something that would make him feel most uncomfortable. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   אם יהיה נביאכם, “if there will be a prophet amongst you, etc.” According to Nachmanides these words mean: ‘if you will have a prophet amongst you.” (Just as Onkelos translates the words)
      Ibn Ezra reads the words אם יהיה נביאכם ה' as a single sequence, i.e. “if among you there is a prophet of <i>Hashem,</i> etc.”
  
     במראה אליו אתודע, “even though he may be endowed by My attribute <i>Hashem,</i> he will not be able to reveal matters pertaining to this attribute of Mine, but will refer to emanations of Mine of a lower order.” This will become clear, as I will not speak to him when he is awake but I will communicate with him as a dream, in a manner that is indirect. The Torah was careful not to write במראה אליו אראה, “I will become visible to him in a vision,” but במראה אליו אתודע, “I will make Myself known to Him as some sort of vision.” This relegates any audible revelation to one that occurs in a dream. [Whatever the prophet thinks he hears, he only hears in his dream. Ed]
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   לא כן עבדי משה בכל ביתי נאמן הוא , “not so is My servant Moses who is trusted in My entire house.” <i>Hashem</i> describes Moses as a father would describe his own son, or anyone whom he had adopted as part of his family. Just as such children have unrestricted access to any part of their father’s house at any time, so Moses does not need to make appointments if he wants to discuss something with <i>Hashem</i>. You, however, G’d says to Aaron and Miriam, not only do you not always have access to My house, but even when you do enjoy communications from Me, it is on a different level from the way I communicate with Moses.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   אל נא תהי כמת, “please let her not be like a corpse;” Moses drew a comparison with a prematurely aborted fetus, which due to its inadequately developed body is similar in appearance to someone suffering from <i>tzoraat. Rashi</i> offers an alternate interpretation in which he quotes Moses as saying: “if You do not heal her as a result of my prayer, who will be able to declare her as definitely stricken with this disease so that she requires to be isolated; and who would be able to declare her as cured when the time came and the symptoms had disappeared?” The latter words of <i>Rashi “</i>who could declare her as ritually pure,” i.e. as cured, are very difficult! Instead of this being a problem it should be part of the solution seeing that no priest had declared her as ritually impure, for no one had examined her! [The assumption underlying <i>Rashi’s</i> question is that a priest who is related to the person suspected of having been stricken with <i>tzoraat</i> is unable to conduct the examination and to testify as to the result. Seeing that the three priests that were alive at that time were all related to Miriam, either as brother or as nephews, how could she have undergone the procedures necessary? Ed.] If you were to answer that she could have become ritually unclean without the testimony of the priest and that nonetheless her purification would require the services of a priest, why would she not also be able to become purified without the services of a priest? What did <i>Rashi</i> have in mind when he quoted Moses as saying to G’d that He must heal her by means of his prayer? If we were to apply the more stringent <i>halachic</i> yardstick, even if G’d were to heal her (the symptoms) she would still not become ritually pure again so that she could resume living within the camp! Who had had the authority to declare her as purified?
      I have seen a version of this commentary in the <i>Sifrey</i> according to which Aaron asked Moses: “what did you find wrong with my sister that you neither permitted me to declare her ritually impure for temporary or absolute isolation, nor to declare her as ritually pure?” According to this version the second problem we raised is not a problem, and it is even possible to argue that the first problem we raised with <i>Rashi’s</i> alternate explanation is not problematic either, for granted that she could have been declared ritually unclean only by a priest as far as the <i>tzoraat</i> is concerned, this would not however prevent people from keeping a physical distance from her due to her appearance! As a result she would remain condemned to be visibly afflicted for the rest of her life, all because there was no priest at hand to declare her cured. Moses’ prayer for G’d to heal her so that she had never become definitely impure was justified therefore.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   קל, נא, רפא נא לה, “please, o Lord, heal her” In addressing the unspoken question why Moses added the name of the Lord, קל, Ibn Ezra understands Moses as pointing out that G’d, being G’d had the power to heal Miriam immediately, and that Moses was so emotionally upset about the suffering his sister was undergoing that he phrased his appeal so urgently. This is why G’d was obliged to explain to him the nature of Miriam’s sin as deserving at least a minimum period of her being ostracized.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ואחר נסעו העם מחצרות ויחנו במדבר פארן, “and after (the conclusion of that wait) the people journeyed fro <i>Chatzerot</i> and camped in the desert of <i>Paran</i>.” Nachmanides writes that the people’s journey from <i>Chatzerot</i> does not describe the journey from one desert to yet another desert, but that they journeyed from one point in the desert of <i>Paran</i> to another location in that same desert The precise location where they encamped now was known as <i>Kadesh Barnea,</i> the place from which the spies would be dispatched, as described in the following chapter. (13,26) The reason the Torah did not mention that location by name at this stage may have been that the journey from <i>Chatzerot</i> entailed several brief stops before they encamped around <i>Kadesh Barnea.</i> There was another location called Kadesh, and this is the reason why the Torah in 13,26 is precise so that we should not confuse that <i>Kadesh</i> with the <i>Kadesh</i> in the desert of <i>Tzin.</i>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   שלח לך אנשים, “Send forth men, on your behalf.” <i>Rashi’s</i> comment on the wording is that G’d did not command Moses to do this, but He did not oppose it if Moses wanted to do it on his own account.
      Nachmanides questions <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary by saying that if so Moses would have had a part in the sin of the spies seeing that he is on record in Deut. 1,23 as having specifically approved the people’s request to dispatch these spies. Nachmanides therefore resolves this problem by stating that the people like any people who are about to engage in an aggressive war, wanted to prepare themselves and to know what they would be up against, and how they could most easily conquer their objectives. In fact that is precisely what the people represented as their motives as we know from Deut. 1,22 when they are quoted as saying: “we want to know on which road to ascend and the cities to which we will come.” In other words, the request was of a tactical nature. This sounded like a perfectly reasonable request to Moses, and did not indicate that the people did not believe him when he had told them that the land was a good land.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   כולם אנשים, “all of them distinguished people.” They were well known for their prowess. The word איש appears in that context in Kings I 2,2 וחזקת והיית לאיש.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   למטה ראובן, “for the tribe of Reuven, etc.” Nachmanides points out that the order in which these men are mentioned here does not follow the order in which their tribes’ respective banners are enumerated, neither does the order correspond to the biological seniority of the original founders of their respective tribes. It appears therefore that the Torah lists these men in the order of their relative merits at the time they had been appointed. We find this pattern repeated when the tribal heads are mentioned at the time when the ancestral lands were apportioned.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   אלה שמות האנשים, “These are the names of the men, etc. ”Ibn Ezra writes that the reason the Torah repeated the line after having already named all these men individually, by introducing the paragraph with the words: “these are their names,” is to inform us that none of the names mentioned were changed except the name of Joshua.
  
     ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יהושע, “Moses named Hoseah son of Nun Joshua.” According to the plain meaning of the text his name was changed, as he had been the commander of the army in the battle against Amalek. He had acquired an international reputation as a result of that encounter. Moses changed his name so that he would not be singled out as a target for the Canaanites. After all, they had never seen him, had only heard about him.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   הטובה היא אם רעה, “if it is good or bad, etc.” Nachmanides quotes Ibn Ezra as interpreting the word טובה as referring to the climate in the land of Canaan, and as describing the country’s water supply as offering clear and unpolluted water for its inhabitants. When asking the spies to determine if the land was שמנה, fat, Moses referred to the quality of its produce, in particular the quality of its wheat. Nachmanides holds that the word טובה is an all encompassing word describing the sum total of what the land had to offer, whereas the word רעה refers to any negative aspects that this land presented to potential conquerors.
      It is possible that the expression ארץ טובה referred to the land and its produce being שמנה, good, yielding especially rich flour and its figs and dates being especially rich in flavour. Another possible meaning of the words טובה and רעה may refer to the rainfall, i.e. if the land enjoyed adequate natural rains or if the soil needed to be supplemented with water from rivers of cisterns. It is also possible that both the word טובה and רזה referred to “lean” fruit such as walnuts, carobs, etc, as opposed to the seven types of fruit for which the land was famous, including grapes, olives, pomegranates dates, etc.
      However, Onkelos translates the words as עתירא and מסכנא respectively, which would mean “wealthy” and “poor,” respectively. Onkelos understands Moses as referring to the inhabitants of the land rather than to the land itself. These countries are self sufficient, their soil supplying all their needs so that they do not need to import any necessities, whereas their neighbours may be relatively poor because they have to import necessities, which is far more costly.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   והתחזקתם ולקחתם מפרי הארץ, “strengthen yourselves, and take from the fruit of the land.” Moses encourages the spies not to be afraid of “stealing” from the produce and thereby drawing attention to themselves as spies.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   וחברון שבע שנים נבנתה לפני צוען מצרים, “and Chevron had been founded seven years earlier that Tzoan in Egypt.” Nachmanides writes that following the plain meaning of the text Chevron is identical with the town קרית ארבע that is familiar to us from the time of Avraham. That town had been named after the tallest of a race of giants whose name had been ארבע, and he had built that town. This is why it was named after him. Not only that, but the giants were also named after him. When we are told that in Chevron there used to live Achiman, Sheyshay and Talmay descendents of Anak, the Torah means that Arba had built that town already seven years earlier than Tzoan, a famous ancient town in Egypt had been founded. The point of all this is to inform us of the extraordinary long lifespan of this race of giants. They were not only of extraordinary physical proportions, but they also lived extraordinarily long lives. Their life spans made them parts of a number of generations, all of whom were born and buried while these people continued alive.
      It is possible that the word השמנה היא used by Moses as something worth investigating, was intended to show that Chevron, in spite of its being ancient, still produced such outstandingly good grapes. How much better must be the fruit in the parts of the country that had been under cultivation for far less time so that its soil had not yet become weakened.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   וגם זבת חלב ודבש, “and it does flow with milk and honey.” Nachmaides writes that the word וגם “and also,” is in response to Moses having instructed the spies to find out if the land was “fat” or “lean” as well as to the question “does the country have trees or not?” The answer to the latter question was: “and this is its fruit.” Up until this point the spies reported the truth, replying to the questions that they had been asked to find out about. They should have continued to report that the people dwelling on the land were indeed stout hearted, and that they lived in fortified towns as Moses had also wanted to find out if the people were stout -hearted or weak willed. Their wickedness was displayed when they added the gratuitous word אפס, which is a term that introduces a contrary diminutive element, nullifying something that had been said before. It is a word that describes man’s impotence to carry out his plans; we find this word in Psalms 77,9 האפס לנצח חסדו, גמר אומר לדור ודור, “Has His faithfulness disappeared forever?” Will His promise be unfulfilled for all times?” By the use of this word they negated their previous statements about the excellence of the land into the reverse by proclaiming that their chances to conquer that land were nil,אפס . 
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   אפס כי עז העם...והערים וגו', “But…the people are powerful,… and the cities greatly fortified.” Even though by saying this they contradicted what they had said previously, as <i>Rashi</i> had pointed out, by reporting that the people lived in fortified cities they had indicated that they were afraid of invaders, only if they lived in open, unwalled cities, did this signify their confidence in their ability to repel attackers. Perhaps the spies did not even realize that their factual report contradicted the conclusions they had drawn. 
     והערים בצורות גדולות מאד וגם בני ענקים ראינו שם, “and the cities are greatly fortified, and we even saw descendants of the dreaded giants there.” They added further:
  
  Verse 29
  
     עמלק יושב בארץ הנגב, “Amalek lives in the southern part of the land.” Although this nation was not at risk from invasion by the Israelites, the spies added this comment to illustrate that invading the land from any direction would pose insurmountable obstacles. They began to indirectly shake the confidence of the people, as at this moment they still were afraid to confront Moses directly. They answered on all the points Moses had asked them to report except if the population was large or small. They also did not give a direct answer to Moses’ question if the land was טובה, “good,” as they intended to mention later that the land consumed its inhabitants, planning to frighten the people who even if they were to conquer the land, would not survive in it for long. Their approach to the subject was: there are not too many people there, but the ones that are there are overpoweringly strong. The people understood what the spies were hinting at, and began to complain about the whole prospect they were facing. This is why Calev intervened with his attempt to silence the majority as we read in verse 30: 
  
  Verse 30
  
     ויהס כלב את העם, “Calev silenced the people.” He did so by proclaiming loudly: 
     עלה נעלה וירשנו אותה כי יכול נוכל בה, “We shall surely ascend and conquer it, for we can surely do it.” Calev did not contradict the facts his colleagues had cited, but he contradicted the conclusions they had drawn from these facts. This is why he used the pronoun לה, which referred to the cities of these people. When his colleagues heard this they became more outspoken, contradicting Calev outright by stating: 
  
  Verse 31
  
   לא נוכל לעלות אל העם כי חזק הוא ממנו, “we cannot ascend to that people for they are stronger than we.” The meaning of the expression is not limited to a war of aggression. The majority of the spies meant that even if the Canaanites would leave their fortified towns and wage war against the Israelites in open territory the Israelites would not be a match for them. The wording is parallel to that used by Goliath when he challenged the Israelites to a duel. (Samuel I 17,8)
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ויוציאו דבת הארץ....אל בני ישראל, “They slandered the land of Israel ..in their report to the Jewish people.” The principal effrontery of the spies was the fact that they reported to and appealed to the people directly, instead of making their report to the commander-in-chief, Moses, who was the one who had selected them for their mission by going around to the tents of the people and telling them that the land of Canaan was devouring its inhabitants, whereas originally in the presence of Moses and Aaron they had praised the land, describing how it was flowing with milk and honey. This was a treacherous and underhanded manner of discharging their task. Originally, they had only described the people in that land as strong, which by itself was not too serious a departure from what they had been asked to report about. When Calev had assured the people of his conviction that they would be able to successfully conquer that land the people had still tended to believe him. There were at that time, still quite a number of the people who possessed either self confidence or trust in G’d’s ability and willingness to help them conquer that land. When the spies had become aware of this, they embarked on an intensive campaign to undermine the confidence of those people by spreading the stories of the many people they had observed dropping dead. This was another example of misinterpretation. G’d had allowed even giants to collapse, in order to demonstrate how tenuous was even those supermen’s hold on life, whereas the spies, bent of interpreting everything in the most negative manner, concluded that the climate of the land causes the collapse of its inhabitants. In order to counter the impression Joshua and Calev had made on the people, the spies now resorted to fabrications, deliberate exaggerations, etc. The expression להוציא דבה means more than to highlight the negative aspects of something, it means to spread tales of a negative character that are entirely fictitious, represent as facts figments of the imagination of the tale-bearer. The party spreading such untruths hopes to make them believable because he had initially told his listeners a considerable number of true facts. This is also why the Torah reports Joseph as bringing דבתם רעה, “evil reports,” about his brothers to his father. He had reported a number of facts faithfully, so that his fabrications would also be believed by his father, Genesis 37,2, It was this latter aspect of the spies’ activities that caused G’d to punish them by making these ten men die on the spot through the plague. (14,37)
  
     ארץ אוכלת יושביה היא וכל העם אשר ראינו בתוכה אנשי מדות, “it is a land which consumes its inhabitants, and all the people we saw therein were of enormous proportions.” Nachmanides writes that the spies described the land and its water as health hazards, causing premature births of fetuses and instead of the people who were of outsize dimensions having outsize children, their children were obviously poorly, undersized and below average stature. They tried to convince their peers that the land of Canaan, by reason of its climate, can support only giants, not average sized human beings such as the Israelites. It was not surprising therefore that that land produced giants, as its fruit, its produce, was such that only giants and supermen could assimilate its waters and its produce in their bodies successfully. When previously they had described the presence of giants in that land as limited to singular sightings, now they described the inhabitants as all being giants, אנשי מדות. They took pains to trace the origins of these giants to prehistoric (pre-deluge) eras, implying that they had already then been so powerful that they had survived the deluge without being in Noach’s Ark. (verse 33)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויבכו העם בלילה ההוא, “The people spent that night weeping.” The spies had returned to their respective tents in the evening after having made their report to Moses, and on the following morning the people voiced their complaints against Moses and Aaron <i>en masse</i>. Moses referred to that fateful night in Deuteronomy 1,27 when he reminded the people with the words ותרגנו באהליכם, “you slandered in your tents.” Compare Proverbs 18,8 where דברי נרגן, are mentioned by Solomon in that context. [See Alshich’s commentary on that verse. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ולמה ה' מביא אותנו אל הארץ הזאת לנפול בחרב, “and why does <i>Hashem</i> bring us to this land to fall victim to the sword?” The people did not describe the land negatively, as had the spies to them, as they did not want to reveal to Moses that the spies had described the land as consuming its inhabitants. They did not do so, as the spies themselves had not voiced that sentiment in the presence of Moses and the whole community. They were well aware that Moses had first hand knowledge of the land of Canaan from the time he had been raised in Pharaoh’s palace, and the years he had spent in Midian, a land bordering on the land of Canaan. Had they stated as fact the accusation of the spies that the land consumed its inhabitants, Moses himself would have called them liars, testifying that he knew different. This is also why the spies had not dared to voice such an accusation in Moses’ presence. In fact, when Moses recalls the events which happened here almost 40 years later in Deuteronomy, he phrased it as follows: “וישיבו אותנו דבר ויאמרו 'טובה הארץ מאד אשר ה' אלוקינו נותן לנו', “they brought back word to us and they said “the land <i>Hashem</i> is giving us is very good.” Moses continues there saying that in spite of this “לא אביתם לעלות ותמרו את פי ה', “you did not want to ascend and you rebelled against G’d’s command.” (Compare Deut. 1,25-26) According to what had transpired in public the only reason that the people did not want to ascend was that the people in that land had been described as עז, powerful. Seeing that the only reason the people refused to ascend was that they were afraid of the inhabitants of the land of Canaan they displayed a lack of trust in <i>Hashem</i> who had up unto that moment overcome every obstacle that had lain in their path. There is no need to understand the people’s refusal as a lack of confidence in Joshua’s and Calev dissenting report, as if that were the issue, why should the people accept 2 men’s views over that of a clear majority of 10? The Torah had written that Moses had dispatched 12 men, so that when he referred to their report in Deut. 1,25 he clearly referred to the majority report.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויפול משה ואהרן על פניהם לפני כל קהל עדת ישראל, “Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before the entire congregation of the community of Israel.” They bowed their faces to the ground in full view of the whole community. The matter is comparable to Samuel I 20,41 ויפול לאפיו ארצה וישתחו שלש פעמים, David bowed with his face to the ground three times, (in taking his leave from Yonathan) [according to our author the expression in our verse above is also one describing deference. Ed.] When Moses and Aaron saw that the people had made up their minds to select a new leader and to head back toward Egypt, they bowed down imploring them not to commit such a grave wrong, one that would become a terrible stumbling block for them. Seeing that all the people were involved, Moses and Aaron made certain that their appeal would be heard by all those assembled.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   טובה הארץ מאד מאד, “the land is very very good!” They repeated the adjective twice in order to counter as much as possible the impression the spies had created that the land was devouring its inhabitants. Not only was the fruit very good, but also the climate is very good and that it why it was flowing with milk and honey.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   אך בה' אל תמרודו!, “Only do not become guilty of rebelling against <i>Hashem</i>!” By being afraid of the strength of the inhabitants of that land you have rebelled against G’d, for you know very well that you did not leave Egypt by having defeated the Egyptians. It had all been <i>Hashem’s</i> doing. He has promised you that you will conquer the land of Canaan, and you have no reason to doubt that.
  
     ואתם אל תיראו את עם הארץ כי לחמנו הם, “and you must not be afraid of the people of the land for they are our bread!” Even if we were to confront them without miraculous help from <i>Hashem,</i> they will fall victim to us as they are already scared of us and have lost their former courage, making them as easy to devour as bread.
  
     סר צלם מעליהם, “their protection has already departed from them.” <i>Rashi</i> explains the word צלם, their shade, as a simile for their celestial, horoscope, i.e. the angel provided for them in the heavens. The most able warriors that these people possessed have already died. Another explanation would understand the word צלם as a reference to the time when these people basked in G’d’s shade, i.e. G’d’s protection.
      Nachmanides, in referring to Ibn Ezra’s commentary that the word צלם is an alternative for מגנם, “their shield,” understands the absence of such a shield now as the absence of fear. The Canaanites had become infected with a fear of the Israelites who had for the last two years defeated every attempt to harm them. As of now the people are not even prepared to battle us with their protective shields held in their hands.
      It is possible that Moses’ words hinted at a tradition we have that on the night of <i>Hoshanah Rabbah</i> people who are slated to die during that year cannot find a shadow of their heads when they go out looking for it in the moonlight. Moses paraphrased this by saying publicly that these people if they looked for such a shadow of their heads would not find it, and that this would make them even more afraid of their fate.
      Yet another possible meaning of Moses’ choice of simile, is an allusion to the protective angel that G’d has assigned to each nation, an angel that is always withdrawn prior to the demise of that particular nation. G’d had withdrawn that angel from the Egyptians prior to their drowning in the sea.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   אשר עשיתי בקרבו, “which I have performed in its midst.” Moses employed the singular mode when speaking of the Jewish people, as at one time they had been a united people. At that time that had been a sign that they were a people loyal to their G’d and His Torah.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ושמעו מצרים, “when the Egyptians will hear (about this).” According to <i>Rashi,</i> Moses was referring to the Egyptians hearing abut G’d having killed the Jewish people. 
  
     כי העלית, “whom You have brought up, etc.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the word כי in this instance means the same as אשר, which, whom.
      Nachmanides adds that if so, the word אל יושב in verse 14, normally understood as “to the inhabitants, etc.”’ must be understood as על יושב, “concerning the inhabitants.” He therefore prefers to interpret that Moses’ intention when giving this answer, was not that the Canaanites would conclude that they had been perceived as brave and powerful and could not be compared to the Egyptians who did not have 31 kings to lead them, and who on account of their having only one king could be defeated by the G’d of the Israelites. The Egyptians, according to Nachmanides’ interpretation of Moses’ argument, would assume that the demise of the Jewish people would prove that the deities of the Canaanites were more powerful than those of the Israelites. The Jewish G’d, they would reason, had prevailed only over relatively weak nations, nations whose deities had proved inferior. This would constitute a major desecration of G’d’s great name, and would strengthen all the pagan nations in their mistaken beliefs. When we consider matters in this light, the words אל יושב may be understood at face value, i.e. that the inhabitants of Egypt would say to the inhabitants of Canaan that what happened had revealed the weakness and inadequacy of the G’d of the Jews who had mistakenly been perceived as invincible.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   אשר עין בעין, “who appeared eye to eye.” Nachmanides refers to the commentators who understand this phrase as describing that G’d, when performing the miracles for His people, appeared to them as visible as when one human being sees another human being performing acts which used to be considered as beyond human capacity. The expression would be parallel to the expression פנים בפנים דבר ה' עמכם, “face to face did <i>Hashem</i> speak to you.”
      He suggests as a possible alternative interpretation of this expression that it describes a great vision, great spectacle, the word being used in a manner similar to when the Torah described the appearance of the manna as being ועינו כעין הבדולח, in Number 11,7, where it meant “its appearance was like the gemstone known as <i>bedolach.”</i>
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ה', the attribute of G’d as the Eternal; The Holy name is not repeated here as it had been when <i>Hashem</i> revealed 13 of His attributes to Moses in Exodus The reason is that in that context it meant that <i>Hashem</i> is and remains <i>Hashem</i> before man sins as well as after he has sinned and before he has repented. G’d is ready to forgive man’s error, as long as man displays remorse. This was an attribute that it was appropriate to stress in context of the sin of the golden calf as in Exodus 34 the people had already repented and done what they could to cleanse themselves of their sin. In our context, at the time when G’d responds to Moses, the people had not yet become penitents, hence the attribute Is mentioned only once.
  
     ארך אפים ורב חסד, “slow to anger and abundant in kindness.” Nachmanides draws attention to Moses not referring to the attribute אמת which G’d had also revealed to him in Exodus 34. He could not do so now, as seeing that the people had not yet repented, Moses could not invoke an attribute of G’d which comes into play only after the people had owned up their own version of אמת, truth, by having sincerely repented. Moses did not mention such attributes as נוצר חסד לאלפים, “Preserver of kindness for thousands of generations” (Exodus 34,7) either, as he did not invoke the merit of the forefathers in his present prayer. Moses had not referred to Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov in his prayer on this occasion at all, seeing that the land had been deeded to these patriarchs and the people’s sin here consisted of their rejecting this very inheritance.
      Moses did not mention the attribute known as חטאה at this juncture either, as that attribute could be invoked only if the sins committed had been committed inadvertently. When sins were committed knowingly, or even in a spirit of rebellion against G’d, it would have seemed frivolous to mention that attribute. I am not sure why Moses did not invoke the attributes of רחום וחנון on this occasion. Perhaps it is because he was aware that the entire scenario was one in which dominance had been given by G’d already to the attribute of Justice. There could no longer be any point in appealing to G’d’s attributes of pity, etc, as those attributes presuppose at least some redeeming aspect in what the sinner had done. He did mention G’d’s attribute of ארך אפים, inordinate amount of patience when dealing with sinners, which manifested itself here by the people not dying all at once, but their punishment being spread over a period of 38 years. In deference to Moses’ invoking only the attribute of G’d’s patience, G’d responded by saying: “I have forgiven, in accordance with your words,” i.e. by spreading the decree of death in the desert over a whole generation. (Verse 20) Moses also did invoke the attribute known as פוקד עון אבות על בנים, that G’d remembers the sins of the fathers to their children, [another kind of deferment of punishment, i.e. if the fathers had been punished in full, the children would never have been born to them before they died. Ed.] when He decreed that for having wept when they had no reason to weep, they would have to weep for many hundreds of years on the anniversary of the destruction of the Temple, something they would have reason to weep about if they reflected on their history. At any rate, as mentioned, G’d’s response to Moses’ prayer was:
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   סלחתי כדבריך, “I have forgiven in accordance with your own terms.” The “forgiveness” referred to the people as a whole, meaning that He would not smite the people with pestilence immediately, and His forgiving the people would result in their children, at least, inheriting the land that had been promised to their fathers. However, He decreed that their carcasses would all be buried in the desert, each one of them dying at a predetermined date already set by G’d at this time.
      In the Book of Deuteronomy Moses makes mention of the prayer he had prayed on behalf of the errant people at the time of the golden calf, and he also mentioned his prayer on behalf of Aaron at that time. He did not, however, refer to the prayer he had offered on behalf of the people on this occasion. The reason is that Moses had not prayed to G’d to forgive the sin of the people, but that he had only tried to get G’d to temper the punishment. He had tried to invoke the attribute of ארך אפים so that He would defer the impact of His decree over a longer period of time. Had he mentioned his prayer to the generation of the children in Deuteronomy, these children most likely would have criticized him for not having appealed on behalf of their parents in stronger language.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ואולם חי אני, “But, as I am alive, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> understands this phrase as an oath, claiming that it is an incomplete, truncated phrase and actually continues to the end of verse 23
      Nachmanides writes concerning <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation that it is not an oath, and that the Torah deliberately refrained from quoting G’d as having said anything that could be interpreted as an oath, as it would be unseemly to quote G’d as having sworn an oath unless He himself said so specifically. [Remember that the words quoted here, were spoken by Moses. When G’d utters an oath, He is quoted directly, as in Genesis 22,16 בי נשבעתי נאום ה', “I have sworn by My own self, etc. Ed.] According to Rabbi Chavell, Nachmanides means that if the words וימלא כבוד ה' את כל הארץ would not be part of an oath they should have appeared only at the conclusion of verse 23. Appearing as they do where they do, means that they are the rationale why G’d does not kill all the people now, as if He were to do so, the argument which Moses had portrayed the Egyptians as using to demonstrate G’d’s impotence to defeat the Canaanites would gain public support world-wide. When an ordinary person commences a sentence in a manner similar to the above, i.e. כה יעשה לי אלוקים, “may G’d do such and such to me,” and he leaves the other half of the sentence unspoken, this is also to be interpreted as a לשון שבועה, a formula of an oath, according to Nachmanides. (Compare Samuel II 3,35, Kings I 2,23)
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  וכל מנאצי לא יראוה , “all those who anger Me shall not see it.” Seeing that G’d had already said that the present generation would not be able to set eyes on the Holy Land, Ibn Ezra understands the words here as applying to their children, in the event that these or some of them would anger G’d. Perhaps these words contain a hint applicable throughout the generations that would also apply to all the Jews who would experience exile in the future. Unless they did not anger G’d, they could not hope to be redeemed and would have to spend the 9th of Av each year weeping for the fate that they still endured and which had its roots in the events in our portion. In other words, this “weeping for generations,” was potentially imposed at this point.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ועבדי כלב, “but My servant Calev, etc.” The Torah, at this point, does not mention Joshua, as it concentrates on promising Calev his share in the Promised Land, whereas seeing that Joshua would in due course become Moses’ successor, mentioning his share in the Promised Land at this stage would have been inappropriate. The reason why Calev is mentioned here ahead of Joshua is that he spoke up against the other spies first. When Moses refers to what had occurred here in verse 38, he mentions Joshua first, saying: “but Joshua son of Nun and Calev son of Yefuneh survived of all these men, etc.” He accorded Joshua precedence as he was endowed with greater wisdom than Calev.
      14, 25. והעמלקי והכנעני יושב בעמק, “The Amalekite and the Canaanite dwelled in the valley. This sounds somewhat strange seeing that a few verses later (14,45) we are told that the Amalekite and the Canaanite who dwelled in the mountain descended.” This teaches that the Amalekite and Canaanite joined forces and descended to the valley in order to mount an attack on the Israelites from a position of ambush.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  והעמלקי והכנעני יושב בעמק, “The Amalekite and the Canaanite dwelled in the valley. This sounds somewhat strange seeing that a few verses later (14,45) we are told that the Amalekite and the Canaanite who dwelled in the mountain descended.” This teaches that the Amalekite and Canaanite joined forces and descended to the valley in order to mount an attack on the Israelites from a position of ambush.
  
  Verse 26
  
   וידבר ה' אל משה ואל אהרן, “<i>Hashem</i> spoke to Moses and Aaron.” Seeing that both Moses and Aaron had fallen on their faces, in this instance <i>Hashem</i> also addressed Aaron directly, in order to give him the strength to get up from the ground on which both had fallen. The command <i>Hashem</i> issued in verse 2 was addressed only to Moses, seeing he was the major prophet of the two.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   אם לא כאשר דברתם באזני כן אעשה לכם, “if I shall not do to you as you have spoken in My hearing.” The wording is to be understood as a rhetorical question. “You will see if what you have accused Me of will not turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy?”
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   והבאתי אותם וידעו את הארץ, “I shall bring them and they shall get to know the land.” It is noteworthy that G’d did not say that these children will inherit the land. The word וירשו, “they will inherit,” would imply many generations of tenure of the land. The choice of the word וידעו by the Torah is a veiled hint that even later generations may face exile from the Holy Land.
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   פגריכם אתם, “your carcasses;” the meaning is that you are already like carcasses although you may feel perfectly healthy at this time. You will lie down some night and never wake up in the morning.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   יהיו רועים במדבר, “will roam in the wilderness, etc.” Just as a shepherd does not remain stationary in the same location but guides his flock to different pastures, you will be searching out places to make camp.
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  רעה מוציאי דבת-הארץ, “spreading slanderous report about the land,” Nachmanides says that the “slander” mentioned here was their claim that the land consumes its inhabitants. This was an outright lie, as not only was the land full of people, but the spies themselves during the forty days they had spent in the land had not experienced any problems with their health. We have a record of Joshua describing the Land of Canaan as densely populated in Joshua The precise wording is עם רב כחול הים אשר על שפת הים לרוב, “a people as numerous as the sand on the beaches of the sea.”     <i>Rashi</i> explains the words מוציאי דבת הארץ as causing people to speak fluently, i.e. in this case as harping on the negative aspects. On occasions, the same expression is used to describe someone constantly underlining the positive aspects of something. This is why the Torah had to add the word רעה when referring to דבת הארץ.     Nachmanides counters that we have a statement in <i>Pessachim</i> 3 containing the word דבה, where it is clearly referring to negative comments without the word רעה being added. According to Nachmanides the reason the Torah did add the word רעה here although it had already been implied by the use of the word דבה, is to tell us of how much the spies overemphasized the negative aspects of what they claimed to have seen. 
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
   וישכימו בבקר ויעלו אל ראש ההר לאמור הננו, ועלינו אל המקום, וגו', “they arose early in the morning and ascended toward the top of the mountain, and they said: ‘here we are ready to ascend to the place, etc.” My sainted father the <i>Ro’sh</i> of blessed memory, could not come to terms with people who had said already that they wanted to appoint a new leader to take them back to Egypt having suddenly decided to make a 180 degree turn about, after it had already been decreed that they would die in the desert. Surely, in view of that decree, logic would have dictated that they make every effort to avoid doing something which is the opposite of their expressed wish, namely to return to Egypt. They seemed intent on embarking on a course of action that would hasten their death even more by confronting the Canaanites whom they had considered unbeatable. He explained that we must understand that ever since the Israelites had seen the Egyptian soldiers dead on the beaches of the sea, they had intended to return to an Egypt devoid of men, a rich country theirs for the taking, and had seen no point in journeying to the land of Canaan, a land populated by giants, a challenge that they had no stomach for. Every time there had been a problem, their desire to return to a defeated Egypt had come to the fore. Already in Exodus 15,22 we read that Moses had to forcefully compel the Israelites to turn towards the desert instead of returning as victors to a defeated Egypt. Finally, when they had come to the desert of Paran, they had agreed to send spies to Canaan in order to examine the feasibility of conquering that land. They had hoped that by reporting on the nature of the inhabitants in that country G’d might at least consent to their returning to Egypt, instead. When, in response to the majority report of the spies they had decided to appoint a new leader to lead them back to Egypt, this must not be understood as a rebellion, but as a request to G’d to allow them to return to Egypt where they hoped to live in peace without having to face a war of conquest. When they had now found out that this was not a viable option, they decided to accept the unpalatable alternative and with G’d’s help to conquer the Land of Canaan.
  
  
  Verse 41
  
   והיא לא תצלח, ”this plan will not succeed.” Moses explained to these people that the fact that they planned to act against the wishes of <i>Hashem</i> doomed their attempt.
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
   וארון ברית ה' ומשה לא משו, “while the Ark of the covenant of <i>Hashem</i> and Moses did not move.” The Torah mentioned the Ark at the beginning of the verse; we find a similar expression in Samuel I 4,11 when the Ark was taken to battle by the two sons of Eli and captured by the Philistines. The basic difference between here and there is that the two sons of Eli were killed, which is the reason that they were mentioned by name only at the end of that verse.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   כי תבואו אל ארץ מושבותיכם, “When you will come to the Land of your dwelling, etc.” Nachmanides writes that after <i>Hashem</i> had reassured the children of the generation who had experienced the Exodus that they, at any rate would inherit the Promised Land, the Torah completes the legislation about both the public and private offerings. The Torah specifically introduces the subject of חלה, the setting aside of a small portion of any dough for the priest, <i>Hashem’s</i> representative on earth, as symbolic recognition that even basic foodstuffs such as bread that man toiled to produce are, in the final analysis, a gift from the Creator. [I elaborated on the theme with my own words. Ed.]
      Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why these paragraphs were appended at this juncture was to cheer up the younger generation who had to face the premature death of their parents as a result of the debacle with the spies. The Torah reassured them that they, at any rate, would come to the Holy Land, and legislation at this time applicable only in the Holy Land, would lift their spirits.
      I believe (Ibn Ezra continuing) that more is involved here. On the one hand, this sin -as opposed to the golden calf where only a small percentage of Jews actually took active part, -had involved the entire people, and they had been saved from immediate death only by Moses prayer.
       It was appropriate therefore to write legislation dealing with both inadvertent sin, (compare verse 22) and to provide a mechanism for obtaining forgiveness. (Verse 25) At the same time, the Torah added technical details about offering gift-offerings, מנחות which henceforth were to be added to all burnt offerings and meat-offerings. In addition the Torah spelled out what would happen if the sin were to be committed deliberately. Furthermore, the legislation about ציצית, fringes, was introduced as an act of G’d’s mercy, as these fringes were to remind the wearer when he looked at them that he must not commit sins against his Creator. Finally, we have a report about an Israelite who deliberately violated the Sabbath legislation and who was executed as a result after the method of execution had been spelled out by G’d. (Verse 32-36)
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   סולת עשרון בלול ברביעית ההין, “a tenth <i>eyfah</i> fine flour mixed with a quarter <i>hin</i> of oil.” It is peculiar that our verse gives us a relationship between the amount of oil needed to mix with the amount of flour that does not correspond to standard relationships we find elsewhere. If the example described here were a standard example, why would we find that in the case of the libations accompanying offerings consisting of varying sizes of four-legged animals the libations brought with an offering consisting of a ram where two tenths of an <i>eyfah</i> of flour are used instead of half a <i>hin</i> of oil only a third of a <i>hin</i> is required; similarly when the libation of an offering consisting of a bull is described the Torah decrees three tenths of an <i>eyfah</i> of flour to be mixed with only half a <i>hin</i> of oil? Perhaps, although in order to mix the flour thoroughly with oil, in the example mentioned in our verse a quarter of a <i>hin</i> of oil is required, when the quantity of flour is greater, the need to increase the proportionate amount of oil decreases gradually.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   וכי תשגו ולא תעשו את כל מצות האלה, “if you err and do not fulfill all of these commandments, etc.” Nachmanides refers to an error by numerous commentators who mistakenly believed that the offerings described here apply to people who failed to perform positive commandments they were bidden to do. The true meaning of the words is that they apply to negative commandments, and disobedience whether deliberate or inadvertent consists in doing the opposite of what one is supposed to do, i.e. ignoring a negative commandment by acting in opposition to it. It is clear beyond doubt from verse 24 that the error consisted of the people doing something that the Torah had forbidden.
      The offering described here is one that must be brought when the entire people acted in error but in good faith. This is not the same offering as has been legislated in Leviticus In that instance the offering required was a bull as a sin offering. The bull that is discussed here is one that is offered as a burnt offering, עולה, not as a חטאת, a sin offering. The accompanying sin offering in our instance is a male goat. The sin the people became inadvertently guilty of is the sin of idolatry, a sin which is equated with violation of all of G’d’s commandments, i.e. את כל המצות האלה.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, (as opposed to the Rabbinic interpretation) the scenario of which the Torah speaks here is, in the case of an individual, someone who was raised amongst gentiles, unaware of the Torah and its laws. When he becomes aware of his error, he is obliged to offer one single such sacrifice in respect of all the previous violations. In the case of the whole people having erred, the scenario would be that they considered that the laws of the Torah are not applicable for all times, and they had believed that the applicability of the law in question had already expired.
      According to our sages, the subject is violation of the laws of idolatry and it is written here as the Torah (the Book of numbers) concludes the legislation of different kinds of offerings for different reasons. The fact that it has been written specifically here is due to the people now having committed acts of rebellion against G’d as described when they wanted to appoint alternate leaders who would lead them back to Egypt.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   והם הביאו את קרבנם אשה לה', “and they have brought their offering, a fire offering for <i>Hashem.”</i> These words refer to the burnt offering.
  
     וחטאתם לפני ה', “as well as their sin offering for <i>Hashem.”</i> These words refer to the male goat serving as the sin offering. According to Nachmanides the Torah writes both offerings separately so as to stress the enormity of the sin, and to teach that in spite of the sin itself being of a colossal nature, the fact that it was not committed knowingly qualifies it for forgiveness by the Creator. 
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   The Torah also mentions the גר, the stranger, (proselyte) separately, as due to their only recently having converted they are more likely to commit sins erroneously.
      15,31 עונה בה, “his sin is upon him.” According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning of this expression is similar to such an expression as דמיהם בם. (Leviticus 20,11, at al) their “blood-guilt” will remain upon them (as long as they have not repented). Another similar expression is ערירים ימותו עונם ישאו, “they will die childless while bearing the burden of their guilt.” (Compare Leviticus 20,20)
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  עונה בה, “his sin is upon him.” According to the plain meaning of the text the meaning of this expression is similar to such an expression as דמיהם בם. (Leviticus 20,11, at al) their “blood-guilt” will remain upon them (as long as they have not repented). Another similar expression is ערירים ימותו עונם ישאו, “they will die childless while bearing the burden of their guilt.” (Compare Leviticus 20,20)
  
  Verse 32
  
   ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר, “The Children of Israel were in the wilderness.” This verse that apparently does not tell us anything we did not know, appears here as explaining how what will be described here could have happened. It was all due to the decree that the people had to keep wandering in the desert.
      This is followed by the legislation about <i>Tzitzit,</i> the fringes to be appended to four cornered garments, a device designed to remind the wearer of all of the Torah’s commandments whenever he looks at these fringes.
      Nachmanides comments on the commentary of <i>Rashi</i> in which he refers to the numerical of the word amounting to 600 (ציצית) When we add the 8 strings involved and the 5 knots used in tying them we arrive at 613, i.e. the umber of laws in the Torah. He questions this whole explanation, pointing out that the spelling in the Torah of the word ציצת [without the letter י in front of the letter ת leaves us with only 590.] He adds further, that according to the school of Hillel, the number of strings is three and not eight. The Torah also requires only 2 knots, not 5. 
      [Nachmanides’ query has already been raised by <i>Tossaphot</i> in <i>Menachot</i>, 39 and is not directed at <i>Rashi</i> who did not originate the explanation, but at any rate the answer given there is that the letter ל in the word לציצת in our paragraph makes up (30) for the three letters י missing in the three words spelled ציצת in the text of the Torah in our paragraph. Ed.] At any rate, according to Nachmanides, the “remembering” of the Torah’s commandments mentioned in our paragraph is due to the colour of the thread of תכלת, ocean-blue wool, and not to any numerical values of any of the letters in the paragraph. Ocean-blue reminds us of the blue sky, which in turn makes us think of the Creator presiding over His universe on His throne in heaven.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויקח קרח, “Korach took, etc.” According to Nachmanides the word ויקח, -seeing that the Torah does not spell out what it was that Korach took- refers to Korach “consulting” with his heart to embark on a certain course of action, the details of which the Torah will reveal shortly. The root לקח may be employed when speaking of “taking” advice, etc. It also occurs in Scripture in the context of embarking on a good and wholesome plan, as in Job 15,12 מה יקחך לבך, “How your heart has carried you away!” Another example of the use of that word in such a context is Proverbs 8,10 קחו מוסרי ואל כסף, “accept my discipline instead of silver!”
      Ibn Ezra explains the word ויקח as an abbreviated version of “Korach took for himself a number of men, etc.”
      Some commentators believe that the predicate of the words ויקח קרח is Datan and Aviram and that the letter ו in ודתן , is extraneous. We encounter something analogous in Genesis 36,24 ואיה וענה where there also appears no need for the letter ו in the word ואיה. The meaning of the phrase in our verse then would be ויקח קרח דתן ואבירם, “Korach took Datan and Aviram.”
      Ibn Ezra, in trying to fix the point in time when Korach’s rebellion took place, claims that it occurred in the desert of Sinai [way before the debacle with the spies and the resultant lack of a future for his generation. Ed.] The flashpoint for the rebellion was the exchange of the privileges formerly accorded to the firstborn for the Levites. The rebels believed that Moses had acted high-handedly and that G’d had not initiated this switch. They believed that what had occurred was an act of nepotism on the part of Moses who wanted to fill the most coveted positions in the nation with members of his immediate family. They included not only his brother and nephews, but even the sons of Kehat, and the Levites in general as they were members of his tribe. Datan and Aviram used this as a pretext for rebelling, seeing that they, as members of the tribe of Reuven, had both already been deprived of their status as “firstborns,” and the tribe of Joseph had i.e. members of that tribe, had been given this preferred status. Perhaps they thought that Joshua, who was Moses’ personal valet and a member of the tribe of Ephrayim, whose own status within the tribe of Joseph had already been amended through his being nominated as the senior of Joseph’s sons by his grandfather Yaakov, although he was chronologically the junior, had been promoted as an arbitrary act by Moses. The Levites, generally, resented that only Moses’ immediate family had been accorded the status of priests, not the whole tribe. 
      Nachmanides accuses Ibn Ezra of speculating, seeing that he cited no sources to support his theory. He does not accept the theory that the Torah reports events other than in chronological order, unless, of course the Torah itself, by giving a date for a happening, draws our attention to the fact that it was not recorded in chronological order, such as the events in Numbers 9,1 which clearly occurred earlier than the count described in Numbers chapter 1-2.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   וישמע משה ויפול על פניו, “When Moses heard these accusations he fell on his face.” The Torah, in this instance does not describe both Moses and Aaron as falling on their faces, as it had done in Numbers 14,5 seeing hat Aaron, whose position had been challenged kept silent throughout so as not to provide further fuel for Korach’s claims by insisting that he was entitled to this high office. [Incidentally, Aaron’s own silence could be interpreted by disinterested bystanders as support for Korach, i.e. as an admission that he had not come by this office on the basis of personal merit. Ed.] The fact is that Aaron’s silence was due to his honouring the instructions he had received from Moses.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   בוקר ויודע ה' את אשר לו, “in the morning <i>Hashem</i> will make known the one who is His own, etc.” Moses referred to the fact that clear proof would be forthcoming if the Levites were performing their service with G’d’s consent or if the firstborn were still acceptable to Him as the ones chosen to represent the people as His servants in the Tabernacle. He would prove by the rejection of the 250 people offering incense that when G’d had said in Numbers 3,12 and 8,14 that the Levites had been chosen by Him, that it was not Moses who had chosen to replace the firstborn. In adding the words: ואת הקדוש והקריב אליו, “and who is holy, and He will draw him close to Himself,” Moses referred to Aaron’s position as High Priest.
      It is also possible that Moses meant that the firstborn must not consider themselves as having been rejected by G’d as we know from Numbers 3,13 and 8,17 כי לי כל בכור בבני ישראל, “for every firstborn among the Children of Israel has a special relationship to Me, etc.” On the other hand, the קדוש, “the priests,” would be confirmed as such by an act of <i>Hashem</i> on the morrow. It is their task to perform service in the Tabernacle/Temple as we read in Chronicles I 23,13 ויבדל אהרן להקדיש קודש קדשים הוא ובניו עד עולם, “Aaron and his sons were sanctified for the Holy of Holies, he and his sons throughout the generations.”
  
     ואת אשר יבחר בו יקריב אליו, “and the one whom He will choose, He will draw near to Him.” Nachmanides, pointing out that Moses said twice in the same verse that G’d would bring near to Him the one He had chosen, draws our attention to the fact that whereas the first time he added ואת הקדוש, “and the one who is holy,” sees in this a hint that the former refers to G’d’s accepting the incense offering of Aaron on the morrow while rejecting that of the 250 men The second time the words אשר יבחר בו refers to the status of the priests, descendants of Aaron, throughout the ages. The addition of the word מחר, “tomorrow,” in verse 7 means that this demonstration would occur only once and would settle the dispute once and for all. No other challenge would arise against the validity of the priests’ position.
      Ibn Ezra explains the words ויודע ה' את אשר לו as referring to the tribe that G’d had selected, i.e. the tribe of Levi. This was the answer to Datan and Aviram as well as to the dignitaries who also happened to be firstborns. He feels that all the people who had assembled in this rebellious demonstration were from the tribe of Levi hence the word הקדוש was meant to single out who amongst all these Levites was the one chosen to be the High Priest. Ibn Ezra uses the fact that Moses specifically addressed the members of the tribe of Levi, asking them if they had not already been honoured sufficiently that they now demanded even greater honours to support his explanation.
      Nachmanides writes that if, as Ibn Ezra claims, all the people ganging up on Moses and Aaron had been members of the tribe of Levi, how can we explain that on the day after Korach and supporters went down into the earth that all the tribes accused Moses of killing G’d’s people, and all of them presented their staffs to the test which staff would produce blossoms, etc.?
       As to Moses having said to the Levites רב לכם בני לוי, “it is much for you, offspring of Levi,” this reflects that Moses was aware that Korach was trying to fool the people into believing that he was a champion of the firstborns of each tribe who had been deprived of the privilege to perform service in the Tabernacle through the Levites having replaced them. This is why he had prefaced his incitement with the words כי כל העדה כולם קדושים, “for the entire Jewish community are holy.”
       Moses was intelligent enough to realize that Korach’s target was the priesthood, and Aaron, Moses’ brother being the High Priest, He hinted that if that were not so, it was strange that Korach, a member of the tribe of Levi, had not objected at the time when all the members of his tribe had been elevated to a privileged status. Korach had gladly accepted his elevation to a superior status, thereby contradicting his claim that all the Israelites were equally holy, seeing that <i>Hashem</i> had revealed Himself to all of them at Mount Sinai. This is why the Torah reports in verse 8 that now, instead of speaking to Korach and his rabble, he spoke to Korach in his capacity as their leader, when the latter did not have to posture in front of his cohorts. Moses, in his attempt to calm the situation and to bring about a פיוס, reconciliation, made his remarks to Korach part of his general remarks to the assembled rebels, instead of taking Korach aside, so that these people would become aware of Korach’s duping them into believing that he was championing their cause, and would not follow in his footsteps.
      Moses, personally, believed that his approach would work, and that is why he chose the offering of incense by lay Israelites as the litmus test rather than the offering of some other sacrifice. He thought that the fact that if even Aaron’s son Nadav and Avihu had died when offering unauthorized incense, surely that reminder would act as a brake on the eagerness of these 250 men when called upon to present incense in grounds not consecrated for such an offering.
      He permitted Aaron to participate in this test, basing his ruling on the concept of הוראת שעה, an immediate emergency. [We know that Aaron was specifically called upon to perform during such emergencies in Numbers 17,11-13 when Moses also demonstrated that incense was not necessarily what killed the people, but the reverse. Ed.] It is possible, however, that the time frame chosen by Moses for this test was when Aaron would offer the daily incense offering in the Tabernacle. Moses was confident that <i>Hashem</i> would support the initiative of His prophet on this occasion, although he had not yet asked for special permission to deviate from <i>halachic</i> norms.
      Personally, I do not think that Aaron’s offering of his morning incense could have played a part in this, seeing that the daily incense offering was presented on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary, a location beyond the view of anyone outside, seeing the Tabernacle did not even have any windows.
      Some commentators believe that the line וישמע משה ויפול על פניו, (verse 4) is the Torah’s way of describing how Moses turned to G’d to receive guidance as to how to deal with this rebellion. In response to Moses’ quest, <i>Hashem</i> answered that He would demonstrate on the following morning who were those chosen by Him and who were not. This would not be the only instance in which the Torah is very succinct, saving the details for another occasion. Sometimes we are told what G’d told Moses to tell the people, and the Torah hardly mentions that Moses conveyed the whole message. On other occasions we become aware of all that G’d had told Moses only when the Torah reports Moses as delivering G’d’s message to them. I have noticed that Onkelos who has translated the word קטורת in other places in the Torah as קטורת בוסמין, i.e. as קטורת הסמים, omits the word בוסמין, fagrances, when translating the word קטורת in our portion. [Our versions of Onkelos do not bear this out; maybe Nachmanides had a different version of Onkelos. Ed.] According to that version of Onkelos, he may have felt that the incense these 250 men were asked to offer in the test consisted only of לבונה, frankincense, and thus did not constitute the kind of affront with probably lethal consequences that the arrogant rebels subjected themselves to. Onkelos, according to that version, also understood the “incense” offered by Nadav and Avihu to have been of this variety. [Note that according to the Torah their capital sin was to bring אש זרה, man-made fire, on their censers. Nowhere does the Torah mention that the incense was what caused their death. Ed.] 
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויקרב אותך, “he drew you near, etc.” Although Gershon was Levi’s firstborn, and had a claim to be given precedence over Kehat his brother in being given the privilege of transporting the Holy Aark, etc., <i>Hashem</i> demoted him in a manner of speaking in favour of your grandfather, and, as a result, in your favour. You are privileged to carry the Holy Ark on your shoulders.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   וישלח משה לקרוא לדתן ואבירם, “Moses sent a messenger to summon Datan and Aviram, etc.” They were at the core of the entire dispute together with Korach, and up until now Moses had carried on a dialogue only with Korach. He had attempted to placate Korach, and was now ready to attempt to placate Datan and Aviram also. He did not summon Aun, son of Pelet, 
      Nachmanides speculates that the reason that Moses did not invite Aun son of Pelet to a dialogue may have been that as a member of the tribe of Reuven, he presumed that Aun would automatically follow the lead of Datan and Aviram who were members of his tribe. If such illustrious men as Datan and Aviram would be reconciled with Moses, he, Aun, would of course follow suit. As it turned out, Aun was no longer with Datan and Aviram, neither did he come to debate with Moses as he had listened to the advice of his wife who had told him not to become a pawn in the hands of such demagogues as Datan and Aviram. Our sages derived this from the fact that when the death of Korach and Datan and Aviram is reported, the Torah never mentioned another word about Aun son of Pelet. Had he persisted in his opposition, surely he would have been enumerated as one of the victims of this rebellion. He clearly did not even belong to the 250 men who presented their incense or he would have died as a result of that. The reason that Moses had to send a messenger to summon Datan and Aviram was that they had gone away during the argument that Moses carried on with Korach. It is also possible that whereas Korach had been positioned in the camp of the Levites, not far from Moses’ own tent, Datan and Aviram being members of the tribe of Reuven, had remained within the confines of their own camp. This entire dialogue occurred on the first day, as the Torah said that G’d had said that on the following morning the issue would be put to the test.
  
     לא נעלה, “we will not go up.” Ibn Ezra writes that it is possible that the Tabernacle was located on a slight elevation outside the general encampment, or that the word “going up” is used in a spiritual sense, i.e. that anyone invited to meet with Moses at the entrance to the Tabernacle was automatically viewed as “ascending.”
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   כי תשתרר עלינו גם השתרר, “yet you want to lord it over us, yea, dominate us even further?” According to Nachmanides the word גם, normally translated as “also,” needs to be understood as אפילו, “even,” in the sense of “even more so,” in our context here.
      Others understand the phrase to mean: “is it not enough that you lord it over us, that now you want to impose even your brother over us also?”
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, “even if you were to gouge out the eyes of these men, etc.,” Datan and Aviram referred to the men who had come out of Egypt. The phrase is a sarcastic remark suggesting that even if all are as blind as if their eyes had been gouged out, they, Datan and Aviram, could not be blinded by Moses’ pretensions. If we were to accept Moses’ summons or invitation it would appear as if we too were unable to “see” how he had bamboozled the whole nation.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   אל תפן אל מנחתם, “Do not turn to their gift-offering.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that according to the plain meaning the gift offering referred to was the incense that the rebels were to offer on the following morning.
      Nachmanides writes that this is not correct, as the words were said concerning Datan and Aviram, and Moses was especially angry at what they had said. Their reason for dissatisfaction had nothing to do with who would be privileged to offer incense at all. They had had their own axe to grind. The plain meaning of the verse is that Moses said to G’d concerning the people who had demanded the right to perform the priestly duties, that He should not accept their incense in order to demonstrate that they had not been chosen to do so. Moses meant that G’d should neither accept their incense offering nor accept their prayer with goodwill. Prayer is also referred to as מנחה in Scripture. Onkelos also supports this explanation when he writes קורבנהון, without specifying, i.e. any offering including prayer.
  
     לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, “I have not taken a single donkey of theirs, etc.” Moses said this in response to the accusation that he had lorded it over the people. He had not levied any taxes on any of the people as is customary and willingly accepted by the subjects of any rulers. He had not even borrowed an animal to carry a load for him. When Onkelos translates this as שחרית, he refers to אנגריא, forced labour owed to the king, or even lesser dignitaries such as town-captains, known as שחוור.
  
     ולא הרעותי את אחד מהם, “neither have I wronged a single one among them.” [This, if taken at face value, would be nothing to brag about. Ed.] The meaning is that Moses never requested from anyone that he perform some menial task for him that he considered it as beneath his dignity to perform himself.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ויאמר משה אל קרח אתה וכל עדתך היו לפני ה'....מחר, “Moses said to Korach: ‘you and your whole assembly make an appearance in the presence of <i>Hashem</i> tomorrow!” Ibn Ezra points out that Moses had already made the same request in verses 6-7 when he had instructed them to appear with their censers filled with incense. We therefore need to understand this as a reference to what Moses had said before the Torah gave details of the altercation.
      Nachmanides feels that the difference between verse 6-7 and the present verse is that here Aaron is included as participating in this competition. Perhaps Moses hoped that this fact might get some rebels to withdraw, seeing that they knew that on previous occasions <i>Hashem</i> had up to now always accepted Aaron’s incense offering. Alternately, the rebels felt that the participation of Aaron would ensure that heavenly fire as a sign of acceptance would materialize, as it always did. [After all, Moses’ challenge the first time had not been accepted by the rebels, it seems. Ed.] 
      There had been a previous occasion on the eighth day of the consecration rites, the day when heavenly fire had materialized for Aaron’s incense offering, but that could be explained as G’d accepting Aaron as the people’s chosen representative. At that time the firstborn had not yet been deprived of their status. Now that Aaron’s position as representative of the people had been challenged, there was a good chance that his incense offering would not attract heavenly fire as a sign of acceptance.
      Datan and Aviram were present when Moses had issued the challenge for the first time. Now, after they had refused to debate the issue with him and had gratuitously insulted him, he excluded them from this test by saying: “only קרח וכל עדתו, “Korach and his entire congregation.” This is why the number 250 again is mentioned in verse 17, i.e. there would be 252 censers, one for Korach and one for Aaron. Once Korach heard that Aaron would also compete in this test he was willing to participate.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ויקהל עליהם קרח את כל העדה, “Korach assembled (on the following morning) the whole congregation (all the people)” Nachmanides claims that this phrase cannot be understood at face value, as if indeed Korach had succeeded in rousing the entire people into this confrontation we are faced with a dilemma. How could Moses respond to G’d’s threat to wipe out all the people instantly by saying “if one man sins should the whole people pay the penalty” unless the people had been innocent bystanders? (Verse 22) If G’d had indeed meant to wipe out the whole people, He would have concluded as He had at the time of the golden calf, by saying to Moses that He would found a new Jewish people whose patriarch Moses would become. The words כל העדה in our verse therefore must refer to all of the people’s dignitaries, i.e. they represented the people as a whole.
      Whatever I have mentioned about the subject of the firstborn, is based on the approach to our portion by our sages of old, who were convinced that the Temple service was the domain of the firstborn prior to the sin of the golden calf
      If we were to follow the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, originally any Israelite was acceptable for performing sacrificial service in the Tabernacle, something that was the practice during all the many years that private altars were acceptable for presenting offerings to G’d. Aaron’s special privileges extended only to his performing the sacrificial service within the area of the Tabernacle. Korach’s objection concerned this special privilege accorded Aaron, and he wanted that every Israelite would share in that privilege seeing that he claimed that they were all holy.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   הבדלו מתוך העדה הזאת, “Separate yourselves from amidst this congregation!” Nachmanides raises the question that if the people were not guilty in the matter of Korach’s rebellion, why was G’d so angry also at them, that He threatened to kill them forthwith? On the other hand, if they were guilty, how could Moses ask G’d why He would kill the whole people on account of one man’s sin?
      Rabbeinu Chananel answers this question by writing that the words העדה הזאת, “this congregation” refers to the congregation of Korach only. [I find it strange that Nachmanides raises the question seeing that Rabbeinu Chananel lived several centuries earlier, and Nachmanides must have known his answer before he raised the question. Ed.] He adds further that G’d’s response to Moses’ question indicates that Moses had misunderstood Him, hence he was told to remove himself only from around the tents of Korach and Datan and Aviram (verse 24) He adds that it was G’d’s hope that when Korach and Datan and Aviram saw that Moses distanced himself from them they would still decide to repent and avoid disaster.
      Nachmanides goes on to write that he disagrees with the interpretation of Rabbeinu Chananel, seeing that the Israelites were not among the group with Korach in the first place, so that they had no reason to separate themselves from a group which stood apart. Moreover, Aaron was not with Korach and Datan and Aviram at that time but with the 250 men who readied themselves to offer their incense. Moreover, the term עדה never applies to a group of fewer than 10 adults, and Korach, Datan, and Aviram did not constitute a עדה, a congregation. If Rabbeinu Chananel were correct, the Torah should have omitted the words מתוך העדה הזאת, “from the midst of this congregation.” Besides, the very assumption that Moses the greatest prophet of all times should have so grossly misunderstood G’d’s instruction is quite beyond our imagination! 
      The reason for all this is that originally the hearts of the Israelites sympathized strongly with the arguments of Korach, and when Korach and the 250 men lined up with the censers and the incense, Korach reminded the people that what he was about to do was all on their behalf. When the people heard that, they were persuaded by Korach’s arguments and they drew near to watch what would happen. They were actually hoping that the privilege of performing service in the Tabernacle would be restored to the respective firstborns in each family. Thereby they had become guilty of the death penalty, for if someone doubts and suspects his teacher, and especially a teacher and prophet of the caliber of Moses, of acts such as Korach accused him of, he has made himself guilty of death at the hand of heaven. Moses and Aaron tried to find excuses for them by saying to G’d that the people had not translated their doubts and suspicions into punishable acts, and that therefore they did not deserve to die. This is a standard practice when one appeals to G’d’s attribute of mercy, to portray the sin of the accused as being less severe than it might appear at first glance. In doing so, the person pleading the case allows that there are individuals who deserve the full punishment, as it is they who are the instigators.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ואל תגעו בכל אשר להם פן תספו בכל חטאתם, “and do not even touch any of their belongings lest you will also perish on account of their sin.” The plain meaning of the verse is that the Israelites are to distance themselves sufficiently far from the guilty people to escape the gaping hole in the earth that would swallow Korach and company, and to on no account try and grab some of their belongings as loot which the sinners had forfeited. All their belongings were totally taboo, חרם as of that moment.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the words פן תספו refer back to not touching any of these men in order to save them, as instead of saving them they too would become victims.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   אם כמות כל אדם ימותון אלה, “if these die like the death of all other people, etc.” Nachmanides writes that there had been many people who on different occasions had expressed the wish to return to Egypt, expressing their dissatisfaction with Moses’ leadership, in particular his taking them into the desert. Why then should Korach and Datan and Aviram be singled out for a special kind of punishment? The sin of these men was twofold. First they had refused to meet Moses in dialogue and accused him of being high handed. In doing what they did they had denied everything that G’d had done for the Jewish people commencing with appointing Moses as their Saviour. They had also violated the specific commandment issued at Mount Sinai to have absolute faith in the person and mission of Moses, i.e. וגם בך יאמינו לעולם, (Exodus 19,9)
      The people, at this juncture, had demonstrated that they did not believe in Moses’ divine mission, not when he had come to take them out of Egypt, nor when he led them on the way to the Holy Land after the Egyptian pursuers had drowned in the sea. This is why Moses stressed in verse 28 that the key to their survival lay in their demonstrating that they did believe that all Moses had done he had done at the command of <i>Hashem</i>. The people had not only protested the exchange of the firstborns’ privileges in favour of the Levites, but they had staged a far more serious ideological rebellion, something known as כפירה בעיקר, a denial of basic tenets of Judaism. 
      The swallowing of the 250 men by the earth was unlike any other earthquake where the fissures in the earth remain open, but here the earth swallowed the men and their belongings and closed again immediately leaving no trace of what had occurred.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ואת כל האדם אשר לקרח, “and all the people who had joined Korach.” According to Nachmanides this included the servants and maids in Korach’s household who were bodily owned by him. Perhaps he had Jewish helpers in his household also, as well as some proselytes. They could have suffered the same fate as they supported him. It is not possible to understand the words “and every person belonging to him,” as referring to members of his immediate family, seeing that his grown up sons did not die, as the Torah has spelled out elsewhere. (Numbers 26,11) His younger children surely were included in the wordsותבלע אותם ואת בתיהם “it swallowed them and their households.” Or, he had no children that were minors, as the Torah would have mentioned them under the heading of טף.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   ויאבדו מתוך הקהל, “they were lost from amongst the congregation.” This is a graphic description of how this spectacle affected the onlookers who saw these people one moment and when they looked again they had disappeared from sight within seconds. There was no visible trace of where they once had been.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the Torah selected the expression ויאבדו to illustrate that seeing that they did not leave any children behind them who would have replaced them, they could be considered as if “lost.” [I have not found this comment of Ibn Ezra in my editions. Ed.]
      Ibn Ezra adds that there are different opinions as to what happened to Korach himself. Some say that Korach himself was also swallowed up by the earth, what else could the meaning of the words ותבלע אותם be if afterwards the Torah adds: “not only they but all those who belonged to them?” Compare also Numbers 26,10, which is even more specific. Other commentators hold that Korach was burned to death, based on the second half of the same verse that speaks about the fire that consumed the two hundred and fifty men who presented their incense.
      Some of our most ancient sources believe that Korach was both burned and then his body was swallowed. 
      Personally, (Ibn Ezra speaking) I believe the earth only opened beneath the feet of Datan and Aviram. Korach, at that time stood alongside Aaron and the 250 men offering their incense. Concerning the words ואת קרח “as well as Korach” in Numbers 26,10, these words do not belong with the word ותבלע, “it swallowed,” but belong to the words following, i.e. במות העדה, “when the congregation died.” The reason why the Torah does not mention Korach specifically in the same context as the people who were burned when offering the incense, is simply that once we had heard that the people making common cause with Korach had been burned, their instigator surely did not escape that fate? 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   כי קדשו, “for they have become holy.” <i>Rashi</i> understands the word “holy” here in the negative sense, meaning that they are out of bounds to the people, that no one is allowed to derive private advantage of these remains as they have attained the same status as holy vessels in the Tabernacle.
      Nachmanides does not understand why these remains should have become forbidden for private use seeing that the incense offered by these two hundred and fifty men had never become sanctified, was not part of the sacrificial service. When something becomes sanctified for use outside consecrated grounds it is not holy in the true sense of the word. One may answer that when such items have become sanctified at the express command of Moses, they become truly holy as the 250 men had sanctified them for use in the service of heaven, believing that G’d would respond positively by means of heavenly fire consuming their offerings as it expressed their innermost desire to serve Him in the capacity of priests, their censers would all have become sanctified for all times.
      Personally, (Nachmanides speaking) I believe the Torah itself answers any of our doubts when it testifies that “these 250 men had used the censers to come closer to <i>Hashem</i> so that they had become holy, henceforth serving as a sign for the Children of Israel,” G’d says that He Himself had sanctified these censers.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   כאשר דבר ה' ביד משה לו, “as G’d said concerning him (Aaron) through Moses.” Nachmanides writes that the word לו refers to Eleazar who had been mentioned previously in verses 2 and 4, and who had been commanded what to do with the copper remains of the censers and who had made them into a cover for the altar. [The first half of the verse makes better sense if we understand the whole verse as confirming Aaron’s exclusive position as High Priest. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   אתם המתם את עם ה', “you have killed the people of <i>Hashem.</i> Nachmanides points out that Onkelos by his translation of אתון גרמתון דמות עמא, i.e. “you have caused the death of the people,” that the accusation meant that by inducing the 250 men to offer the incense, Moses and Aaron had made themselves guilty of their deaths. The people did not believe that this suggestion by Moses had been either made at the command of G’d, or even with the silent approval of G’d, but had been of his own doing. They felt that the point Moses and Aaron were trying to make could easily have been made by a test such as the one with the staffs, and then no one would have had to die. They claimed that Moses must have known that presenting incense in an unauthorized manner would lead to the death of those offering it. Their accusation then was: “although you knew that following your suggestion meant that they would die, you still made this suggestion.”
      Ibn Ezra, taking a different approach, writes that the people rejected the notion that the death of the 250 men as well as the death of Korach and his family proved that G’d had selected the tribe of Levi over the firstborn, and that Aaron was His choice as High Priest. Moses may simply have prayed to G’d to kill the rebels, and in his capacity of prophet, an undisputed capacity, G’d had accepted his prayer. Ibn Ezra’s explanation makes sense seeing that the people accepted the ruling that Aaron was the chosen High Priest only after the staff representing the tribe of Levi had sprouted blossoms and produced almonds, as we have been told in Concerning that experiment, the Torah had written (verse 20) that <i>Hashem</i> would cause the complaints against Him to cease. According to Ibn Ezra, the people’s complaint at this stage did not refer to the descent below the earth of Korach and his cohorts, it only concerned the death by burning of the 250 people who had genuinely wanted to come closer to G’d by exercising the privilege to present an incense offering. After all, they had all heard (or understood) that G’d had told Moses that the people should remove themselves from around Korach, whereas no such instruction had been given concerning standing close to the 250 men. The guilt of Datan and Aviram, who had publicly ridiculed G’d’s appointed leaders was obviously even greater, so that no one challenged the fact that they had died for their sin.
      Personally, (Nachmanides writing) the correct interpre-tation of all the foregoing is that the people did believe that Aaron was G’d’s chosen priest, for they had observed previously that fire had come down from heaven consuming his incense without his coming to any harm thereby. What the people wanted was that the firstborn be allowed to continue performing secondary tasks in the Tabernacle, the tasks that had now been allocated to the Levites. Only in this way, did they feel, would all the tribes have representation in the Tabernacle and the service being performed therein. They accused Moses of having designed a test for the firstborn that would have equated them with the priests, something that they had not even aspired to, and as a result by their overstepping themselves Moses had caused the death of these 250 firstborn.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   הרומו מתוך העדה הזאת, “remove yourselves from among this congregation!” Nachmanides commences his commentary by writing that he fails to make sense of this whole verse, as well as of the parallel verse in 16,20 where Moses and Aaron are also commanded to put physical distance between themselves and the complainants. Why was this necessary? Surely G’d possesses the power to kill many people and leave those whom He does not wish to harm alive and unscathed without their first having to “run for their lives!” G’d had demonstrated this power when killing the firstborn in Egypt while no Israelite firstborn had to run for his life. Even Egyptian firstborn hiding in homes of the Israelites would not have been spared. We must assume that in our situation G’d’s anger was directed at people who formed part of an assembly, as this was indicative of their sympathies being with the person or persons at the core of that assembly. In order to be saved one had to demonstrate by an act, such as the act of removing oneself physically from the rebels, that one did not share their attitudes.
      It is also possible that G’d issued these instructions not so much in order to save the righteous as to show them respect, as He did not feel free to kill the wicked while the righteous were still among them, trying to get them to desist from their rebellious attitude. Moses hastened to inform the innocent that they themselves were in need of mercy, and that if they did not separate themselves they would share the fate of the sinners.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   שנים עשר מטות, “twelve staffs.” Aaron’s staff was included in the twelve, seeing that it does not say that Moses should take the staff of Levi and inscribe Aaron’s name on it, but it does say: “inscribe Aaron’s name on the staff representing the tribe of Levi.” In other words, there already was a staff representing the tribe of Levi. The tribe of Joseph was represented here by only one staff as it is axiomatic that the total number of tribes in the Jewish people would be 12 at all times. 
  Nachmanides writes that there are some scholars who believe that the meaning of the words is that the names of the respective staffs were Reuven, Shimon, Levi, etc., but this is not correct. The names inscribed were those of the princes of each tribe at that time, i.e. Elitzur, Shlumiel, etc, and Levi’s prince was Aaron. 
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   למשמרת לאות לבני מרי, “as a safekeeping to serve as a sign for the rebellious ones.” <i>Rashi</i> understands this line as “a reminder that I have selected Aaron as My Priest, and that further complaints about the priesthood should cease.” 
      Nachmanides counters that the staff and its blossoming was a sign only that the tribe of Levi enjoys a special status among the other tribes, but it did not signify anything about the priesthood. He therefore understands the word לאות as a reference to the special status of the tribe of Levi. He claims that there was no need at all to furnish a sign that the priesthood belonged to Aaron, seeing that whenever heavenly fire descended on the censer of Aaron and he did not get burned by it this was sufficient proof that G’d approved of him in his capacity as High Priest. This is also the meaning of the words והנה פרח מטה אהרן לבית לוי, “here the staff of Aaron, member of the house of Levi blossomed.” Aaron’s position among the tribe of Levi, which was already special, flowered even further.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   עבודת מתנה אתן את כהונתכם, “your priesthood as a service that is a gift.” <i>Rashi</i> says that the meaning is that Aaron and his descendants being priests was a gift to them from <i>Hashem.</i>
      Nachmanides feels that the meaning is that the priests should not view their priestly duties as being burdensome, but they should welcome it as one welcomes a gift, which is what it is. It is an honour for you, not a burden.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   Our author, when comparing the position of such words as לך יהיה, or יהיה לך, or a list of what is under discussion before adding that at least parts belong to the priest, explains that these are not stylistic nuances but they have a deeper meaning. Basically, he concludes that whenever parts of the gifts mentioned have first been presented on the Altar, the remains belong to the priest without restriction. He also explains why there appears to be an exception to this rule in connection with the פטר רחם, in 18,15, the reason being that this legislation was written in conjunction with the sanctity of the firstborn males of animals which are permitted to be offered on the Altar.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   בקודש הקדשים תאכלנו, “In the most holy shall you eat it.” According to <i>Rashi</i> this means that only male priests may consume the edible portions of the most holy of offerings. This must be done within the courtyard of the Tabernacle. 
      Nachmanides questions this, as the term קודש הקדשים is not familiar to us as a place where sacrificial meat may be consumed, and our verse speaks of the eating of such meat. The term is familiar to us as the most sacred part of the Tabernacle, the secluded room beyond the dividing curtain where the Holy Ark with its lid and the cherubs was kept. There was never any eating or drinking that occurred in that section. According to Nachmanides the meaning of the words בקודש הקדשים תאכלנו, is that the male priests eating of the parts of the offerings described may only do so when they have first sanctified themselves to the highest degree possible. In the previous verse the Torah had written קודש קדשים לך הוא ולבניך, “it shall be as most holy to you and to your sons.” This was already an implied warning not to enjoy the portions mentioned in the same way as קדשים קלים, sacrificial meat of a lower degree of holiness, such as peace-offerings, thanksgiving offerings, etc. The Torah now repeats this warning as applicable as it had interrupted its list by mentioning such offerings as מנחה, meal-offerings, which do not have such a high degree of holiness.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ברית מלח עולם, “ a salt-like eternal covenant.” Ibn Ezra interprets this expression ברית as closely related to the root כרת, destroying something absolutely; as salt destroying the earth. The covenant between G’d and the priests, is as absolute as changes made by the addition of salt to earth that prevents it sprouting vegetation. Compare what גפרית ומלח did to the fertile valley of the Jordan when it turned it into the Dead Sea.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   בארצם לא תנחל, “you will not share in the inheritance of their land.” Nachmanides understands the verse to mean that the Levites (priests) will not share in the Land of Israel on the same basis, as do the other tribes. In fact, they would not even get any real share as the 48 cities set aside for the Levites were basically all on soil belonging to the respective tribes on whose territory they were situated. Basically, these cities functioned as cities of refuge for inadvertent killers. The warning spelled out in our verse is actually directed at the priests; the warning to the Levites is only a corollary of this. Our sages interpreted the words בארצם לא תנחל as applying primarily to the time when Joshua would divide up the land as the loot accruing to the people from their war of conquest. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   זאת חוקת התורה, “This is the decree of the Torah, etc.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the reason that this legislation is preceded by the word חוק, decree, statute, is that what follows defies reason in the eyes of the nations of the world and they ridiculed the Jewish Torah. [The Torah, by prefacing the legislation in such a manner reminds us that the Creator does not need to justify Himself all the time. Ed.]
      Nachmanides adds that there is a reason that the nations of the world zero in with their criticism on the red heifer legislation more than on the other animal sacrifices some of which also achieve ritual purity for the person bringing the sacrifice, such as people suffering from <i>zav,</i> seminal discharge of a certain type, or the sacrifice brought by a mother who recently gave birth which resulted in her becoming ritually impure is purified as a result of her sacrifice. They argue: how could the ashes of a heifer that had not even been a sacrifice and was slaughtered outside consecrated grounds, confer ritual purity for someone stricken with the most severe kind of impurity? 
      Actually, this paragraph was revealed to the people at the end of the legislation in the Book of Leviticus, concluding the legislation pertaining to sacrificial offerings. The reason why it had not been inserted in the written Torah until this point is that after having heard about the gifts the Israelite has to give to the priests, this concludes a further stage in how the average Israelite obtains his atonement. With the laws about purification from impurity incurred through contact with the dead, especially when burying one’s near and dear ones, the entire subject of ritual impurity is concluded. 
  
     זאת חוקת התורה אשר צוה ה', “This is the decree of the Torah that <i>Hashem</i> has commanded;” There are a few other instances where someone is reported as speaking in the third person, “he,” although clearly the quote shows that “he” or “He” was speaking in the first person. The examples coming to mind are Exodus 24,1 עלה אל ה', “ascend to <i>Hashem”</i> or in Genesis 4,23 נשי למך האזינה, “wives of Lemech listen!” Lemech himself was speaking.
  
     דבר אל בני ישראל, ”speak to the Children of Israel.” Although we would have expected the word for ”speak” to be in the plural mode, i.e. דברו, seeing that Moses was the more important one of the two, the Torah used the singular mode.
  
     אליך, “to you,” the meaning of this word in this context is that at this time such a red heifer should be burned for the needs of the people; in the future, this should be done only as and when the need arose. The reason that the Torah wrote the word ונתתם in the plural mode instead of ונתת in the singular mode, in verse 3, is to give Aaron a share in the performance of this commandment so that both Moses and Aaron commanded Eleazar to carry out this commandment by slaughtering the heifer in his presence.
      Alternatively, the meaning of the word ונתתם in the plural mode is simply that the instruction issued here applies also to future generations. Eleazar, by slaughtering the red heifer acted as the person designated to do so on behalf of the Jewish Supreme Court.
  
     לא עלה עליה עול, “it had never borne a yoke.” The word “<i>Ol</i>,” yoke, is spelled here without the letter ו in the middle, to indicate that even if that heifer had only very briefly had a yoke placed on it without performing any kind of task for man, it would be disqualified from serving as the red heifer required. [in other words, the spelling of the word is the same as על, ”on.”
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ונתתם אותה אל אלעזר, “you are to hand it over to Eleazar, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> claims that the reason why this heifer was handed over to Eleazar, was to indicate that the task of slaughtering the red heifer would primarily be performed by the High Priest’s deputy. 
      Nachmanides writes that this does not mean that ideally this commandment was to be performed by the High Priest’s deputy rather than that it be performed by the High Priest personally, or even by any ordinary priest, for we have a disagreement of <i>Tannaim</i> about this as described in the commentary of <i>Sifrey. O</i>ne school of thought holds that in the future it would always be carried out by the High Priest personally; this school argued that in this instance the reason why it was performed by Eleazar was that there was an emergency so that the Torah designated the deputy High Priest Eleazar instead of Aaron. According to this latter opinion we must conclude that the deeper meaning of this commandment was such that it was appropriate that the High Priest, who normally would also be a Torah scholar of outstanding caliber, would be entrusted with this task. [It is important to remember that according to tradition there were only 7 red heifers altogether, so that this commandment was not one that even a High Priest would normally be called upon to fulfill. Ed.] Our author speculates that Aaron [a High Priest of special qualifications. Ed.], of whom the Torah had said in Leviticus 21,12 that he was not to leave the consecrated grounds of the Temple, was not to be charged with a task that is carried out outside these grounds, such as the red heifer that was taken outside the camp before being slaughtered, etc. Alternately, this opportunity may have been the one to prepare the people for who was going to be the successor of the first High Priest, Aaron. [This is reasonable only if we assume that this paragraph was written in the fortieth year. Ed.] By assigning the task to prepare the ashes of the red heifer which would purify people who had incurred ritual impurity due to physical contact with a dead body, or even by being only in the same roofed airspace with such corpses, to Eleazar, a clear message was sent out that he would be next in line for his father’s office when the latter would leave the scene.
      On the other hand, it is possible that the fact that this time Aaron himself was not charged with handling the red heifer was a punishment for his part in the sin of the golden calf, which necessitated the people having to be purified. Moses had treated the golden calf itself as the first red heifer and he had sprinkled its ashes on the water with which the people had to be sprinkled. (Compare Exodus 32,19)
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ואם לא יתחטא וגו', “if such a person does not undergo sprinkling of these waters and ashes on the third and seventh day, etc.” Nachmanides writes (in his commentary on verse 20) that the thrust of this verse is to inform us that purification is impossible without the above steps, although the person that had embarked on the purification process had already undergone immersion in a ritual bath. We know that this need for a ritual bath first is also a requirement from Leviticus 17,16 ואם לא יכבס....ונשאו עונו, “if he does not immerse himself in a ritual bath he will bear his guilt.”
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   עוד טומאתו בו, “his contamination is still upon him.” A condition that continues indefinitely until he has purified himself.”
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   אדם כי ימות באהל, “a person who dies in a tent (roofed airspace).” The verse describes real, not potential, scenarios. The legislation described here applies equally to people who die outdoors and to whose remains are transferred to a roofed airspace such as a tent or house.
  
     כל הבא אל האהל וכל אשר באהל, “whoever enters the tent or whatever is in the tent already, etc.” This includes the utensils in the tent already, as well as the tent itself. We know this from the requirement to also sprinkle the tent itself with the waters and ashes from the red heifer. (Compare verse 18 where this is spelled out).
      The reason why the verse mentions the word אהל, tent, is to tell us that the person entering that tent itself has become ritually contaminated for seven days minimum. The verse also informs us by inference that the Israelites during their 40 years in the desert lived in tents. The Torah paints scenarios familiar to the people, seeing that the legislation would apply immediately, not only once they crossed the river Jordan into the Holy Land. The same rules would apply to permanent housing. However if such a house would be firmly attached to the ground it stood on the house itself would not become ritually contaminated. [The repeated use of the word אהל, tent is meant to exclude certain structures that perform functions similar to those of tents, i.e. houses attached firmly to the ground they stand on. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   בחלל חרב, “one slain by the sword,” Nachmanides writes that here too the Torah uses a scenario that is commonplace, but the same law would apply if the dead had been slain by a stone or other means even if he had become the victim of his killer’s fist. The reason why the Torah uses the word מת, “someone dead,” without elaborating, as well as the detailed description חלל חרב, “slain by the sword,” is to make us aware of the <i>halachic</i> difference of an animal that was killed by ritual slaughter, (sword-like instrument) and only thereby does not become ritually unclean upon death, and a human being where such a death confers immediate severe ritual impurity. Our sages add another lesson to be learned from the word חלל חרב, namely that the sword that killed the person in question contracts the same degree of ritual impurity as the corpse, not one degree less as is commonly the case when one touches the source of the ritual contamination.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ונתן עליו מים חיים אל כלי, “and put upon it spring water into a vessel.” A superficial reading of the plain meaning of the text would lead us to believe that the water is to be poured into the container already containing the ash of the red heifer. However, this is not so. Our sages derived from the text that if someone puts the ash into the container first before adding the water, the whole procedure has become invalid. They base this on the words מים חיים אל כלי, implying that something live must first be in the vessel, in other words that the ash must be mixed with the water, so much so that the water eventually is covering the ash completely. (Compare <i>Temurah 12)</i>
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   כי את מקדש ה' טמא, “when he contaminated the Sanctuary of <i>Hashem.”</i> The word כי here does not mean “for, because,” but “if, when,” as it does in Deuteronomy 22,6 in the verse commencing with כי יקרא קן צפור, “if, or when a bird’s nest happens, etc.”
      The reason why the Torah mentions the penalty for failing to purify oneself as being <i>karet,</i> exclusion from one’s people [after death, of course, Ed.] both in verse 13 and in our verse is, according to some of our sages, to inform us that the legislation is applicable both to the Tabernacle, i.e. someone causing contamination of the Tabernacle, and to the permanent Temple in the future. (<i>Makkot 13,14)</i> 
      It is possible to understand the two verses at face value, by understanding the expression את מקדש ה', as referring to the sacrificial offerings inside the Temple, meaning that in verse 13 the Torah speaks about the person having eaten from such offerings while in a state of ritual contamination he did not only become guilty for that but also for having conferred ritual contamination on the Holy Temple, whereas here the Torah speaks about someone who, though he immersed himself in a ritual bath, did not submit to the sprinkling with the ash of the red heifer on the third and seventh day of his contaminated status. The words מקדש ה' then refer to the structure itself, not to what had become consecrated within it as an offering. [“Within” includes the courtyard, the location of the principal Altar. Ed.]
      Personally, I believe that the correct interpretation is in accordance with the plain meaning, i.e. that the first time we hear about the penalty of <i>karet</i> in connection with ritual impurity in verse 13 refers to touching the dead, as spelled out there, הנוגע, and the second time this penalty is repeated is to teach us that even if one only contracts this ritual contamination by being in the same roofed space, the penalty for failing to purify oneself properly is the same. This is why in our verse no mention is made of “touching” anything.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויבואו בני ישראל כל העדה מדבר צין, “The Children of Israel, the whole community, arrived at the wilderness of Tzin.” Nachmanides refers to <i>Rashi</i> as well as to Ibn<i> Ezra</i> who see in the words כל העדה an allusion to the nation now being “whole,” seeing that all the people upon whom death in the desert had been decreed had died by now. 
      He queries that if this indeed were so the words כל העדה need not have been written again in verse 22 when the people arrived at הר ההר.
      Ibn Ezra says that the reason why the Torah repeated the expression כל העדה in verse 22 is that seeing that Edom had begun to war against Israel, the Torah wanted to inform us that no casualties were suffered on account of that. Nachmanides questions this also, disputing that there had been any confrontation between Israel and Edom, seeing that the Torah tells us that the Israelites backed down from their request to cross the Edomites’ territory as we have been informed already in verse 21. Nachmanides therefore arrives at the conclusion that it is customary for the Torah to describe the Israelites as having arrived “whole,” in paragraphs which precede complaints by the people, as in Exodus 16,1, 17,1, Numbers 14,6 Numbers 17,6, etc. The reason that the Torah used the term כל העדה in verse 22 is to inform us that the entire people participated in eulogizing Aaron and mourning him, seeing that he had died there.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  -3. ויקהלו העם על משה ועל אהרן וירב העם עם משה, “The people gathered against Moses and Aaron and they quarreled with Moses.” Although they gathered against both Moses and Aaron, their principal target was Moses with whom they started quarrelling.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ולמה הבאתם את קהל ה' אל המדבר הזה “and for what purpose did you bring the congregation of <i>Hashem</i> to this wilderness<i>?”</i> Why, at this juncture, did the people describe themselves as <i>Hashem’s</i> congregation? They implied that up until now when the presence of <i>Hashem</i> had not seen fit to reside with the people until the last of the survivors of the people tainted by the sin of the spies had died, there might have been some justification for their grueling march through these inhospitable deserts; but now after the last of these people had already died, why did they still have to be in the desert although they had regained their status as קהל ה', “<i>Hashem’s</i> congregation? Why would they need to die from thirst?
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   לא מקום זרע, “not a place where you can plant seed.” From these remarks of the people we can learn that as long as Miriam’s well had supplied them with water, it had been possible, especially in places where they had sojourned for many years, such as Kadesh, to plant seeds and grow crops, for during all the years we never heard the people complaining that they could not even plant any seeds.
  
     ותאנה וגפן ורמון, “neither are there fig trees, grape vines or pomegranates.” In another context the order of these trees is reversed, such as the vision of people enjoying tranquil life תחת גפנו ותחת תאנתו, “beneath his vineyard and his fig tree.” (Kings I 8,5 and Micah 4,4) There may be an allusion here as to why the firewood for burning the red heifer is traditionally the wood from the fig tree. Seeing that we had just concluded reading about the red heifer, this may explain the source of this tradition. [I have not found a source for this tradition. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ודברתם אל הסלע, “you are to speak to the rock.” According to Nachmanides the word אל in our verse is to be understood as על, when in the presence of, meaning that when Moses and Aaron would speak to the rock, the people should all be present to watch the miracle. The people should all know which rock Moses was speaking to. Moses and Aaron complied with the first part of these instructions.
  
     לעיניהם, “before their eyes.” The meaning is the same as לפניהם, in their presence, in front of them.
      Another meaning of the word לעיניהם could be that it refers to the act of Moses speaking to the rock being performed before the very eyes of the people. This would correspond to what is reported in verse 10 where we read: “Moses and Aaron gathered the people before the rock, and he said to them: etc.” The reason for all this publicity was, as our sages have said, in order that the people would not be able to say later that there had been subterranean wells beneath those rocks.
      It is also possible that the emphasis is on the words ונתן מימיו, that the rock will immediately respond and produce a lot of water, not as if the rock only reluctantly followed Moses’ instructions. Compare Psalms 78,20 where the psalmist describes how these waters drenched everything in their immediate vicinity. 
      According to our sages this rock was the same rock that the people had already encountered at Mount Chorev. It was Miriam’s well that had moved with the people during all their journeys. [I presume the source for this is both the definitive article ה in front of the word סלע and the word מימיו, “its waters,” i.e. it had already provided water on previous occasions. Ed.] The well had ceased functioning when Miriam died, and was now reactivated. The word נתינה i.e. ונתן it will “give,” always implies that the giver does so in a generous fashion.
      Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text there was a rock situated close to the site where the people had made their camp so that when G’d told Moses to speak to the people, etc., the word לעיניהם means “the one that is before your very eyes.” It is also possible to understand the expression אל הסלע, “to the rock,” to mean that Moses should speak to the first and nearest rock he would encounter in his search. The meaning of the word מימיו would be a reference to the first jet of water the people would witness as coming out of that rock. The deeper reason why the Torah chose this word is that the people would see that this water did not originate on the surface of that rock but from deep with in it, it was integral to the rock. This is different from wells emerging from beneath rocks, the customary scenario.
  
     והוצאת להם מים מן הסלע, “you are to bring forth water for them from the rock.” The meaning is that these waters will materialise while you are still standing at the rock. Everybody will witness this impressive spectacle.
  
     והשקית את העדה, “you will provide drink for the congregation.” You will order them to drink from this water in your presence. All these details were spelled out in order to provide maximum publicity for this great miracle. Interestingly, when it came to the execution the Torah does not speak about Moses giving the people to drink but about the people drinking of their own accord, without prompting. (Compare verse 11) They were so thirsty that they did not wait to be asked.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים, “are we supposed to bring forth water for you from this rock?” Nachmanides writes that we must not misunderstand Moses as saying that it was most unlikely that he could extract water from this or any other rock. He had already produced more impressive miracles than the one he was called upon to perform at this time. Not only that; there were many people alive who had observed him producing a similar miracle at <i>Massa</i> and <i>Merivah</i> in Exodus Moses implied by this question that the people and their conduct did not entitle them to expect such a miracle from him. We find a similar construction in Samuel I 2,27 הנגלה נגלתי, which according to Kimchi, is a rhetorical question, the questioner being aware that the subject he questions is not at all in any doubt. The question is one that confirms the listener’s expectation. 
      Ibn Ezra writes that Moses was chastising the people who had imagined that it was within the power of himself and Aaron to produce water from a rock, a power reserved for <i>Hashem,”</i> so why had they complained to him instead of to <i>Hashem</i>, who alone is the Provider? It is only G’d Who brought you to this situation, and it is He Who will extricate you from your predicament. According to Kimchi, the introductory letter ה when preceding a question could sometimes be used when the answer is affirmative and sometimes when the expected answer is negative. When Moses charged the spies to report if the Land of Canaan had many trees, and he phrased it as היש בו עץ או אין, it is clear from the second half of the question that both answers were well within the possibilities. Similar questions are sometimes posed without the questioner spelling out the alternative as Moses had done when he sent off the spies. When Joseph asked the brothers who had presented Binyamin to him, if this was the younger brother they had spoken of, he only asked הזה אחיכם הקטון, “is this your younger brother?” He did not add the words: “or not?” When Yaakov asked the shepherds around the well if they knew Lavan, he also left the alternative, i.e. that they did not know him, open. (Compare Genesis) Sometimes such questions are posed only to examine the true state of mind of the people who will answer it. When addressing the Israelites as “rebellious,” Moses implied: “do you really think that it is beyond G’d’s ability to produce water from this rock if He wants to?” He added the word המורים to show the people that he considered their conduct outrageous. He implied that they quarreled with him only because they thought that their situation was beyond G’d’s and His prophet’s Moses ability to resolve?
      <i>Rashi</i> explains that the rock to which Moses had pointed had in the meantime moved to a spot amongst other rocks, so that the people had become despondent, and demanded that Moses produce the water from a different rock. Moses asked them angrily if they really thought that he could produce water from any rock he wanted to, a rock that G’d had not designated for such a miracle?
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   יען לא האמנתם בי, “because you did not believe in Me, etc.” Nachmanides writes that Moses’ and Aaron’s sins were not spelled out in detail by the Torah.
      <i>Rashi</i> says the sin was that whereas <i>Hashem</i> had instructed them to speak to the rock, but they had struck it instead. The difficulty with <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary is that seeing that G’d had told Moses to take his staff along, Moses had clearly assumed that the reason for taking the staff along was to hit the rock, similar to the manner in which he had used the staff repeatedly to bring on the plagues upon the Egyptians. Surely, if G’d had only wanted Moses to speak to the rock to what purpose did He tell him to take along his staff? When G’d, in Egypt, had told Moses to take along the staff that had turned into a snake at the burning bush, it was from then on to serve as an instrument with which to bring on the plagues. Furthermore, how would Moses speaking to the rock instead of striking it enhance the quality of the miacle? We have several instances when G’d told Moses to stretch out his staff (in order to bring on a plague) and it is assumed that Moses was to use the staff to strike with, not just to gesture with. Besides, speaking to the rock was meant to inform the rock that this man who was standing before the rock addressed the rock in the name of its Creator Who had given him an order to extract water from it. Moses and Aaron fulfilled this part of the task as we know from when the Torah writes that they made the entire community assemble in front of the rock (verse 10) Furthermore, as far as the rock was concerned what is the difference in the quality of the miracle whether it responds to words or to physical impact with Moses’ staff? Why is the sin of Moses and Aaron described as a מעילה, a term usually reserved for someone who makes unauthorized private use of something belonging to the Temple treasury?
      Some say that Moses’ sin consisted in his expressing himself unclearly, due to his anger, so that when he said: ”can we extract water from the rock,?” at least some of the people thought that he had included G’d in this question, leaving doubt that even G’d could perform such a miracle. As a result G’d accused them of not sanctifying His name when having had an opportunity to do so. According to the commentators this is what the psalmist had in mind when he said in Psalms 106,33, כי המרו את רוחו ויבטא בשפתיו, “for they had provoked his spirit so that he spoke rashly.” From these words of the psalmist we see that Moses did not sin by hitting the rock but by not phrasing his words carefully enough.
      Other commentators see the sin not so much in what preceded the miracle of the water but in the failure of the people as well as Moses, who should have led the people singing a song of thanks to G’d for having provided such a miracle. This is the meaning of the words לא קדשתם אותי, “you have not sanctified Me.”
      Still other commentators see the sin in Moses and Aaron asking: “how can we produce water from this rock,?” i.e. the one the people had chosen, seeing it was not the one G’d had chosen. Moses had been afraid to deviate from the precise instructions he had, thereby missing an opportunity to demonstrate that G’d can provide water from any rock if He so chooses.
      Maimonides feels that the real sin of Moses was that he lost his composure and addressed people who were thirsty as “rebellious”. A man of Moses’ stature could not permit himself to so lose his composure that he publicly called his people by an insulting term. Such conduct amounted to a public desecration of the Holy name of <i>Hashem,</i> seeing that Moses was the man whose body language, mode of speech, not to mention his actions, etc., all the people were to use as a model for their own behaviour. The people had been hoping that by modeling themselves on their leader they would succeed in life on earth as well as in the hereafter. How could a display of anger possibly contribute to the esteem in which they held this man of G’d? Such displays of anger are presumed to be the sudden manifestation of some negative character trait within the person, something he had been able to conceal up until such time as he lost his “cool.” According to our tradition, the Israelites of that generation were extremely wise, and on a par with prophets, so that they would minutely examine and analyze each word Moses spoke, how he spoke it, how he conducted himself, etc., and draw far reaching conclusions from this. They therefore would mistakenly conclude that unless Moses had been aware that G’d Himself had been angry with the people for having demanded water he would not have allowed himself to reprimand them in the manner in which he did. Moses’ behaviour therefore contributed to the people being mistakenly made to feel that G’d had been angry with them when this had not been the case at all. He had therefore “shortchanged” G’d, another way of describing the sin of מעילה, fraudulent use of someone else’s property. Moses’ technical error had been to interpret the words: “take the staff and assemble the people,” as an instruction to use the staff to strike with. According to Maimonides there is not a single word in the paragraph that could lead us to believe that G’d had been angry with the people.
      Nachmanides challenges Maimonides’ explanation by pointing out that when punishing Moses and Aaron G’d had said specifically both in Numbers 20,24 and again in Numbers 27,14 that both Moses and Aaron had been guilty of מריתם פי, ”you rebelled against My word.” There was therefore more to Moses’ sin than presenting the people with an image that did not correspond to the facts. G’d also accused them of not having had sufficient faith in Him,לא האמנתם בי, which shows that their punishment had nothing to do with their having allowed themselves to become angry and to display their anger. If the anger had been the major misdemeanour, surely the Torah would have mentioned this directly. Moreover, when in Numbers 31,14 Moses displayed anger at the officers of the punitive campaign against Midian who had allowed women to survive, we do not hear that Moses was punished for that display of anger. Moses’ anger on that occasion had been quite unjustified. Furthermore, the Torah itself on this occasion never accused Moses of having been angry. Addressing the people and describing their conduct as rebellious, does not mean that he had lost his “cool” and was displaying anger. In his parting speech to the nation (Deut. 9,7 and 9,24) he repeatedly reminded the people that they had displayed rebellious tendencies throughout the years he had been their leader, and no one suggested that Moses deserved to be punished for using such language. Besides, we see nowhere that Aaron had displayed anger on this occasion, and yet his punishment is lumped together with that of his brother Moses. Besides, it is psychologically impossible that of all the many occasions when the people had behaved in a rebellious manner ever since the Exodus, this occasion was so severe that it alone should have produced in Moses an unforgivable burst of anger. How many times did the people accuse him of having taken them out of Egypt only to have to face death in the desert when they would not even be buried with dignity? The people had sinned against G’d again and again, and Moses had accused them later that he had been punished on account of their sin as G’d had been angry with him! (Compare Deut. 1,37) From all the above it follows that the people sinned, not Moses. When reading the words of Maimonides we do not find a single word of indictment against the people; he treats the subject as if Moses alone had been at fault in the episode.
      When Maimonides said that we do not find that G’d had been angry with the people in this episode at all, but that by way of contrast G’d reacted with complete calm saying to Moses: ’take the staff, etc., and provide them with water,’ the reason, as we should know by now, is that whenever the people asked for life’s necessities, even if they did not ask in an appropriate fashion, G’d in His great patience responded positively, instead of chastising them for a relatively minor offence, i.e. the “how” of their request. Usually, G’d reacted only after having supplied the people’s needs, such as naming the location in a manner that recalled the people’s misconduct, examples being מסה ומריבה, קברות התאוה, תבערה. The names were reminders of the people’s sins at that location. On the other hand, when the people voiced totally unjustified complaints, G’d did react with anger. In this instance the phrase וירא כבוד ה' אליהם, “<i>Hashem’s</i> glory manifested itself to them,” is an allusion to G’d’s displeasure, similar wording being associated with a pestilence following as a sign of G’d’s displeasure after the revolt of Korach or the episode with the spies. (Numbers 16,19, 17,7)
      The most serious difficulty with Maimonides’ interpretation is the specific verse in Psalms 106,32 ויקציפו על מי מריבה וירע למשה בעבורם, “They (the Jewish people) provoked wrath at the waters of Merivah, and Moses suffered on their account.” The psalmist lists that sin of the people as part of the long list enumerated in that chapter.
      The explanation most likely to meet all the various problems we encounter in the Torah’s description of this episode, is that of Rabbeinu Chananel who writes that Moses’ major error was the use of the pronoun “we” when asking המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים, “shall we produce water for you from this rock?” If Moses had said “shall He produce water for you?” he would not have created the impression that the power to produce water resided within him. When announcing the impending fall of the manna from heaven, (Exodus 16,8) Moses had announced the fact by crediting G’d with the phenomenon. When he failed to do so here, the people could have thought that he credited himself with the power to produce this water. [Aaron’s presence throughout, and his failure to remind Moses to speak to the rock although he had heard G’d’s instructions to Moses, made him guilty also. Ed.] A comparison with Exodus 17,5-7 shows that on that occasion G’d had announced that He would personally be on Moses’ side, directly above the rock, while Moses would strike the rock and water would come forth. The fact that on this occasion G’d did not indicate His personal involvement in the miracle, may have misled Moses into using language which could be misinterpreted. On the first occasion when the people still had the cloud of G’d traveling with them, the very position of that cloud indicated the <i>Shechinah’s</i> Presence. There had not been a promise this time that this cloud would, instead of resting above the Tabernacle, move to above the rock that would produce its waters. [This was not surprising, as on the first occasion there had not yet been a Tabernacle for the cloud to rest above. Ed.] In lieu of the cloud that showed that the water emerged as a miracle, this time, if the water had come forth from the rock only as a result of Moses addressing the rock, the miracle would have been manifest. By producing (apparently) the water as a result of striking the rock, Moses had missed an opportunity to sanctify the name of <i>Hashem,</i> a major sin of omission.
      Perhaps the criticism of Moses and Aaron as having מעלתם בי, “fraudulently abused something that is Mine,” refers to the fact that they made personal use of something that is G’d’s, seeing that the people now credited their water supply to Moses instead of to <i>Hashem.</i> The accusation מריתם פי, “you countermanded My order,” may have referred to the fact that neither Moses nor Aaron spoke to the rock as they had been told to do. Alternately, the meaning could be that G’d meant “seeing I did not tell you to speak the line: ‘shall we produce water for you from this rock,’ you in effect substituted your own words for Mine, an act of insubordination.” The meaning of the accusation לא האמנתם בי, “you did not have faith in Me,” is in the causative mode, i.e. your conduct is directly responsible for the fact that the people have less faith in Me.” It is also possible that the additional word להקדישני is meant to define the sin more narrowly not in the sense of the people losing some of their faith in <i>Hashem,</i> but in Moses and Aaron not having strengthened the people’s faith in <i>Hashem,</i> something which would have resulted from their carrying out their orders properly.
      According to the approach of our sages the fact that Moses had to strike the rock twice instead of only once, as on the previous occasion, resulted in a diminution of the people’s faith in <i>Hashem.</i>
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   המה מי מריבה, “they are the waters of strife;” in <i>Parshat Pinchas</i> (Numbers 27,14) we read about מי מריבת קדש “the waters of the strife at Kadesh,” the letter ה in the word מריבה being missing. This is a hint at 5 errors Moses had committed. 
      1) Instead of assembling עדה a congregation of elders, as G’;d had commanded, he had assembled the whole community, כל הקהל. This resulted in the manifestation of G’d’s glory not taking place as it had on the occasion of the rock near Chorev. On that occasion G’d had promised Moses to be personally manifest (Exodus 17,5-7) The reason why G’d did not manifest Himself this time was that He could not do so in the presence of people who were ritually impure due to seminal discharges by people who had not purified themselves first, As a result of this absence of a manifestation of G’d’s presence Moses and Aaron asked: “do you expect us to produce water from this rock?”
      2) He struck the rock.
      3) He called the people: “rebellious people.”
      4) He struck the rock twice.
      5) He asked: ”are we to produce water from this rock?”
  
     ויקדש בם, “He was sanctified through them.” According to <i>Rashi</i> Moses’ and Aaron’s death for their sin was a way of sanctifying G’d’s name as when people observe that G’d applies strict yardsticks of justice even to His chosen people this will make them more G’d-fearing.
      Concerning the above Nachmanides writes that he does not agree with this explanation seeing that the people had not yet witnessed the death of either Moses or Aaron. Neither had the decree of Moses and Aaron’s impending death been made public at this stage. When they would die eventually, it was not clear what sin had brought about their death. When Uzzah, who had sinfully steadied the Holy Ark, died on the spot, this was a death that induced fear of the Lord as it occurred immediately after the sin. (Compare Samuel II 6,8) The same held true when Nadav and Avihu, the two sons of Aaron who took unauthorized fire in their censers died on the spot. Such deaths contributed to increased fear of the Lord, and the expression ויקדש בם, that G’d’s name became sanctified by their deaths, is appropriate in such instances. [Compare the expression בקרובי אקדש as a similar expression, in Leviticus Ed.] Furthermore, seeing that the Torah wrote explicitly אשר רבו בני ישראל את ה' ויקדש בם, “where the Children of Israel quarreled with <i>Hashem</i> and He was sanctified by them,” we cannot make Moses and Aaron the subjects of this verse.
      In my opinion, we must understand the verse by comparing it to the first occasion when water from a rock was produced miraculously. On that occasion Moses had assembled only the elders, whereas on this occasion he had assembled all the people. The first time the miracle had been witnessed only by a small group of people, whereas this time the entire nation had witnessed it. It is therefore appropriate for the Torah to refer to these latter waters as the ones through which G’d had become sanctified as all the people had witnessed the miracle and had been impressed by what they had seen. We have a similar verse where G’d is described as having become sanctified as a result of the multitude having witnessed something. (Compare Ezekiel 39,27: וקבצתי אותם מארץ אויביהם ונקדשתי בהם לעיני הגוים, “when I have brought them back from the land of their enemies I will be sanctified in the presence of all the nations.”)
      You should realize that the confrontation the Torah speaks about began with the people quarreling with Moses, as the Torah wrote: וירב העם עם משה, and as it continues when Moses complained to G’d when he said: ”if they continue in this way they will stone me to death.” (Exodus 17,4) At that time they had sorely tested the patience of G’d when they said: “we want to see if G’d is indeed in our midst or not.” This time around they addressed their complaints also against G’d, but there was no נסיון, testing of G’d’s power or ability involved. This is why this time the waters are only referred to as מי מריבה, waters of strife, whereas the first time the waters were called מי מסה ומריבה, waters where a test of G’d and a quarrel had occurred. On the first occasion G’d had become sanctified only in the presence of the elders, whereas this time He had become sanctified before the eyes of all the people. Seeing that there had been two similar occurrences involving water coming out of a rock, it was necessary for the Torah to tell which of these events caused Moses’ premature death.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   אל מלך אדום, “to the King of Edom.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah does not bother to tell us the name of that king, as in the case of the King of Moav, Balak, whom the Torah named, or the names of such kings as Sichon King of the Emorites, and Og, King of Bashan, is simply that there was no need for us to know his name. The King of Edom was not known for any outstanding qualities, such as bravery, successful conquest, etc. Those kings, whom the Israelites defeated with <i>Hashem’s</i> help, were named in the Israelites’ prayers of thanksgiving. It is the Torah’s, respectively the Book of Joshua’s, custom to mention by name the kings whose countries the Israelites conquered.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   נעברה נא בארצך, “please allow us to traverse your land.” If you will compare a similar request made by the Israelites in connection with Sichon, King of the Emorites, you will find that there was no: “please,” and “let us,” but that the Torah reports the formula אעברה, “I wish to cross.” The reason is that by using a formula Esau himself had used in Genesis 33,12, i.e. נסעה ונלכה, emphasizing that they had similar interests, had something in common, Moses hoped to secure the king’s consent. Moses reminded the King of Edom that basically the two peoples were related by blood, and should have common interests.
  
     עד אשר נעבור גבולך, “until we have completed crossing your territory.” Nachmanides points out that Moses made no mention of the Israelites’ purpose in all being to reach the land promised by <i>Hashem</i> to their forefathers and to settle in it. He did not want to give that king any cause for being jealous of the Jewish people by making reference to their future. He did not want to open an age-old rivalry between Yaakov and Esau and thereby to renew ancient animosities. The Edomites might have disputed the validity of their forefather Esau having sold his birthright to Yaakov. Seeing that no such considerations applied to Moses’ dealings with Sichon and Og, he did not conceal from them why the Israelites needed to cross their respective countries.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויאמר אליו אדום, “Edom said to him, etc.” The Torah no longer adds the title “king” when speaking of Edom, indicating that the whole nation concurred with their King’s refusal to allow the Israelites passage through their country.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   במסלה נעלה, “we shall go up on the highway.” Nachmandes writes that in the initial request Moses implied that the people would enter the cities and but they would be careful not to enter rural areas and cause ecological damage. They would thereby distinguish themselves favourably when compared to undisciplined hordes of men and beasts invading a country. Now he narrowed this down even further implying that they would not even consume any of the drinking water available in that country except that which was freely offered for sale.
  
     רק אין דבר, “nothing negative will happen (due to our passage).” Moses tried to calm the fears of the Edomites as best he could.
      Ibn Ezra writes that that the expression דרך המלך refers to the route taken by the king himself, and that just as the king does not veer to the right or to the left, neither would the Jewish people. Alternatively, Moses meant that whatever route the king would assign to them they would be willing to abide by.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויט ישראל מעליו, “Israel turned away from him.” The Torah uses an abbreviated text, seeing that the Israelites desisted only because G’d had commanded them to desist and had forbidden them to provoke any confrontation wit the Edomites.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   והפשט את אהרן, “and disrobe Aaron;” the reference is to the removal of his priestly garments, the ones that were worn in addition to the four garments worn by ordinary priests. These garments were to be worn henceforth by Eleazar. According to the plain meaning of the text, Aaron was to exchange the normal garments for a shroud, a garment he already had at the ready. Eleazar stripped off his ordinary garments and exchanged them for the garments befitting a priest as he had done on the day he had been anointed as a priest.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וישמע הכנעני מלך ערד, “When the Canaanite King who dwelled in Arad heard, etc.” According<i> to Rashi</i> the “Canaanite” mentioned here was in fact the Amalekite, as we know from the description of the spies who reported that the Amalekite dwelled in the south of the Land of Canaan. (13,29) However, they had misrepresented themselves to look like Canaanites, and this is why the Torah here describes them as they appeared to the Israelites at that time.
      Nachmanides writes that Arad was one of the (legitimate) Canaanite kings (Joshua 12,14) Furthermore, in Numbers 33,40 this king is described specifically as dwelling in the south, in the Land of Canaan. It is not customary for the Torah to refer to the “Land of Canaan” without further detail (such as which tribe) except to the areas east of the river Jordan, as in chapter 34,2 later on. If this land had indeed been east of the Jordan, Moses should have included it in the allotment to the tribes of Reuven, Gad and half of Menashe. The nine and a half tribes all received their share of the land on the west bank of the river Jordan.
      Nachmanides therefore explains our verse as referring to a different king by the name of Arad, one whose territory was on the west bank of the Jordan, and this is why the Torah had to add that it was far to the south, not the lands conquered from Sichon and Og. [The whole problem is that if Arad had dwelled on the west bank, how could he have attacked Israel who had not set foot in that region as yet. Ed.] He assumes that this king dwelled between the river Jordan and the mountains of Yehudah, south of Hebron. He invaded the Israelites coming from another country. When this king heard that the Israelites had already reached the plains of Moav close to the river Jordan, the Torah reports that G’d accepted the Israelites’ prayer and delivered the Canaanites into their hands, and they made good on their vow and killed them now while Moses was still alive, who had decreed that none of the loot from that campaign was to be used personally, and it was all donated to the Temple treasury. The Torah added that even the cities belonging to that Canaanite king were placed in ban by the Israelites when they conquered them later in the days after Joshua’s death, and that they named that area <i>Chormah.</i> All of this has been recorded in Judges 1,16 where also the conquest of a town by the name of Tzefat is mentioned. At that time the tribes of Yehudah and Shimon co-operated in that campaign. In that chapter we are told that the sons of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, ascended from the city of palm trees, (the former Jericho) to the desert of Yehudah in the south of Arad etc. It is not surprising that these names surface already in our <i>Parshah</i>, as it is not unusual for the Torah to refer to place names that were known to the reader of the Torah in later years although at the time the Torah was first written, and no one had a chance to read it yet, these places had not been known by these names. An example is that in <i>Parshat Beshalach</i> Moses and Aaron were commanded to preserve a bottle of the manna and they are reported as depositing it near the Holy Ark as a memento for future generations, although in fact this bottle was filled with manna 40 years later, shortly before the Israelites crossed the Jordan and the manna would stop falling from heaven.
      It is also completely in order to interpret that Israel at that time placed in ban this King of the Canaanites, i.e. defeated him and his people by the sword and commemorated the event by naming the site <i>Chormah,</i> although Joshua defeated that king after having crossed the Jordan at the same period as he defeated the 30 other kings of the Canaanites. To add detail, we are told in the Book of Judges that the tribe of Yehudah and Shimon had performed this feat, not Joshua personally, although he was the commander 
   in chief, and therefore all the conquests during his lifetime are credited to him, also. In fact, this particular battle occurred after Joshua’s death had already been reported in the Book of Joshua. The author of the Book of Joshua even added that there had been military considerations why this part of the Land of Israel had not been conquered earlier. (Judges 1,19) The campaign represented the payment of the vow the Israelites had made to G’d when the events that occurred at the beginning of our chapter took place. By mentioning the name of the site already here, the Torah established the link between these two events in the mind of the reader of the Holy Scriptures.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   וירא בלק בן צפור וגו'....ויגר מואב מפני העם מאד כי רב הוא, “Balak son of Tzippor saw, etc…..and Moav was scared on account of The Jewish people because it was very numerous.” Moav was numerically very insignificant among the nations at that time in that region. The reason lay in their relative recent emergence as a nation, not like the Canaanites who dated back practically to 100 years after the deluge. The Israelites far outnumbered the Moabites at that time.
      The Moabites were well aware that the Israelites had no designs on their country as they had been specifically instructed by the Jewish G’d not to harass the Moabites, and not to provoke a military confrontation with them. They were also aware that even where the Israelites had engaged in war, they had not done so except when their request to pass peacefully through a foreign country had been rebuffed and been met with aggression by the ruler of that country. They merely dreaded the ecological damage the Israelites would leave behind in their wake if they were to be allowed to traverse the land of Moav. This is why they explained the nature of their concern when they sent emissaries to the elders of Midian to whom they explained graphically what their land would look like after the Israelites had trampled all the agricultural areas of their land. They were afraid that if the Israelites caused huge ecological damage to their economy they would wind up as totally dependent economically on the Israelites, almost as their slaves.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   זקני מדין, “the elders of Midian.” Quoting Ibn Ezra, Nachmanides writes that it is quite possible that these elders were the five kings of the Midianites, who because of heir advanced ages, are here described as זקנים, elders. If that is so, then the emissaries described in verse six, who included זקני מדין cannot have been the same זקנים mentioned in verse four. Surely, the five kings of Midian did not accompany the far less illustrious emissaries that Balak had sent to Bileam, emissaries, who by their own admission, were not of the highest levels of Moabite diplomats.
      According to our sages, who claim that the present head of state of the Moabites was of Midianite descent, it seems quite natural that Balak should send emissaries to his homeland in the first instance to investigate if he can forge an anti Israelite alliance with them. He would send the emissaries to the elders, not to the kings, as the elders were the ones who, due to their experience, were able to furnish good advice.
      It seems likely, that originally the Midianites had been ruled over by kings, and the same Sichon who had made war against Moav and confiscated a major part of their land, had also conducted a similar campaign against Midian, had defeated them and deposed them, and had instead appointed regional heads with far less political power than that wielded by kings. These are now referred to as זקנים, a title similar to that we read about in Judges 20,16 אל השערה meaning: “to the elders, who congregate near the gate of the town.” When we read in Numbers 31,8 ואת מלכי מדין, “and the kings of Midian,” the reference is to the men who had at one time been kings, but had been demoted by Sichon. The description of these people as ראש בית אב במדין is a clear indication that these people occupied subordinate positions, subordinate to the powers of kings.
  
     ובלק בן צפור מלך למואב בעת ההיא, “and Balak son of Tzippor was the king of Moav at this time.” Nachmanides writes that actually the paragraph should have commenced with referring to Balak as the King of Moav as soon as we are told of his name, describing his reaction to what had happened to Sichon and Og and their peoples. Nachmanides speculates that possibly, Balak had been known as a great warrior in his own right, and the Torah wishes to tell us that although the Moabites had a king who was such a warrior he was so afraid of the Israelites. This would also explain part of Yiphtach’s letter to the King of Moav some 300 years later in Judges 11,25 in which he asked that king sarcastically: “do you consider yourself superior to Balak? Did he start a quarrel with Israel or go to war with them?” He was afraid that he could not frighten the King of the Moabites except with a King of great renown, and Yiphtach himself was not even a crowned head of the Jewish people, so that the Moabites saw this as a sign of weakness of the Israelites
      It is possible that at this time Moav had not been ruled over by a king at all, and that they were terrified by the approaching Israelites. In such a desperate situation they did two things. 1) They appointed a king over themselves, 2) they sent to Midian trying to create a united front of these two peoples against the Israelites. Having come to an agreement with the Midianites, they sent a joint delegation to Bileam to ask him to curse the Jewish people. This would be the reason why the Torah spoke of בעת ההיא, “at that time,” as we would have known without these words that the Torah described current events, not history, in this paragraph. The meaning of the opening lines of our portion then would be: “Balak, a renowned warrior, one of the high ranking dignitaries in Moav, realised that the Israelites had succeeded in frightening his countrymen, and he used this opportunity to persuade them to appoint him as their king. One of the first actions he took was to forge an alliance with Midian, etc.” The Midianites had advised the people of Moav to appoint Balak as their king.
      According to the <i>Midrash,</i> the Moabites had had a king all along. He had held the rank of “prince,” but after the defeat of Sichon he had been promoted to the position of “King,” and the authority that this entailed. Balak’s promotion was not of a hereditary nature but was dictated by pressing external circumstances.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ארץ בני עמו, “the land of his compatriots.” According to <i>Rashi</i> who holds that Balak was of Midianite descent, the words ארץ בני עמו refer to Balak’s people, i.e. the Midianites.
      Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text the words ארץ בני עמו refer to Bileam, informing us that Balak had been born in the same land as Bileam. The point of the Torah providing this detail was that Balak was a sorcerer, coming from a land full of sorcerers, a land in which Bileam was the High Priest of all the sorcerers. (Compare Isaiah 2,6 where the prophet denigrates the Jewish people for having forsaken their tradition in favour of relying on sorcery etc, something which was the domain of the ancient backward nations)
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ארה לי, “curse for me, etc.” In using the superfluous pronoun “לי,” Balak trapped himself as in the end Bileam cursed him. [Predicted the annihilation of the people of Moav. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   וקסמים בידו, “with charms in their hands.” According to the interpretation of Rabbi Shmuel Hanagid, the delegation brought with them the money to defray the cost of these charms they expected Bileam to employ, [as they themselves could hardly tell Bileam which kind of charms to employ. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויאמר אל שרי בלק, “He said to the dignitaries of Balak, etc.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the elders of Midian abandoned the Moabite delegation as soon as Bileam requested that they stay overnight to wait for what G’d would tell him. They were aware through Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law, of how <i>Hashem</i> related to the Israelites and that there was no chance that He would permit Bileam to curse this nation. They had all been briefed by Yitro on the many miracles the Jewish G’d had performed on behalf of His nation.
      Ibn Ezra says that the reason why the elders of Midian are not mentioned again is simply that the delegation consisted primarily of the dignitaries of Moav and they were the principal spokesmen. This is also why only the return of the dignitaries of Moav is spelled out our portion, (verse 14)
      It is possible that the people referred to here as the “elders” of Midian had at one time been its kings (before they had been demoted by Sichon), and had traveled to Moav to hold consultations with Balak concerning the danger the Jewish people posed for them, and as a result of these deliberations they had all agreed to turn to Bileam and to invoke his prophetic powers. When Balak sent forth his emissaries their route took them through Midian as Bileam resided there or near its borders. Once the elders of Midian had reached their home town in Midian, they simply remained there and the emissaries of Balak traveled on in the direction of Bileam’s place of residence.
  
     מאן ה' לתתי להלוך עמכם, “<i>Hashem</i> has refused to allow me to go with you.” <i>Rashi</i> writes that Bileam presented G’d as having forbidden him only to go with this delegation of dignitaries, leaving open the possibility that he would secure permission to go with dignitaries of higher rank.
      Nachmanides disagrees, saying this could not be the meaning, seeing Bileam’s boast had always been that he had such close relations with <i>Hashem</i>. If he were to present <i>Hashem</i> as a deity that could be manipulated by him, he would thereby make himself laughable in the eyes of his petitioners. Bileam was convinced that G’d would not let him accompany dignitaries of higher rank either. It was only Balak who suspected Bileam of seeking a higher fee for his services who felt that he would agree to come if the price was right. This is why he sent a second delegation composed of high- ranking dignitaries.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   כי כבד אכבדך, “for I will greatly honour you.” He meant that he would pay him handsomely.
  
     וכל אשר תאמר אעשה, “and everything you will say (to me) I shall do;” Balak referred to anything he could do to facilitate such a curse on the Israelites he would do.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויאמר אל עבדי בלק, ”He said to the servants of Balak, etc.” The first delegation was described by the Torah as consisting of שרי בלק, ministers of Balak. The title conferred by the Torah on the members of the second delegation is that they were עבדי בלק, ”servants of Balak.” This sounds strange seeing that they had previously been described as of even higher rank than the first delegation. Perhaps the Torah merely wanted to show us the haughtiness of Bileam who considered even the members of this delegation as merely: “Balak’s servants.” When he spoke to them he related to them as someone’s underlings, not as high-ranking officers in their own right.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויחר אף אלוקים כי הולך הוא , “G’d became angry at him that he was going, etc.” Ibn Ezra, (verse 19) quoting Rabbi Saadyah gaon, raises the question: “how could G’d reverse Himself after He had told Bileam once that he must not go and curse that people seeing that they had already been blessed by G’d Himself?” He answers that <i>Hashem</i> did not want Bileam to go until Balak had sent a second and more impressive delegation. Ibn Ezra does not see any need for this explanation, seeing that the consent by G’d to someone undertaking a potentially disastrous enterprise is within the boundaries of his freedom of choice. G’d had told Moses to proceed and to begin the conquest of the land of Canaan (Deut. 1,21) clearly not wanting spies to be sent, and yet when Moses submitted the people’s request to send spies G’d told Moses: שלח לך אנשים, ”send out men on your own behalf.” (13,2) The people at the time were not full of trust in G’d, and claimed to want to investigate the best way to begin the conquest. Here too, the question that could be raised is: what need was there for Bileam to tell the servants of Balak that he would enquire from G’d once more, seeing that G’d had already said “no” once? Clearly, Bileam was ill intentioned, and when G’d saw this, He did not wish to deprive him of his freedom of choice at that point and let him dig a premature grave for himself if that was what he was bent on doing in clearly planning to thwart G’d’s desire. He therefore told Bileam that if he wanted to merely go with these people, He could not stop him, though He would prevent him from saying anything that would not please G’d. (Rabbi Saadya gaon.)
      Nachmanides (on verse 20) rejects Rabbi Saadya gaon’s explanation out of hand, quoting that G’d had told Bileam the first time not only that he must not go with these men but that he must not curse, and that seeing that these people are blessed already the idea of effectively cursing them would be a non-starter. To Nachmanides it is preposterous to suggest that G’d would permit Bileam to go with higher-ranking dignitaries on a mission that had already been nixed by G’d when it had been requested from Bileam by lower-ranking dignitaries, in the name of the same Balak. As to Ibn Ezra’s describing G’d as having second thoughts and now allowing Bileam to go with the second delegation of Balak, this is not a valid interpretation of what the Torah reports. Bileam’s obstinacy in wanting to go was not what motivated G’d to change His instructions. The assumption that when a person insistently asks G’d to let him do something as being the reason why G’d “changes His mind,” is quite erroneous.
      In my opinion, writes Nachmanides, originally G’d prevented Bileam from going, in order to ensure that he would not curse a people that was already blessed and therefore immune to such curses. G’d showed Bileam that his journey would be foolish, embarrassing even, seeing that he could not keep the bargain he would make with Balak. Seeing that the dignitaries of Balak were not interested in Bileam for any purpose other than cursing the Israelites, what possible gain could Bileam derive from going with them? In other words, G’d had actually tried to save Bileam a major embarrassment by warning him not to go with these people. The delegation had also reported Bileam’s words faithfully, telling Balak that he had explained his refusal by his being duty bound to obey G’d’s command.
      Balak, however, had chosen to ignore the report of his emissaries, placing the least flattering interpretation on Bileam’s refusal, namely that he was only interested in upping the ante, and to demand more money before acceding to Balak’s request. Bileam did tell even the second delegation that the subject of his cursing the Jewish people did not depend upon him at all, and was entirely not within his power. Seeing that Bileam had not misled the delegations, G’d no longer had a reason to forbid Bileam’s accompanying the second delegation, as long as Bileam only lent them his presence as a famous prophet, not as an instrument of Balak who, for payment, would countermand his G’d’s orders, appearing to try and manipulate G’d. G’d even warned Bileam that if Balak were to pressure him to curse the people in spite of what Bileam had told him, He would be with him, seeing that what G’d wanted to show the world was that the Jewish people were not only blessed by Him, but even by an outstanding prophet of the nations at large. Had Bileam been honest and upright, he would have told that delegation that his very going with them would most likely result in his being bidden by G’d not only not to curse these people but to bless them instead, thus adding mankind’s blessing to His own. Had Bileam been frank with them, they most certainly would not even have wanted Bileam to come with them. When they saw that Bileam was quite anxious to come with them, even personally saddling his ass, they realized that Bileam’s previous reluctance was only a “diplomatic sickness” he had feigned, in order to command a higher fee, and that even at this point he was maintaining the fiction of being forced to be only G’d’s mouthpiece, no wonder that G’d was angry at him for misleading the Moabites into thinking that his own and their interest coincided. He had made them believe that the very fact that he was accompanying them now was proof that his G’d had approved of that mission. When Balak noticed that after all these twists and turns, in the end Bileam did not curse the people, he gained the impression that Bileam’s G’d had changed His mind once again, or worse that He was deliberately making fun of him.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ותרא האתון את מלאך ה', “The ass saw the angel of <i>Hashem</i>, etc.” Nachmanides writes that it is impossible to understand these words literally, i.e. that the ass had a vision of an angel that held a sword, etc. Angels are disembodied beings not visible to the eyes of mortal creatures. Whenever prophets did have visions of angels, this was not a perception with their physical eyes, but they had been given supernaturally charged “eyesight” which enabled them to “see” these disembodies beings. There can be no question that beasts, that do not even possess a נשמה, divine soul, should be so endowed, even for such an occasion. We may therefore explain the words ותרא האתון את ה' as “the ass noticed something that frightened her very much,” the Torah explaining to us what it was that frightened her so much, i.e. the angel. Concerning the graphic description of the angel having a drawn sword in his hand,
  
     וחרבו שלופה בידו, the ass neither saw the angel nor the sword. The Torah tells us that the ass felt it was about to be struck, and therefore the Torah describes its fear in these terms. The ass had the impression that someone or something was about to slaughter it. This is why when the ass was suddenly miraculously enabled to speak, it asked Bileam if it had ever been in the habit of conducting itself in the manner displayed most recently. The ass itself was not clear why it had acted as it did all of a sudden. Had the ass seen an angel with her physical eyes, seeing that it had been granted the ability to speak, it would certainly have told Bileam that it had seen an angel with drawn sword, a most frightening spectacle, and that this was why it had acted so strangely. 
      If we were to say that angels appeared to beasts as visible to their physical eyes, how are we to explain that Bileam, who was a prophet to boot, did not see this apparition? It is, of course, possible that G’d lent special powers of perception to the ass at that time, just as He enabled it to suddenly speak coherently. The reason why G’d bothered to perform this miracle was to demonstrate to Bileam Who it was that endowed man (or beast) with the power of speech, or Who may therefore prevent him from speaking if He so pleases. It was an oblique warning not to resort to sorcery to enable him to curse the Jewish people seeing that <i>Hashem</i> had already pre-empted him. At any rate, our sages, when discussing this whole episode, mention only one miracle, i.e. the sudden ability of the ass to speak intelligently and coherently. This was so that Bileam should realize that the same G’d Who enabled the ass to speak could certainly make man say what He wanted Him to say.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   אשר אין דרך לנטות ימין ושמאל, “where there was no room to turn right or left.” This needs to be understood allegorically, [I suppose because both the words “right” and “left” are superfluous. Ed.] The words are understood as referring to people who veer theologically to the ‘right’ or ‘left, i.e. Avraham and Yitzchok each had a son who did not follow in his father’s footsteps. By the time Yaakov appeared on the scene of history all his children followed in his footsteps. The descriptions of the ability of the ass to pass the angel in the first two instances, though with difficulty, and not without discomfort to its owner, were to be a message to Bileam that by now there was no loophole in the conduct of the descendants of Avraham that would allow him room for his curse to be effective.
  
     אשר אין דרך, ”where there was no path.” Seeing that he had come to a narrow place where Bileam was deprived of the protection of the two lads he had taken along with him, we find here confirmation that when a threesome walks together, or even a twosome such as when Avraham and Yitzchok went to the way to the <i>Akeydah,</i> Satan was unable to frustrate their holy mission. Now when circumstances had arisen that forced Bileam to be on his own, Satan had a chance to target him. [This appears to be a departure from Tanchuma’s approach on that verse. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   ויגל ה' את עיני בלעם, “<i>Hashem</i> uncovered the eyes of Bileam.” Nachmanides writes that the principal message of our verse is that there was a need to remove the spiritual blinkers from Bileam’s eyes, the blinkers that had prevented him from becoming aware of the angel. All this teaches that Bileam was not a prophet in the true sense of the word else G’d did not need to remove these “blinkers” from his eyes. We find something parallel in Kings II 6,17, when Elisha’s disciple needed to have similar “blinkers” removed with the help of <i>Hashem.</i> Hagar, the Egyptian maid of Sarah, also underwent such removal of blinkers that enabled her to “find” a well that had been nearby all the time. (Genesis 21,19) Such expressions never occur in connection with true prophets. Bileam is correctly referred to as a קוסם “a sorcerer,” When the Torah quotes him as revealing what “<i>Hashem</i> had said to him” regarding future events, this reflects only knowledge he had acquired by resorting to magic. When G’d did appear to him at night, this was not because he was a prophet, but this was in honour of Israel. Similarly, when he describes himself as מחזה שדי, someone accorded visions of the Divine, this too was only in honour of Israel, where he prophesied Israel’s feats in the future. When he returned to his home he is again referred not as a seer, or prophet but either without title or as the sorcerer when his death by the sword during the punitive expedition against the Midianites is reported in the Torah (Numbers 31,8 and Joshua 13,22 respectively)
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   כי ירט הדרך, “for the path (you had taken) was obnoxious to me.” Nachmanides understands these words as “the person taking that path behaves in a manner irritating me extremely.” The root of the word when it appears in Job 16,11 ועל ידי רשעים ירטני, means: “He thrust me in the clutches of the wicked.” Basically, the meaning may be that although Bileam started out going with this delegation having secured permission for the journey, he corrupted it into a journey intended to defy and thwart G’d’s wishes by seeking devious means of cursing the Jewish people.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   אולי נטתה מפני, “had it not turned away to avoid me,” Nachmanides, quoting other commentators, writes that the word אולי here has the same meaning as the word לולי elsewhere, i.e. “if not.” He adds, that in his personal opinion the word is completely in place as is, and can be understood at face value. The ass, not knowing what exactly it was that threatened her, took evasive action as a possible means of saving itself and its rider. [The word אולי, identical to שמא in later Hebrew, i.e. in Nachmanides’ manuscript, means “perhaps, possibly.” Ed.] The angel tells Bileam that whereas he would have killed him he would have allowed the ass to survive.
  
     גם אותך הרגתי, “I would also have killed you, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that the words גם אותך are conclusive proof that the angel did kill the ass as soon as it had concluded what it had been programmed to say.
      Nachmanides writes that he word גם in our verse need not be interpreted in the usual manner, i.e. as meaning: “also”, seeing that it is inappropriate, for when used with Bileam who had not been killed by the angel, it would not make sense. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the angel killed the ass, as Ibn Ezra would have us believe. Had the ass not evaded the sword, the angel would have killed the ass but would have allowed Bileam to live, [as clearly it had been instructed to do so by <i>Hashem</i> its boss. Ed.] We therefore would have to interpret what the angel said as meaning that if the ass had not taken evasive action the angel would have killed both Bileam and the ass.
      The word גם therefore must be understood in accordance with <i>Rashi,</i> as if the word גם had been written in front of the word הרגתי, meaning that the angel told Bileam he would not only have been prevented him from proceeding or have obstructed his journey, but he would even have been killed by him. In light of the ass’s evasive action, Bileam’s life had been saved and he had only experienced an obstruction. Seeing that your ass has made a detour for your sake and not for its own sake, you have struck it without provocation and you have repaid a kindness with malice instead of with gratitude. 
      The Torah has not taken us into its confidence by revealing if the members of the Moabite delegation had observed what had occurred or not, or even if they had thought that the ass had behaved in an unpredictable manner, as donkeys and other beasts of burden are apt to do from time to time. Possibly, they had been riding well ahead of Bileam and had not noticed what went on behind them. If so, they probably had not overheard the conversation between the ass and Bileam either. Our sages said that the members of that delegation did observe and hear what had been going on, adding that the ass died immediately after having had its say. They most likely derived their information from an oral tradition seeing that there is no indication in the written text about all this at all.
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   לך עם האנשים אפס את הדבר, “go with the men, but only, etc.” According to Nachmanides it is quite possible that the meaning of the line is: “go with the men but inform them that you may only speak what I allow you to say.” Alternatively, after Bileam had confessed his sin and said to the angel that he would return home if it displeased the angel that he would continue on this mission, the angel meant “go with them for I have forgiven your sin, but be careful not to say anything other than what I shall tell you to say.” The angel had to add this latter remark so that Bileam would not have an excuse to think that he had now become a free agent. This is why Bileam informed Balak of this condition he was subject to as soon as he met him.
  
     הנה באתי אליך, “here I have come to you;” with these words, unnecessary words, Blieam meant to convey that although he had followed the invitation of Balak to come to him, this, and only this, is what he could do. He could not curse the Jewish people.
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
   היכול אוכל דבר מאומה, ”am I empowered to say anything?” He referred to anything that Balak wanted him to say.
  
     הדבר אשר ישים ה' בפי אותו אדבר, ”whatever words <i>Hashem</i> will put in my mouth are the ones that I will utter.” He meant that it did not matter whether these words would be a curse or a blessing, as he was there only in his capacity as <i>Hashem’s</i> mouthpiece.
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
   ויעלהו במות בעל וירא משם קצה העם, “he brought him up to the heights of <i>Baal,</i> and from there he could view the edge of the people.” Balak had brought him to an elevated piece of land from where it was possible to see some of the people of Israel. The Torah makes a point of telling us that Bileam could not see the whole people, seeing that the pattern in which they were encamped spread out in the four directions of the globe. This made it impossible to see more than some of them at one time. It was commonly believed that for a curse or a blessing to be effective, there had to be at least visual contact between the parties concerned. On the second occasion Balak informed Bileam in advance that he would only be able to see part of the people. Nonetheless he asked Bileam to at least curse the part of the people who were within his field of vision (23,13) He made it plain that he was unable to provide Bileam with a site from which he could see the entire encampment of the Israelites in all directions. Balak thought that possibly among the various sections of the people there could be a group of righteous people whom G’d did not want to be harmed in any way.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   וילך שפי, “He went alone.” Ibn Ezra, quoting Onkelos, says that the word שפי means “alone,” Other commentators understand the word as meaning “at an angle,” i.e. that Bileam was limping and could not walk upright. They derive this from Job 33,21 ושפי עצמותיו לא ראו, “that (from the context) up until then the deformity of his bones had not become visible.” The correct interpretation of the verse is that it parallels Jeremiah 3,21 קול על שפיים נשמע בכי, ”a sound is heard on the bare heights, weeping, etc.” The word אל, “to,” in front of שפי is missing here.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ויקר אלוקים אל בלעם, “G’d happened upon (met with) Bileam, etc.” The Torah chose this expression for the encounter between G’d and Bileam in light of the fact that Bileam was not a prophet in the true sense of the word. Communications to Bileam from G’d, or even <i>Hashem</i> as in verse 17, are only due to G’d’s benevolent interest in the Israelites, as at the time of Avraham (Genesis 20,3) when He told Avimelech to return Sarah to her husband. This is also why the Torah speaks of G’d appearing to Lavan, warning him not to harm Yaakov. (Genesis 31,24) We must not err and assume that such nocturnal apparitions or voices of heavenly origin are testimony to the recipients being considered by G’d as especially deserving.
  
     שבעה המזבחות ערכתי, “the seven altars which I have prepared, etc.” Bileam sought to secure for himself G’d’s goodwill by means of these offerings, and he wanted that Balak join him in that endeavour. This is why the Torah describes both Balak and Bileam as presenting the bull and the ram offering (verse 2), one of them slaughtering the animal, the other sprinkling its blood on the altar. 
      The meaning of the verse (4) ויאמר אליו וגו, “He said to Him, etc.” are a prayer by Bileam asking G’d to accept his and Balak’s offering. In the course of the account we find that later on Bileam no longer asks Balak to be a participant in his efforts, as he was afraid that Balak’s very presence, -i.e. negative attitude- would disqualify it from having any chance of G’d welcoming it. The subject of ויעל, “he (sing.) offered up,” instead of “they offered up, i.e. only Bileam, reflects precisely this feeling of Bileam that Balak’s attitude should not act as a hindrance to <i>Hashem</i> accepting that offering. Perhaps Balak was indeed a party to this, not because he thought that this might be effective, but because he wanted to appease Bileam.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   וישם ה' דבר בפי בלעם, “<i>Hashem</i> put words in the mouth of Bileam, etc.” There are some commentators who derive from this that Bileam was unaware of the utterances he was about to make. G’d filled his mouth with words and told him to go back to Balak and “open your mouth to speak,” and the following words would come tumbling out of his mouth. Perhaps this coincides with what our sages had in mind when they said that G’d twisted Bileam’s mouth until it looked like that of a carpenter having nails between his lips, and is the correct interpretation.
      I do not think so, for the Torah goes on to quote Bileam (24,4) as saying (about himself): ”the one who hears the sayings of G’d and who sees visions of Shaddai.” שומע אמרי א-ל אשר מחזה שדי יחזה. The meaning of the words וישם...דבר is more likely that G’d trains Bileam so carefully what to say. [The difference between ויתן and וישם is always one of degree, the word always implying a more deliberate action. Ed.] In other words, pronouncements made by Bileam in the name of G’d are not “off the cuff remarks,” uttered casually, but are most deliberate and deserve to be examined minutely.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   מהררי קדם, “from the mountains of the east.” The word קדם is reminiscent of the קדמונים, far earlier generations who had erected either a pile of stones, or a מצבה, a monument in the sense of an altar, (Lavan and Yaakov) and had entered into a formal pact of peace between them. They had promised each other that neither would cross these landmarks while intending to harm the other. 
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   כי מראש צורים אראנו, “For I look upon it as if from the top of rocks.” Seeing that Balak had taken Bileam to the nearest available hill in order to afford him a glimpse of part of the Israelites, Bileam uses the simile of rocks and hills when describing the vantage point from which he caught a glimpse of the people. Bileam perceives Israel as dwelling in solitary splendour, no other nation considering itself as its companion, unlike when many nations meet and form a united front or an economic or military union. The Israelites are joined together by a common ancestry that forms their national and cultural heritage known as the Torah. They are known primarily as descendants of Yaakov/Israel. This is why Bileam refers to them once as Yaakov, and immediately afterwards as Israel. (Verse 8) While true to their historic mission, they will always tower over all the other nations, and no one will be able to humble them.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   מי מנה עפר יעקב, “Who has counted the dust of Yaakov?” This is an apt simile, suggesting that they are as numerous as the dust of the earth that defies efforts to count it.
  
     ומספר את רובע ישראל, ”or who has numbered even a quarter of Israel?” Bileam declares himself as unable to even count a quarter of the banners of the Jewish people, suggesting that they keep forever increasing in numbers.
  
     ותהי אחריתי כמוהו, “wish that my end (final destiny) would be like theirs!” Bileam wishes himself the kind of share in life after death that is reserved for deserving Israelites. None of the Israelites are destined to perish in purgatory.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ויקר ה' אל בלעם, ”<i>Hashem</i> happened upon Bileam.” Up until now G’d had manifested Himself to Bileam only in His capacity as the attribute of Justice; something that had kindled hope within the heart of Bileam that perhaps an opportunity would present itself to invoke this very attribute of G’d against the Israelites when he would recite some of their well known sins. Now that Bileam experienced a manifestation of G’d’s attribute of mercy, i.e. <i>Hashem</i>, he knew that there was absolutely no hope to be able to curse this people. This is why the Torah continues in 24,1 that Bileam saw that it was pleasing in the eyes of <i>Hashem</i> to bless the people.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   לא הביט און ביעקב, “He observed no iniquity in Yaakov.” Bileam explains why he had said that he could not countermand any blessing, i.e. why <i>Hashem</i> would not retract blessings bestowed on Israel. They had not given Him any cause to do so. Not a single person among the Israelites had become guilty of dealing deceitfully.
      The meaning of the word און in our verse is iniquity based on lies, deceit. Lies are referred to as און as well as עמל seeing that as a result of lies man is apt to reap only עמל, fruitless endeavour. Bileam is explaining that seeing he had been commanded to bless the people they would not be burdened with fruitless endeavours, their expectations would not be disappointed, prove deceptive, i.e. כזב. The reason why this is so is that they do not place their trust in powerless idols but in the Lord, the Creator, the supreme power that is able to make good on His promises. He had displayed that power when taking this people out of Egypt where their condition had seemed totally hopeless. The awesome display of G’d’s power at that time was comparable to the lofty horns of the wild ox. Seeing that there is no liar or cheat among them, how could their blessings be revoked?
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   כי לא נחש ביעקב, “for there is no recourse to divination amongst the descendants of Yaakov.” Nachmanides writes, seeing that Bileam himself resorted to divinations as a tool of his trade, and Balak, who had been well aware of this had even sent him charms with which to ply his trade, charms to employ in his quest to curse Israel, Bileam felt compelled to explain now why such charms would be completely useless if used against Israel. Israel, i.e. Yaakov, have access to G’d all the time, and never have to rely on divinations to get a glimpse of what the future holds in store for them. Their fate is not determined by intermediaries of G’d, such as astrological constellations, but G’d, personally, involves Himself in supervising their fate. They are an integral part of G’d, חלק ה' עמו], compare Deut. Ed.] Concerning Israel there is already a prophecy describing that nation as rousing itself like a lion in its prime, as a result of which it will attain ascendancy among the nations of the world as does a fully grown lion among the beasts. It will not come to rest in its own land until it has first devoured the previous inhabitants, much as a lion does not rest until it has devoured its prey. It will drink the blood of its enemies, (Onkelos‘ allegorical description of Bileams’ parable.)
      In effect, Bileam’s message to Balak was that the Israelites would eventually conquer the land of Canaan. Balak was aware that they had no designs on his country. Nonetheless, he wanted Bileam to curse them and he hoped that at least Bileam might be able to weaken that people, inflict some kind of defeat on them; this is why he persisted in taking Bileam to yet another vantage point from where he could see part of that nation. By saying (verse 26) קבותו לי משם, “curse it for me from there,” meant that he had given up on the blessings being revoked, but merely hoped that by adding a curse he, Balak, might achieve some partial victory, as had been achieved by the Amalekites and the Canaanites in the south of the land of Canaan who had put their army to flight. (21,3) Alternately, Balak hoped that by means of Bileam’s curse, all the lands of the Moabites that had been conquered by Sichon would be restored to him now.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ויאמר בלעם אל בלק בנה לי בזה, “Bileam said to Balak: ‘build for me in this spot, etc.’” On the previous occasion the Torah reports Balak personally as building the altar (verse 14). Perhaps the reason was that at that time Balak still entertained some hope that Bileam would get around to cursing the people. Now, after Bileam had blessed the Israelites twice, he considered the situation as beyond repair and he was in no hurry to build more altars but took his time before following Bileam’s instructions.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  ולא הלך כפעם כפעם לקראת נחשים, “he no longer went as every other time, toward divinations.” Nachmanides writes that on the previous occasions Bileam employed his sorcerer’s tools, wanting to curse the people, but <i>Hashem</i> happened upon him, i.e. as if by accident, not to endow him with real prophetic insights. Now that Bileam had been told by G’d, i.e. had been made to declare publicly that Israel is superior because it does not resort to divinations, etc., he absorbed the lesson and no longer resorted to the tools of his trade before viewing the people and awaiting inspiration. This is also why the Torah now explains that the source of Bileam’s inspiration had changed and
  
  Verse 2
  
   ותהי עליו רוח אלוקים, “the spirit of G’d remained upon him.” Now the hand of <i>Hashem</i> rested upon Bileam similar to the phenomena experienced by true prophets. This is similar to what Moses had had in mind when he told Joshua that he wished every member of the Jewish people would be endowed with the kind of prophetic visions granted to Eldod and Meydod. (Numbers 11,29) As a result of this experience Bileam was now able to refer to himself as 
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   שומע אמרי א-ל, “the one who has first-hand experience in hearing G’d’s words.” This was another way of declaring himself as a prophet.
  
     אשר מחזה שדי יחזה, “who sees the vision of <i>Shaddai.”</i> He had now received the kind of vision which men such as the patriarchs enjoyed when at the beginning of Avraham’s career the Torah reports in Exodus 6,3וארא אל אברהם, אל יצחק, ואל יעקב בא-ל שדי, “I appeared to Avraham, to Yitzchok, and to Yaakov in My capacity as the G’d <i>Shadday.”</i> It is also possible that here we speak about one rung lower for מחזה שדי is not equivalent to א-ל שדי.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  וירם מאגג מלכו, “his king shall be exalted over Agog.” According to <i>Rashi</i> this is a reference to the king of Amalek, who had been named by Bileam before he was even born.
      Nachmanides writes that it is quite possible that every Amalekite King was known as Agag, much as every King of Egypt was known as Pharaoh seeing that the original Amalekite King was in fact called Agag. Any descendants of that king, if they ascended the throne, adopted the name of the original King.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ועתה ברח לך אל מקומך, “and now, flee to your place, etc.” He did no longer ask him to curse the Israelites seeing that Bileam had told him that G’d had told Avraham that anyone cursing him or his descendants would himself be cursed by Him. (Genesis 12,3) Another reason was that Bileam had told Balak that the Israelites would consume all those who would oppress them. (24,8) He had included oppressors from all nations. Originally, Bileam had limited his remarks to what would happen to the Kings of the Canaanites, but now that he had widened the scope by including oppressors of the Israelites from any quarter, Balak had decided to refrain from antagonizing their G’d. He was convinced that he could not prevail.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   לכה איעצך, “I shall advise you;” Nachmanides writes that seeing that Bileam wanted to predict the disaster that would befall Moav as we read in 24,17 ומחץ פאתי מואב, “it will smash the nobles of Moav, this is why he now introduces his comments as “well-meaning advice.” This was said to Balak in private, not within the hearing of any of his servants.
      <i>Rashi</i> interprets the words לכה איעצך, as Bileam adding further details to what he had already said concerning what the Israelites would achieve in the future.
      Nachmanides adds that in his own opinion Bileam is telling Balak that he is about to reveal to Balak the advice G’d will give to His people how to deal with Moav when the time comes, just as He gives this kind of advice to Israel concerning any of the other nations at that time. The word עצה appears in that sense in Isaiah A person receiving and accepting advice is called נועץ. The prophecy announced here by Bileam applies to the end of time, i.e. to the period immediately preceding the final redemption and the coming of the Messiah. All of Bileam’s prophecies refer to the future, but follow a chronological pattern once the period to which they apply has commenced. They begin with describing the Jewish people as an integral part of G’d Himself and His heritage, followed by the description of their conquest of the land of Canaan, how they will kill many kings, etc. In his third prophecy he envisions Israel on its own land being fruitful and multiplying. A later stage, that of the defeat of Agag, at the hands of a Jewish king, but not yet a king of the Davidic dynasty whose descendant in due course will usher in the Messianic age, is envisioned by Bileam, but he qualifies it by saying that though he foresees it, it is not relevant at this time. At this point, Bileam describes himself as knowing what is in G’d’s mind even in the distant future. In other words, he presumes to foretell events that he has not been specifically told about in a vision, but which he knows by intuition, his being on a wavelength with G’d. 
      When the Torah commences with the words:וישא משלו ויאמר, in verse 16, and he does not mention that what follows is a prophecy as he had done on the previous three occasions, it is clear that what follows is not something that he had heard from the mouth of the divine vision he had experienced. Nonetheless, the fact that he speaks of himself also here as the שומע אמרי א-ל, “the one who has heard words of G’d,” it is clear that the origin of what follows is divine, no less so than the previous prophecy.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   דרך כוכב מיעקב, “A star has come forth from Yaakov;” The reason why the Messiah is compared to a star is that he will gather in the Israelites who at that time are dispersed all over the globe, and a star shines in the sky and is visible all over the world. He envisions a man who will come forth from the edges of the horizon and wield a staff of authority.
  
     ומחץ פאתי מואב וקרקר כל בני שת, “he shall smash the nobles of Moav and the foundations of all of mankind.” The Messiah will not just be a King of the Jews but will be accepted as head of all the nations. The reason that Bileam singles out the nobles of Moav in that context, is to set Balak’s mind at rest that the ultimate destiny of the Moabites is not to fall victim to an Israelite King in his guise as an Israelite, but in his capacity as mankind’s saviour. The Moabites will not escape this man’s grasp although they are insignificant among the nations, and had not fought against the Israelites in the war preceding the coming of the Messiah..
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   והיה אדום ירשה, ”Edom will become a conquest;” Bileam prophesied concerning the defeat of Edom at the hands of the Messiah. Nowadays, (at the time of the author) our exile is that imposed upon us by Edom, seeing that the Romans are descendants of the original Edom. The reason Bileam singled out Edom from all the other nations is that Edom had been the first to contest Israel’s right to exist as a separate nation. That dichotomy had already started in the womb of Rivkah, as she had been told by G’d in Genesis
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   והאביד שריד מעיר, “he will destroy even the remnant of the city.” In other words, there will not remain any survivors of the Amalekites in any city on the globe. At the beginning Bileam had spoken of וקרקר כל בני שת, that the Messiah would uproot all the various nations of the world; now he amplifies that there would not remain any survivors from the people of Amalek anywhere
      According to Ibn Ezra this whole prophecy describes David’s rule. Some commentators understand the words כל בני שת as the descendants of Lot, and that seeing that Bileam mentioned the פאתי מואב, the nobles of Moav [Moav was a son of Lot and his daughter. Ed.], Bileam expands further on the theme of what would happen to the various descendants of Lot. Some commentators understand the שריד מעיר as referring to people whose descent from the original Sheth can be verified. Yet other commentators derive the word שת here not from the third son of Chavah, but from השחית, destroying, so that Bileam would describe the Messiah as destroying even all those who try to hide from him, i.e. he would destroy all organized states.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   וירא את עמלק, “He saw Amalek;” According to<i> Rashi</i> the word וירא, “he saw,” refers to Bileam’s mind’s eye; he observed the retribution that would befall Amalek.
      Nachmanides writes that it is possible that we can understand the word וירא at face value, i.e. as what Bileam saw with his physical eye, seeing that from his vantage point on the top of Peor, it was quite possible to look down on the cities of Amalek who dwelled in the mountains across the valley. He went on to say that although Amalek was (among) the first organized nation-states at his time, so that it bore the title ראש העמים, “first among the nations,” nonetheless, in the end it would be utterly destroyed. Bileam paraphrased what G’d had already foretold Moses in Exodus 17,14 that He, personally, would utterly destroy that nation.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   וירא את הקיני, “He saw the Kenite, etc.” The land of the Kenite was also visible from the elevation on which Bileam was standing, seeing that he dwelled among the Amalekites, as we know from when King Sha’ul asked the Kenites to leave that land before he made war against Amalek (compare Samuel I 15,6) Bileam’s words to them, i.e. וישא משלו ויאמר, were in the nature of advice, such as when he describes the place where that tribe resides. At the time, the Kenite i.e. descendants of Yitro, were still dwelling in Midian, and only after they were allocated land by the Israelites did they become a separate tribe. Their settling on a rock is meant to show that they had something in common with the Jewish nation when they (the descendants of Moses’ father-in-law) ascended from the city of Palms in the valley to higher ground with the tribe of Yehudah. (Judges 1,16) He continued:
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   כי אם יהיה לבער קין, “for if the Kenite should be laid waste, etc.” They would have no reason to worry, as their exile would end at the time the Assyrians would take the ten tribes captive. There would be no residents left in the land formerly occupied by the ten tribes, so that the Kenites would have no one to restrict their tenure.
  
     עד מה אשר תשבך, “where to can Assyria take you captive?” This is a rhetorical question, designed to reassure; “how long could your exile under the Assyrians possibly continue?” You would, at the least, be redeemed at the same time as will Israel, whereas if you were to throw in your lot with Amalek you would face utter annihilation just as Amalek.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   וצים מיד כתים, “and Tzim from Kittim;” a reference to the Romans.”
  
     וענו אשור, “they will afflict Ashur.”(Assyria)
  
     וענו עבר, “they will afflict those on the other bank of the great river.”
  
     וגם הוא עדי אובד, “but it too will be destroyed forever.” It will face destruction in the end just as will the Kittim (the Romans). Bileam concluded his words with a reference to the Romans and their perishing ultimately, as they were symbolized by the fourth of the four beasts in Daniel’s famous vision (Daniel chapter 8) According to the unanimous opinion of our sages the Roman Empire, or its successors, will be vanquished by the Messiah. May we soon live to see this prophecy come true!
      Even though in Genesis 10,4 כתים is listed as one of the four sons of Yavan, (commonly regarded as the forerunner of the Macedonians and Greeks) and they are the third (not fourth) of the four beasts in Daniel’s vision, the true state of affairs is as follows: seeing that the descendants of Elisha Dodanim and Tarshish, the other sons of Yavan, were not numerous, they were lumped together under the heading of their father Yavan, who between them formed the third empire discussed in that chapter of Daniel. The Kittim, however, developed into a numerous and powerful nation so that they are considered the fourth of the empires in Daniel’s vision. This power will be predominant until the Messiah will destroy it when he comes.
      Ibn Ezra explains the expression ראשית גוים, not as “the first of the nations (ever),” but as the first of the nations warring against Israel. Its end will be utter destruction in the days of the first Jewish King, Sha’ul who killed every man woman and child, the prophet Samuel killing the King, Agag, whom Sha’ul had failed to kill, a sin of omission which cost him his dynasty. He explains the words ושים בסלע קנך, (verse 21) not as an advice but as a warning that even if you were to build your nest in a solitary inaccessible rock this will not save you. The words לבער קין refer to the time when the Kenite will be laid waste by the all-consuming army of the Assyrians. “Ashur” is in the feminine mode, a reference to the camp of Ashur [the word מחנה in Hebrew may be used both in the masculine and in the feminine mode. Ed.] When Bileam refers to Ashur taking the Kenite captive, however, in verse 25, Bileam foresees the time when the Assyrians who had thus far taken others captive, will themselves become victims and will perish completely. The meaning of the word עבר, is a reference to the Kenites who had “crossed over” to the Israelites, had thrown in their lot with theirs, and as a result had suffered exile when the Israelites did, but they would not be wiped out as did the other pagan nations Bileam speaks of.
      Some commentators say that the meaning of צים is similar to that of ציים in Isaiah 34,14 where it refers to wildcats or hyenas. Bileam compares Ashur to these animals, animals that men sometimes dress up as, i.e. they are impostors. This explains the previous line אוי מי יחיה משמו א-ל, “who can survive when he comes up against human (such as the King of Ashur) beings that try to play G’d?” [An appropriate comment in view of the boastful messenger of Pul, the King of the Assyrians. [Ravshakeh in Kings II 18,9-19-8. Ed.] 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   לזנות בבנות מואב, “to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moav.” <i>Rashi,</i> basing himself on the Talmud in <i>Sanhedrin 106</i> where Bileam is reputed to have suggested to the Moabites that they seduce the Israelites adopts that version in the Talmud as fact.
      Nachmanides writes that the harlotry described here was not a sexually motivated kind of harlotry initiated by the Moabite women at all. These women were encouraged by their husbands to trap the Israelites into committing a capital offence against the moral code of the Torah, as a result of which they would become guilty of the death penalty. The elders of Midian were instrumental in all this, and this is why a Midianite princess had seduced the leader of the tribe of Shimon. (verse 14-15) Seeing that Bileam was one of these, he too was killed subsequently by the sword of the Israelites.
      However, looking at the unadorned text, the פשט, we must remember that the Torah did not spell out the nature of the advice Bileam offered Balak. All the Torah did spell out was that when the members of the punitive expedition against the Midianites returned from their campaign and among the loot there were female prisoners, Moses became angry at their officers, chiding them for having allowed the very women who had seduced the people at Shittim to live. () He explained that the main reason why the campaign had been fought was to take revenge on the seducers. By explaining that the Midianites had a prominent share of the guilt in that debacle, he had hinted at the source of the plan to seduce the Israelites. (25,17-18) Bileam’s prediction of what the Israelites would do to the Moabites in the distant future had its rationale in what the Moabites were now about to do to this people, a people who had not provoked them but had meticulously respected their borders.
      It is possible further, that by following the plain meaning of the text, Balak was originally intent on cursing the Jewish people and to wage war against them, but that when Bileam had warned him that he would not succeed, and he had added that at any rate the Israelites would not pose a threat to him even ecologially, at least not until the distant future, Balak decided to welcome them as neighbours, bringing out food to show that he was interested in friendly relations. He seduced them by making believe that he was sincere, and this is the meaning of the words בדבר בלעם, (31,16) i.e. due to the reassurance received from Bileam that he was in no immediate danger. At that time Balak had no evil intentions. However, the fact that he had harboured hostile intentions and had gone to the length of hiring Bileam is enough reason why he should be punished. In the event, the retribution would be long delayed. The Torah spells this out in Deut. 23,5 when Balak is once more referred to as having hired Bileam
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   הרגו איש את אנשיו, “kill, each one of you, his guilty counterpart.” The Jerusalem Talmud <i>Sanhedrin</i> 10,2 reports that each of the judges killed two Israelites, as there were a total of 78600 judges, and according to this 157.200 Israelites were executed on that occasion.
      Nachmanides questions the statement in the Jerusalem Talmud reminding us that a capital crime may not be judged by only one judge. Furthermore, if correct, the tremendous number of missing Israelites should be reflected in the census the Torah reports as having taken place immediately after this event, as per He therefore comes to the conclusion that the words איש את אנשיו refers to the judges who had convicted the active participants and whom G’d had commanded Moses to hang after their execution, would each be executed by the court of his tribe, so that not all judges had to participate in all the executions, but only in the executions of members of their particular tribe. [In other words, the word אנשיו restricts the individual judges’ duties as executioners. Ed.]
      I believe (Nachmanides’ words) that the correct interpretation of the whole paragraph beginning with the words (verse 3) ויצמד העם, is that initially the debacle began with some of the people worshipping the idol known as בעל פעור. This evoked G’d’s anger at the people of Israel and the plague began to take its toll among the people. G’d simultaneously told Moses to tell the judges to carry out their judicial duties in order to insure that the innocent would not fall victim to the plague, which did not distinguish between the loyal and the disloyal Jews. Once the whole community had been assembled at the entrance to the Tabernacle in order to carry out Moses’ instructions, and it was found that the plague continued to kill Israelites, Zimri came and presented the Midianite princess using her to incite a rebellion against Moses. by, among other things, challenging Moses who had himself slept with a Midianite woman, Tzipporah. This caused both Moses and the elders to commence weeping, seeing that Moses did not have an answer that would have sounded convincing, This was the signal for Pinchas to take the law into his own hands in order to put a stop to the plague. We know that he succeeded as the Torah reports that as an immediate consequence of Zimri and Cosbi being stabbed to death the plague ceased. (verse 8) There had not been enough time to convict a single member of the people by court of law. The proof is that G’d ordered them to be hanged, seeing that they had not been convicted legally. [Hanging after execution is called תליה not הוקעה. Ed.] This is the reason why the Torah does not report that Moses’ instructions to the judges had been carried out.
      It is possible that the intention of the sages in the Jerusalem Talmud quoted earlier was to inform us that if the order to execute the guilty people had indeed been carried out, each of the judges would have had to execute two Israelites. The vast majority of them were saved by the courageous deed of Pinchas. They survived at this point, but they did not cross the Jordan into the Holy Land as the Torah testifies that G’d destroyed all the persons that had been actively involved in this sorry affair. (Compare Deut.4,3)
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   פינחס בן אלעזר...בקנאו את קנאתי, “Pinchas son of Eleazar. when he displayed his jealousy on My behalf.” Seeing that <i>Hashem</i> is also known as a “jealous G’d,” (Exodus 20,5) meaning that He acts as such vis-à-vis people who worship idols, Pinchas’ act of taking the law into his own hands, religious intolerance, need not be interpreted as an act of jealousy on behalf of his own agenda. G’d tells Moses that but for Pinchas’ action and motivation He would have continued killing the Israelites by the plague. 
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   לכן אמור, “Therefore, say! etc.” the words “to the Children of Israel,” are implied here. Moses was to announce to the Israelites that Pinchas had acquired hereditary rank as a priest.
  
     הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום, “I herewith grant him My covenant of peace.” According to the plain meaning of the text family members who might act as גואל הדם, having the license to kill him by reason of being blood relations. Seeing that Zimri was a high-ranking member of the Israelite society there might have been numerous people who would have welcomed a chance to do just this. Apart from this assurance, his real reward would be that both he and his descendants would be priests. 
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   צרור את המדינים, “Harass the Midianites!” On the one hand, the word צרור is in the singular mode, whereas the word following i.e. והכיתם is in the plural mode. This is a hint to Moses that seeing he will give the necessary orders and select the soldiers that campaign will be credited to him, although, naturally it would require quite a few people to wage the actual war. The reason why Moses, personally, should not go with those soldiers is the fact that he had been raised and given refuge in Midian and the hand that had been fed by the Midianites should not now turn and bite that hand.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   בנכליהם, “with their conspiracies,” according to Nachmanides the Midianites were the ones who originated the plot to seduce the Israelites by even supplying their own socially high ranking women for the purpose. They also conspired to make sleeping with their women dependent on at least a superficial show of respect for their deity the <i>Baal Pe-or.</i> According to tradition, the manner in which that deity was worshipped was so revolting, i.e. one excreted in front of that idol, that no one in their right minds could have believed that this was a form of worship rather than an insult to their deity. Having dispatched Cosbi, whose rank the Torah describes here, to seduce the highest-ranking Israelite she could find, is an indication of the Midianites’ hatred for the Israelites. It is most likely that even if he did not think up this devious plot himself, Bileam was at least aware of it. This Cosbi, no doubt, was a woman of great physical allure, and she was sent on her ill-fated mission precisely because she was so attractive. It is quite possible that the reason why Bileam detoured on his way home via the land of Midian was in order to find out how the plot to seduce the Israelites had worked out. As a result, the army of the Israelites found him there and killed him. The officers were well aware that he must have had a hand in that plot. Israelites do not kill people who prophesy something negative concerning them unless specifically ordered to do so by the Torah or its authorized representatives. Incitement is a different story, however. In this instance, G’d had ordered all those that had been part of that incitement actively or by not protesting it, to be killed. The campaign was aimed only at the Midianites, as G’d had already forbidden the Israelites to harass the Moabites in any way.
      I am somewhat at a loss how to understand the wording of the <i>aggadah</i> according to which (<i>Baba Kamma</i> 38) it had never occurred to the Israelites to either harass or invade Moav so that G’d had to specifically for bid this? Where had there ever been a precedent that Moses would initiate warfare without express permission by G’d? The Talmud there answers that Moses used his logic, reasoning that if G’d had told him to launch a punitive expedition against the Midianites who had only been involved in the plot at arm’s length, so to speak, and G’d ordered us to punish them, how much more must we launch a similar expedition against the Moabites who were the instigators of all of this? The Talmud appears to have put the cart before the horse seeing that the warning not to harass Moav or wage war against it had been issued by G’d before the incident at Shittim or Bileam’s being hired to curse the Israelites! We may have to answer that it was clear to <i>Hashem</i> that once Israel had defeated and occupied the lands of Sichon and Og, with G’d’s permission, of course, Moses would reason that it was natural that the next step would be to cross into Moabite territory by crossing the river Arnon. G’d pre-empted such reasoning by Moses by forbidding the Israelites to provoke any confrontation with the Moabites. [The Talmud there has G’d explain to Moses why He forbade this, also in light of future events. Ed.] The matter was especially hard for Moses to understand because the very people who were not to be harassed were the people that because of hostility to the Israelites in the past, had been forbidden forever to convert to Judaism and become part of our nation. (Compare Deut. 23,4-8)
      Looking at the plain text, the reason why at this stage at least, no confrontation with either Moav or Bney Ammon was permitted, is the fact that G’d had allocated their lands to them in recognition of the years when their founding father Lot had faithfully served Avraham and had kept his secret and not reveled that Sarah was not only a blood-relation to him but was also his wife. Lot had joined Avraham at the time when the former moved to the land of Canaan, and this was akin to voluntary exile, all in order to keep company with his uncle whom he admired. The eventual commandment not to accept proselytes from either of those two nations, was explained as an act of מדה כנגד מדה, the punishment fitting the crime, as the Torah explained in Deut.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה מבית אבותם, “from twenty years and up according to their respective fathers’ house.” When enumerating the tribe of Reuven, the Torah here omits the addition למשפחותם, ”according to their families,” which we had found in the previous census (Numbers 1,2). The reason is that in the interval of almost 40 years some intermarriage with the members of Korach’s family had occurred, as a result of which such members of Korach’s expanded family perished with him. [This is not surprising, as the discontented Reuvenites had felt sympathy for Korach’s rebellion and intermarriage between them was based on common interests. Ed.] (The author refers the reader to his commentary on Numbers 1,18 where he dealt with this at greater length)
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   חנוך משפחת החנוכי, Chanoch, the Chanochi family;” Nachmanides speculates that the reason why suddenly the tribes are divided into their respective families, may have to do with the opinion according to which the land was distributed in equal measure to the 12 tribes, so that the numerically weak tribe of Shimon received as much land as the numerically strong tribe of Yehudah. The Torah would then be telling us that the distribution of the land within each tribe followed a similar pattern, i.e. the basic family units, בית אב which was based on the 20 year olds at the time of the Israelites arriving in Egypt. At that time Reuven had four sons, so that the land allocated to the tribe of Reuven would have been split into 4 equal parts, regardless of demographic changes in the respective numerical strength during the intervening 250 years. [210 in Egypt 40 in the desert. Ed.] Although, at the time of this census, the families of Chanoch, Phalu, Chetzron and Carmi, were quite different from one another numerically, for the purpose of the distribution of their family plots in the land of Israel they were all treated as equal in numerical strength. As far as the Torah instructing (verse 54) לרב תרבה נחלתו ולמעט תמעיט נחלתו איש לפי פקודיו יתן נחלתו, “to the numerically strong you shall increase the amount of his inheritance, whereas to the numerically weak you shall give proportionately less, each according to his count shall be given his inheritance,” this is a principle that is repeated in Joshua This is the reason why at this census the basic units are the composition of the families that had descended from Canaan to Egypt with their patriarch Yaakov. This is also why,- as opposed to the census in <i>Parshat Bamidbar</i> -the word לגולגלותם, “according to their headcount,” does not appear at all.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ובני אליאב נמואל ודתן ואבירם וגו', “and the sons of Eliav were Nemuel, Datan and Aviram, distinguished etc.;” Nachmanides writes that the latter detail was recorded here so that we would know that the entire inheritance (of land in the land of Israel) of the family of Palu-i accrued only to Nemuel. We know that both Datan and Aviram were swallowed up by the earth together with their entire families during Korach’s revolt.
      Alternatively, in accordance with views expressed by our sages, <i>Baba Batra</i> 118, the purpose of singling them out was to tell us that in spite of the principle of the distribution being governed by who arrived as adult in Egypt, the members of these families had forfeited their claim due to their conduct in the desert.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
   ויהיו בני בלע ארד ונעמן, ”The sons of Bela were Ard and Naaman.” 
      [Our author refers to a <i>Rashi</i> on verse 36 in which <i>Rashi</i> quoted Rabbi Moshe Hadarshon who tried to account for the 5 missing families when we compare with the seventy members of Yaakov’s family that descended to Egypt and who are presumed to be the counterpart of the 70 families of the nations at large enumerated in <i>Parshat Noach</i> as the backbone of mankind. You will note that of the 10 sons of Binyamin enumerated in <i>Parshat Vayigash</i> 46,21, only 5 are appearing in our verse. Rabbi Moshe Hadarshon is quoted as saying that Ard and Naamon may have been in their mother’s womb at the time Yaakov traveled to Egypt, so that their inclusion in the families to whom land would be distributed would pose no problem, is itself problematic, as are other aspects. I will now continue to let the author speak. Ed.] 
      As to <i>Rashi’s</i> quoting Rabbi Moshe Hadarshon that Ard and Naaman descended with Yaakov to Egypt, while their mother was pregnant with them, he does so because he could not reconcile their being listed as heads of families, seeing only people who immigrated to Egypt are considered as such.
      Nachmanides writes that if it had been possible to argue that these two had indeed immigrated to Egypt at that time, Rabbi Moshe Hadarshon would not have faced any problem at all. As it is, if these two had been born prior to arrival of their fathers in Egypt, the Torah should have listed 72 descendants of Yaakov traveling, not 70, seeing that at that time 10 sons of Binyamin were alive. On the other hand, if they were born after arrival of their mother or father in Egypt, how could they qualify as heads of families that were entitled to a share in the land of Israel under that heading? This is why Rabbi Moshe Hadarshon concluded that they were in the womb of their mother while their mother traveled with her family to Egypt. If we accept this, we need also to accept the notion that Yocheved was born at the entrance to the gates of Egypt, so that she was included in the number 70 that without her is not complete. All of these explanations are extremely forced and difficult if not impossible to substantiate.
      We may say that Ard and Naamon, the real sons of Binyamin, died in Egypt after having married but before having had children, so that the levirate marriage was performed on their widows and the first child of each of these marriages was named after their deceased father. Seeing that their fathers had been of the family members of Yaakov descending to Egypt, they inherited the right to be regarded as founding members of the people in the distribution of shares in the land of Israel.
      The correct interpretation is that Ard and Naamon who had been listed in <i>Parshat Shemot</i> [there is no such in the Book of Exodus, I presume what is meant is Genesis Ed] as part of the 70 were in fact grandsons of Binyamin, as they are described here where they are listed as sons of Binyamin’s firstborn son Bela. They are listed similarly in Chronicles I [Ard appears there as Adar Ed.] On the other hand, we must remember that grandsons are often described as sons in the Bible. The best known example may be Genesis 29,5 where Lavan is described as the son of Nachor although we have met him as the son of Betuel, (Genesis 24,9) who was a son of Nachor.
      If we were to reconstruct history on the basis of what is logical, we must remember that the whole subject of distribution of the land is not dealt with only in terms of who arrived in Egypt and when, but also in terms of who left Egypt and at what age. The enumerating of “families,” משפחות, is not restricted to the ones who existed prior to the descent into Egypt. Examples are the families of Ephrayim and Menashe, whose founders were born in Egypt. It was an old established custom among the Israelites to establish family heads, a custom not as much in evidence among other tribes. It was a source of pride for the descendants of such family heads (founders) to be able to number themselves as members of their respective families. This custom intensified ever since after the Israelites settled in Egypt they began to multiply at an accelerated rate. It became a sort of unwritten law for everybody to know and treasure and correctly trace his ancestry. In view of the enormous growth of the Jewish people during the years they stayed Egypt, the only way to preserve such identities through a number of generations was to know who the founding father of the family had been. Those who were able to trace themselves back to Yaakov in Canaan did so, others traced themselves back to the most distant founding father that could be established with certainty, even if the founding father of that family did not date back to the period prior to the descent of Yaakov to Egypt. The fact is that most of the families mentioned here were able to trace themselves back to the period preceding Yaakov’s descent to Egypt.
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
   אלה בני דן למשפחותם, “these are the sons of Dan according to their families.” Nachmanides writes that Shuchim had many sons all of whom started families of their own, all of whom both called themselves in a manner recalling the founding father of the family, as well as reflecting in their name that of their respective immediate fathers. This is why at the end of the paragraph the Torah repeats the word משפחות twice in the line אלה משפחות דן למשפחותם, “these are the families of Dan according to their families.”
      According to the school of thought that claims that all these people counted traced themselves back to the members of Yaakov’s family that descended to Egypt, there must have been many families that simply called themselves by names born by their forefathers who had been born already in Egypt but that here they were all traced back to Shuchim as he was the only one of Dan’s sons who had been born before he came to Egypt.
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
   ושם בת אשר,”and the name of the daughter of Asher, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> writes that the reason that lady was singled out by name as the only daughter of whom there must have been many, was that she was still alive at the time when this census was taken.     Nachmanides writes that if that were the reason, why did Onkelos translate this verse as ושום בת אחת אשר, “and the name of Asher’s only daughter was Shum.” [This is not the version of Onkelos that appears in our editions where we have ושום בת אשר סרח, “Asher’s daughter’s name was Serach.” Ed.]       According to Nachmanides her name was mentioned because seeing that he had only a daughter and no sons, she inherited her father’s portion of the ancestral land when Joshua distributed same. She was mentioned for the same reason that Tzelofchod’s daughters were mentioned by name. If Serach had been the daughter (instead of granddaughter or great granddaughter) she would not have qualified for such an inheritance seeing that Asher did have sons of his own as we know from Genesis 46,17 where 4 sons and their sister Serach are listed. What made her different was that although Asher’s wife was her mother, she did not have the same father as had Asher’s sons who were listed as her “brothers” i.e. half-brothers. This is why the Torah does not simply introduce her as ובת אשר, “and Asher’s daughter, but with the prefix “and the name of Asher’s daughter.” She was known as Asher’s daughter, her name being Serach, although Asher was not her biological father..     I do not understand his words (our author concerning Nachmanides) for the mystery deepens as we do not know who the man was who fathered Serach, and on the strength of her father not having any sons she inherited her father’s portion of the land. After all, Serach was of the people who took part in the Exodus and the people who descended to Egypt were only seventy in number and all of Yaakov’s sons had sons so that they qualified as males. Furthermore, seeing she is listed as being alive when the Israelites arrived in Egypt she must have survived past the Exodus (210 years +) in order to qualify under the heading of the generation that left Egypt.     According to the plain meaning of the text, Serach presumably had a great and numerous family, all of whose members were known by the name of their matriarch. The Torah decided to include her in the list of the families of the sons of Asher for purposes of the census, but the Torah did not want to list their genealogy as descended from a female i.e. לסרח משפחת סרח, and that is why the Torah abbreviated here. All of the tribes are listed in the same order as they had been listed in <i>Parshat Bamidbar</i>, i.e. in the order in which the tribes were encamped around the Tabernacle. The only change is that in this census Menashe is mentioned ahead of Ephrayim.     Ibn Ezra writes that this change of the order in which Ephrayim and Menashe are listed is because the members of the tribe of Ephrayim had decreased by approximately 8000 souls during the 40 years in the desert. Previously, the members of the tribe of Ephrayim had outnumbered those of the tribe of Menashe by approximately 10000, whereas now the members of Ephrayim numbered approximately 20000 fewer than those of Menashe.     26, 54. 
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  לרב תרבו נחלתו, “For the numerous you shall increase his inheritance;” According to <i>Rashi</i> this means that the tribe whose population is numerous will be allocated a larger slice of the land than the tribe whose population is fewer in numbers. In other words, different tribes received territorially different amounts of land.     Nachmanides writes that the opinion of the sages in the Talmud, after a debate on the subject, was that division of the land was not related to the headcount of the various tribes, but that each tribe received the same amount of land. Each tribe took the portion that he drew when the lots were drawn. This explains the complaint of the members of the tribe of Joseph that in spite of their having a numerically strong population, the amount of land per square cubit available for each member was considerably less than that available for a member of a less populous tribe. (Compare Joshua 17,14) This is also the meaning of: 
  
  Verse 55
  
   לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו, “according to the names of their fathers’ tribes shall they inherit.” 
  
  
  Verse 56
  
   בין רב למעט, “between the numerous and the few.” All tribes received equal amounts of land regardless of how numerous they were. If so, what was the meaning of the words לרב תרבה נחלתו וגו', “to the numerous you shall increase his inheritance?” (Verse 54) We must understand this as the internal division of the land within each tribal territory. Families that had many children received larger plots than families who had only few children.
      Alternately, the internal division was not based on the numbers in each family at this time, but on the numbers in each family at the time of the Exodus. In other words; if a family consisted of a father and ten sons at the time of the Exodus, but that family had by now shrunk to half its original size, the family was still allocated the amount of land based on the family’s original size. This was how the words לרב תרבו נחלתו were applied. On the other hand, if a family at the time of the Exodus had only five sons, and in the interval there were 10 sons, all of them had to share an inheritance based on five sons. This is the meaning of למעט תמעיט נחלתו. 
      The approach to the whole paragraph then would be that the land would be distributed based on families mentioned in the Torah by name. This is why the Torah wrote במספר שמות, “according to the number of names.” In other words, the distribution was based on a head count, but not on a head count of the number of souls, but on a headcount based on people whom the Torah singled out by name. The lot mentioned was used only to determine which named tribe would receive which named share of land, the shares being equal in size, though, of course not equal in value. The reason why the matter of the גורל is repeated once more in verse 56 is to tell us that even within the tribe the plots of land were distributed by lottery, so as to minimize friction and jealousy.
  
  
  Verse 57
  
   ואלה פקודי הלוי, “And these are the numbered ones of the tribe of Levi.” Nachmanides writes that he does not know why the census of the Levites is introduced at this juncture. He suggests that perhaps it is because the ones numbered now are the ones to whom each of the tribes had to cede some portion of their land in order to have the 48 cities populated by the Levites who had no land holdings other than the strip of greenbelt surrounding their respective towns. The size of those towns would be based on Levites already alive at this time, those born later would not be able to establish additional such towns or to increase the size allotted to the town in which their parents lived.
      It is also possible that the Torah inserted this paragraph at this time in honour of these Levites, as otherwise it would appear to the reader that the Kings’ (G’d’s) legion, i.e. the Levites, were treated less respectfully than the commoners.
      Amram and his wife Yocheved were mentioned by name separately, as the tribe of Levi was basically divided into the plain Levites and the descendants of Aaron who were priests. Nachmanides writes further that he is wondering why the Torah first enumerates the families of Levi by counting three separate family heads of the Levites, i.e. Gershon, Kehat and Merari, and then proceeds to also enumerate the next generation when repeating details of their offspring describing them as משפחות, families, [with their appropriate heads, Ed.] although in the case of Merari there were only two sons, Machli and Mushi, how could the Torah speak of משפחת המררי? (Compare Numbers 3,20) The reason the Torah does not speak of Amram’s family, i.e. משפחת העמרמי, is because this family would be subdivided into Aaron the head of the priests, and the ordinary Levites, be they descended from Gershon, Merari, or Kehat, excluding Aaron son of Amram. The Torah at this juncture does not mention that Aaron was the priest, out of respect for Moses The same holds true for the report of the genealogy of the tribe of Levi in Numbers 3,17, where Aaron’s office as High Priest is not mentioned. [Seeing that Aaron as the priest is listed there in verse 32, this editor does not see the comparison as valid. Ed.] The reason why the family of Yitzhar is described under the heading of Korach, (verse 58) is that originally at the time of the first census Yitzhor had other sons alive, i.e. Zichri and Nefog, and both of these sons had their own sons by now. By the time of the present census the only surviving sons of Yitzhor were the sons of Korach, concerning whom the Torah had testified that they did not die in the uprising. (26,11) As a result, the family of Yitzhar henceforth was known as the descendants of Korach.
      I do not believe (Nachmanides writing) there was a valid reason why Yitzhar’s name should be expunged among his descendants; however they did this after the revolt of Korach in honour of Korach’s sons who had had the courage to defy their father and to remain loyal to both G’d and Moses, an example for future generations, as testified by the Torah itself.
      In the <i>Midrash</i> of Rabbi Moshe Hadarshon on the meaning of the words כי אתם המעט, in Deut 7,7 where the letter ה at the beginning of the word "המעט" is understood as a hint at the five of the 70 families that founded the Jewish people and with whom Yaakov descended to Egypt as having died out, this is not correct. He claims that whereas Levi had originally 8 sons, (families) here only five are mentioned. Three of those so-called original eight were only belonging to a different generation, Gershon, Kehat, and Merari.
      I also do not follow why in lieu of Yitzhar, all his descendants should not describe themselves as descended from Korach. On the contrary, we have a principle that the names of wicked people should rot, and Korach most certainly was such a wicked person. Why should his name be commemorated for all time? (The last paragraph is not part of Nachmanides’ commentary on this verse.)
  
  
  Verse 58
  
  
  
  Verse 59
  
   אשר ילדה אותה ללוי במצרים, “whom she bore (Levi’s wife) Levi in Egypt.” Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning that all of Yaakov’s children with all their respective children arrived with him in Egypt, so that after that no more children were born to Levi after Yocheved, we must assume that Yocheved was deliberately born at such a late date. [Nachmanides already explained that Moses had to be born late in terms of the date G’d had set for the redemption, as if he had been born earlier G’d’s timetable for the Exodus would have been upset. Compare Nachmanides on Genesis Ed.]
  
  Verse 60
  
  
  
  Verse 61
  
  
  
  Verse 62
  
  
  
  Verse 63
  
  אלה פקודי משה ואלעזר, “These are the ones counted by Moses and Eleazar.” The Torah now reverted to the Israelites that had been counted, not the Levites, for among the former the wording of “none of the ones counted here were included in the men counted by Moses and Aaron.” The reason is that the decree that the males over 20 that had been counted in the desert of Sinai had to die in the desert had not applied to the Levites. The Torah had stated that of the earlier generation only Calev and Joshua had been exempt. If the Levites had been included in the decree, how come that Pinchas and Eleazar had survived? 
  
  Verse 64
  
   ובאלה לא היה איש מפקודי משה ואהרן, “and among those counted now there had not been a single one who had been counted by Moses and Aaron.” Even though Joshua and Calev were still survivors of the original census, they were not included in the present census as only men between the ages of 20 and 60 were counted, and both Calev and Joshua were far older by then. However, when the Torah states that no man except Joshua and Calev had survived from the original census they had been mentioned because they had been included in the original census.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   והוא לא היה בתוך העדה הנועדים על ה', “and he had not been among the assembly that had assembled against <i>Hashem,</i> etc.’” The daughters of Tzelofchod had to state publicly that their father had not been a member of the rebels with Korach who had at any rate forfeited their claim to ancestral land in the land of Israel, they had to mention that their father had died on account of another sin.
      Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text, the reason that these girls mentioned that their father had not been a member of the gang of rebels with Korach was that they thought that Moses must surely hate anyone who had been connected with that group, as they had targeted him personally in their uprising and incitement of the people against him. They were therefore afraid of not getting a fair hearing from him. They also had to hint that their father had not died during the plague G’d had sent on several occasions in which groups of Israelites had been killed. This is why they had to mention that he had died as a result of a sin committed as an individual, not as part of a group.
  
     כי בחטאו מת, “but he died as the direct result of his personal sin.” They meant that he had died in the desert and therefore could not cross the Jordan and take possession of his ancestral heritage.
      Rabbi Yehudah Halevi, the famous poet, comments that the word בחטאו is to be understood as belonging to the words ובנים לא היו לו, meaning that part of his punishment was that he was not granted male offspring. Many people attribute the fact that they have been denied certain normal blessings in life to the fact that they had been guilty of some sin, as a result of which G’d denied them these blessings.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   והיתה לבני ישראל לחוקת משפט, “This shall be for the Children of Israel as a decree of justice.” This will be a law from now on not only for the people that were about to enter the Holy Land.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   עלה אל הר העברים, “ascend Mount Avarim, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the true name of the mountain was Nebo, as has been spelled out in Deut. 32,49 and elsewhere. The reason it has been referred to here by a different name, one that reflects its precise location, is that it is near the place where the river Jordan would be crossed by the Israelites. It is approximately directly opposite the ancient city of Jericho. The word עלה!, an imperative, was not meant to be complied with immediately, otherwise how could Moses have waited until after the 12000 men engaged in the punitive expedition against Midian had returned from there before ascending that mountain?. The reason why this command is reported here is that the Torah wanted to tell us that when Moses would ascend that mountain he would be shown the various locations where the different tribes would settle, and he would, at least, have the satisfaction of having seen all this with his own eyes.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   קח לך את יהושע בן נון, “take to yourself Joshua son of Nun;” this too was a reference to the day on which Moses was to die. The Torah concludes with reporting that Moses displayed no reluctance in carrying out these orders, on the contrary, he asked G’d to appoint a suitable successor who would take his place when the time came.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   וצוית אותו לעיניהם, “you will command him before their eyes;” R<i>ashi</i> comments that Moses presented the Israelites to Joshua as a nation that sorely tried any of its leaders, a people most difficult to govern, their having assumed that Moses would tolerate their difficult behaviour as a matter of course. [He wanted Joshua to know what kind of a burden he would assume by becoming leader. Ed.]     Nachmanides writes that <i>Rashi’s</i> comment is not correct, as it would not be good manners for Moses to make such statements in public at that time. On the contrary, instead of being effective, psychologically speaking, such a comment by Moses at a time such as this would have a counterproductive effect and the people would become even more difficult. Accordingly, Nachmanides understands the words וצוית אותו לעיניהם as G’d’s instruction to Moses to impress upon Joshua, that now that he would assume such an awesome responsibility he must become very sensitive to the needs of the people, to their sense of dignity, etc. At the same time, he must know that the final responsibility rested on him when major decisions had to be made and he must be firm and fearless. When the people would hear how Moses had publicly impressed upon Joshua the qualities that a leader must display at all times, they in turn would feel confident that a man so instructed by the incomparable Moses would indeed do everything to live up to the task entrusted to him. Moses acted precisely in this manner, as we know from verses 22 and 23.     According to my personal opinion (Nachmanides speaking) the plain meaning of the text is that the appointment of Joshua as Moses’ successor had to be made in public, in the presence of all the people so that it could not be challenged later on, or so that it could not be viewed as an high handed act by Moses. Nachmanides quotes several examples from Scripture where the expression ויצוהו על is used to describe the appointing of someone as a prominent leader with wide ranging powers.  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  צו את בני ישראל, “command the Children of Israel, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> comments that in spite of the fact that a similar instruction had already been issued in Exodus 29,38, the instructions there were limited in validity to the seven days during which the Tabernacle was being consecrated. The legislation commencing in our verse is for all times when sacrifices can be brought.     Nachmanides writes that <i>Rashi</i> is not correct, as in Exodus 29,42 the Torah had added the word תמיד לדורותיכם, which means that the legislation is of unlimited duration. We must therefore understand the legislation as follows: After the manner in which the land of Israel would be shared out among the various tribes had been explained, i.e. לאלה תחלק הארץ, (26,53) the Torah concluded the whole subject of the sacrificial offerings, seeing that while in the desert the offerings known as מוספים had not been presented at all, and there had also not been any libation offerings, נסכים in the desert. Now that the people were on the threshold of entering the Holy Land, the Torah had to restate some of these laws in the manner in which they would apply once the people were on their own land. This applied also to the offerings whose details were not introduced under the heading of כי תבואו אל הארץ, “when you will come to the land, etc.” The latter introduction had only been used in connection with the libation offerings in Numbers chapter 15. 
     את קרבני לחמי, “My offering, My food; etc.” In the <i>Sifri</i> the word קרבני, “My offering,” is understood as referring to the blood of the offering that gets on the altar, whereas the word לחמי, literally “My bread,” is understood as applying to the meat parts burned up on the altar. The words לאשי, literally “to My fires,” are understood there as applying to the meal-offering, the parts the priest closes his fist over as well as the frankincense. The expression ריח ניחוח, literally “sweet fragrance,” is applied to the spoonfuls of incense presented with the showbreads each Sabbath. The תשמרו –in the same verse- means that no animal is to be offered on the altar unless it had previously been observed for a number of days and it was found to be unblemished. It also means that during the procedure of the slaughter, etc., delegates of the other tribes of the Israelites, Levites, as well as priests should be nearby. The word תשמרו which appears here as well as in Exodus 12,6, where the first communal offering, the Passover, has been described as being checked out during 4 days, is to tell us that any sacrificial animal must be examined during no less than four days before it is offered on the altar. 
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   שכר, “intoxicating liquid.” <i>Rashi</i> understands the word as excluding newly made wine that has not yet become alcoholic, the liquid not yet having fermented. Nachmanides queries that since we know that such wine if it had been offered is not disqualified retroactively, we can see that the requirement was only a cautionary decree by the Rabbis, this could not be the meaning of the word here. He concludes that therefore the meaning is that watered down wine is not acceptable.
      Nachmanides writes further that the Torah mentions the amount of fine flour to be used as part of the daily meal-offering accompanying the daily burnt offering, and it also mentions the amount of wine used in the libation, both in the daily offerings and on the corresponding offerings on the New Moon. Similar measurements for the libations are, however, not mentioned in connection with the corresponding offering on the Sabbath and all the other festivals. The reason maybe that although these measurements are mentioned in the section dealing with the libations (Numbers 15,4-12) in connection with the meal-offerings and libations for the bull, ram, and sheep when these are free-willed offerings such as different categories of vows and individual offerings on the festivals, we find different measurements (double) in the meal offering accompanying the <i>Omer, or that on Shavuot</i> the meal-offering also comprises 10 loaves of leavened bread. Similarly, these standard measurements are varied in connection with the קרבן תודה, people who have to present thanksgiving offerings. Basically, seeing that the libations do not vary in measurements, allowing for the size of four-legged animal that they accompany, they, i.e. their measures have been written first in conjunction with the daily communal offerings known as תמיד. They do not have to be mentioned again as they are not subject to variations in their measures at all. The size of the מנחה on the first day of Tabernacles has been mentioned (29,14) something that did not need to be repeated on the subsequent days of that festival other than a brief note such as “and their meal offerings and libations in accordance with the law.” The משפט, “law,” referred to is the size of the libation on the first day of that festival. This still leaves us with the question of why there was a need to specify the size of the libation on the New Moon more so than on any other days in the calendar. Perhaps one can explain this by saying that seeing the legislation of the offerings on that day introduces the concept of the so-called מוספים, “additional” communal offerings, the Torah saw fit to also give details of the accompanying libation of each mammal being presented.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ובראשי חדשיכם, “and on your New Moons, etc.” Some commentators understand this verse as applying to the New Moon of the month of <i>Nissan,</i> seeing that the New Moon of that month has been described asראשון הוא לכם לחדשי השנה, “it is the first New Moon for you of the moons of the year.” (Exodus 12,2) This would explain why the Torah concludes (verse 14) our paragraph with זאת עולת חדש בחדשו לחדשי השנה, ”this is the burnt offering of each New Moon on the successive moons of the year.”
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ושלושה עשרונים...לפר, “three-tenths ephah of fine flour for the meal-offering with a bull.” The measurement specified here was for each bull,; similarly, the measurement for the flour for the meal-offering accompanying the sheep or ram was for each of the respective animals. This is derived from the repetition of the word עשרון, עשרון. Not only that, but the addition of the words לשבעת הכבשים, “for the seven sheep” in verses 21 and 29 make it plain that the measurements given were not for the whole offering but for each animal that was part of that offering. The reason why the hint is given with the sheep is that there were so many sheep that were being offered on the altar. The Torah did not bother to spell out the details of each libation/meal offering separately for each animal as there were no fewer than a total of 196 such animal offerings on the seven days of Tabernacle alone. [Not including the Sabbath. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ובחודש הראשון בארבעה עשר יום לחודש, “And in the first month on the fourteenth of the month, a Passover for the Lord.” This was a special warning to present the Passover, (each householder, as rule) it was mentioned here once more in conjunction with the other offerings of the festival of unleavened bread. The Torah abbreviated here by only mentioning the name of that offering as all its details had already been spelled out in chapter 12 of the Book of Exodus.  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  מלבד עולת החודש ומנחתה, “not including the New Moon offering and its accompanying meal-offering.” Nachmanides writes that the Torah mentions only the עולה, burnt-offering of the New Moon by name, as well as its meal-offering, without mentioning the sin-offering. When summing up the offerings on the Day of Atonement, (verse 11) the Torah proceeds in a reverse fashion by mentioning by name the sin offering while omitting specific reference to the burnt-offering of that day. The reason, most likely, is that it was clear that the burnt offering commanded to be offered on that date was in addition to the daily burnt-offering, תמיד, seeing the legislation for both had been given on the same day. The two could not be confused with one another as one consisted of two bulls plus a ram, whereas the other consisted of a single bull plus a ram. [Plus seven sheep. Ed.] (Day of Atonement) Seeing that the sin-offerings on both days were identical, it was possible to err. One could think that on a single day no two sin-offerings (public) could or would be offered. In order to prevent us from making such an error, the Torah wrote מלבד חטאת הכפורים, “apart from the sin offering (exclusive) to the Day of Atonement.” The distinction of that sin offering (compare Leviticus 16,15) was that its blood was sprinkled on the golden altar. This sin offering, the flesh of which was completely burned up, atoned for sins committed by violating the sanctity of the Temple, etc. The sin offering of the day of the New Moon, in common with that of the other festivals, was offered on the major altar outside the Sanctuary, and seeing that both legislations were revealed to the people on the same day, it was clear that they could not be identical. There was also no need to especially mention the sin-offering as part of the additional sacrifices on <i>Shavuot</i> as it is clear that all the animal sacrifices mentioned there were only supplementary to the two loaves of the new wheat harvest, the major מנחה, gift offering, consisting of grain-based ingredients. On the first of the seventh month, i.e. <i>Rosh Hashanah,</i> seeing that the day is both the beginning of a new year and a new month, one could easily have thought that no additional sin-offering was required, seeing that every New Moon a publicly funded sin offering is offered; the Torah therefore had to spell out that one sin-offering belonged to the ritual of the New Year, and another to that of the New Moon. 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויאמר משה אל בני ישראל, “Moses said to the Children of Israel, etc.” <i>Rashi,</i> basing himself on Rabbi Yishmael in the <i>Sifri,</i> justifies this verse by stating that whereas up until now the Torah had reported the words of G’d to Israel, the legislation introduced about vows could prove confusing as the pronoun endings in the words לבד מנדריכם, “except for your vows, etc.” in verse 29,39 could have been misunderstood in that Moses did not teach the legislation about the offerings on the festivals until each festival was about to occur. By making an interval before the legislation about vows in chapter thirty, it becomes clear that what was written before had already been revealed to the people by Moses.
      Nachmanides comments that he does not understand what <i>Rashi</i> had in mind. He quotes Leviticus 21,24 where at the conclusion of the chapter dealing with physical blemishes which disqualify a priest from offering sacrifices in the Temple, there is a similar verse to that we find here although one could not possibly justify that verse by the type of the reader’s confusion cited by Rabbi Yishmael in the <i>Sifri</i>, the subject at the beginning of chapter 22 being one that is totally different from that just concluded. Moreover, at the end of Leviticus, when Moses had concluded the legislation about the festivals, [excluding the sacrificial service on those days, Ed.] the Torah also inserts a verse signaling this conclusion when writing וידבר משה את מועדי ה' אל בני ישראל, “Moses informed the Children of Israel of the festivals of <i>Hashem”</i> (Leviticus 23,44). The subject matter commencing with chapter 24 there also does not allow for any confusion with what preceded it, and yet the Torah saw fit to insert an apparently superfluous verse.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, we have to understand that although in the most recently concluded chapter the role of Aaron and his sons, [the role of the priests, generally, Ed,] had not been spelled out, as opposed to the legislation about the festivals in the requisite chapters in Leviticus, and the words of Moses are reported as addressed “only” to “the Children of Israel,” this must not be misunderstood. Once the Children of Israel would take up residence in the Holy Land, some of them hundreds of kilometers from Jerusalem, they might think that the whole subject of sacrificial service on the festivals is one reserved for the priests. By stressing that Moses addressed the Children of Israel, ignoring the priests as people who are different, the Torah reminded the people at large that all of them had a vital role to play in making these festivals meaningful, the duty for the males to make a pilgrimage being only one part of this. Not only this, Moses did not even repeat the term מועדי ה'', “<i>Hashem’s</i> festivals,” which had been used so prominently in the relevant chapters in Leviticus. All of this was designed to impress the people that the legislation was relevant in the highest degree to the entire nation, to all its members.
      As to the <i>Sifri,</i> i.e. the <i>Midrash</i> of Rabbi Yishmael quoted by <i>Rashi,</i> the meaning of the word להפסיק, to establish a break in continuity, is that contrary to the principle of establishing conceptual linkages, based on two subjects in the Torah being written one adjoining the other, here we are not to apply the principle of דורשים סמוכים, of trying to make <i>halachic</i> parallels between such subjects.
      Personally, (Nachmanides speaking) what Rabbi Yishmael had in mind was that if the Torah had concluded the previous section with the line אלה תעשו לה' במועדיכם, (29,39) and had immediately commenced with וידבר משה אל ראשי המטות זה הדבר וגו', “Moses spoke to the heads of the various tribes: this is the thing that <i>Hashem</i> has commanded, etc.,” we would have construed the next chapter as being a continuation of the previous chapter, and would have assumed that the entire legislation about the public offerings to be presented in the Temple on the various festivals had been relayed by Moses to the heads of the tribes, for them in turn to relay it to the individual members of each tribe, instead of our knowing that the entire legislation had been communicated by Moses directly to the whole people.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   וידבר משה אל ראשי המטות, Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes, etc.” Nachmanides writes that seeing previously the Torah had written: “excepting your various offerings in fulfillment of vows, etc.,” (29,39), and those vows had involved only vows made to G’d, not personal vows made to oneself as in the chapter commencing here, the Torah now reminds the people that any utterance made by a human being in the form of a vow or oath, (or even without such a specific formulation) he must honour. [There is no such concept as “this is between me and myself, no one else’s concern.” Ed.] 
      Other commentators see in the fact that the following legislation was addressed in the first instance to the heads of the tribes, i.e. judicial heads, a hint that if someone refuses to honour vows he has made or oaths he has sworn, he is being punished physically until he recants his refusal and agrees to honour the vow in question.
      Nachmanides writes further that seeing that contrary to common practice, this chapter has not been prefaced by the introductory line “G’d spoke to Moses telling him to say to the Israelites,” or something similar, the Torah makes up for this omission at the end of the chapter (verse 17) by stating that “these are the statutes that G’d had commanded Moses, etc.”
  
     ראשי המטות לבני ישראל, “the heads of the tribes of Israel.” These were the ones who replaced the first generation of such princes, carriers of the various banners, who had included such illustrious figures as Nachshon ben Aminadav, who had courageously entered the sea of Reeds before it had been split.
      It is possible that the men referred to here were the ones mentioned in the chapter dealing with the distribution of the parcels of land in the as yet non-existent State of Israel, (Numbers 34,17-28). Alternately, we may be speaking of different men, seeing that in Numbers 34 the Torah speaks about something that would come to pass later, after Moses had left the scene. Or, the men mentioned in chapter 34 were all alive and well 14 years after Joshua took over and was in a position to make the allocation of most of these lands.
      The reason why the Torah here uses the unusual formulation of ראשי המטות instead of saying: ”to all the Children of Israel,” is simply that there was no need for all of the Israelites to be taught rules applying to a narrow aspect of the relationship between a wife and her husband or a father with a daughter below twelve and a half years old. The vows discussed here are only those that result in interference with the father’s, or husband’s quality of life, עינוי נפש.
      Perhaps there was a need at this time to withhold these laws from them so that they would not begin to become negligent concerning the whole subject of vows, knowing that their husbands were able to rescue them from a foolish vow. At any rate, the spiritual leaders of the people could be entrusted with this legislation without it being filtered through the High Priest and the seventy elders first.
      Mention of the individual leaders of the tribes is also an oblique hint on which the sages later on may have based themselves, when allowing an individual who possesses the necessary expertise to annul such vow, without recourse to a lay court of at least three people. It is a fact that the Torah nowhere spells out a procedure for annulling vows generally, other than the specific vows mentioned here which are subject to annulment only by the father or husband, and only within 24 hours of their becoming aware of them. The whole legislation of annulling vows and how and by whom is הלכה למשה מסיני, a law handed down orally since the time of Moses, something that cannot be arrived at by the use of our logic in interpreting the written Torah. Our sages, in referring to this, describe it as hanging by a thread as thin as a hair on our heads.” (Compare <i>Chagigah</i> 10) Another expression used there is that this entire legislation, its various rules are “flying in thin air.” The “hint” we mentioned, consists of the Torah writing that the party making the vow לא יחל את דברו, “he must not profane his word,” instead of the Torah having written לא יעבור על דברו, “he must not violate his verbal undertaking.” This enabled the sages to save the applicant from violating his vow if he could find an opening, פתח, primarily by establishing that when making the vow the person who made it did not foresee certain circumstances which, if he had foreseen them, he never would have made such a vow in the first place. Seeing that this is so, the Torah did not reveal this legislation to the people at large, else too many people would become irresponsible and make vows lightheartedly.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   איש כי ידור נדר לה', “If a man makes a vow to <i>Hashem,”</i> he vows to himself to honour <i>Hashem.</i> The reason we understand it in this fashion is that the Torah, otherwise, should have written בה'”, i.e. “in the name of <i>Hashem</i>,” or “invoking <i>Hashem’s</i> name.” Elsewhere, that is the prefix used in such cases as for instance in Genesis 21,23 השבעה לי באלוקים, “swear to me in the name of the Lord.”
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   וה' יסלח לה כי הניא אביה אותה, “and <i>Hashem</i> will forgive her for her father had restrained her.” The message of this verse is that G’d will forgive her only any violation committed after her father had restrained her. If the girl in question had pre-empted her father’s objection and violated her vow already, she will not be forgiven. The reason is that the father’s authority does not extend to revoking a vow retroactively, that is a privilege the Torah gave only to judges.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   כל נדר וכל שבועת איסר לענות נפש, “any vow or any prohibition by oath, the purpose of which is to diminish one’s quality of life, etc.” This verse tells us that the husband has no power to rescind a vow by his wife unless it impinges on his quality of life; for instance, if his wife vowed not to partake of certain foodstuffs forever, and the change in her diet has definitively negative effect on her health, something that it is in her husband’s interest to preserve. The same applies to matters that affect the interpersonal relationship between husband and wife, such as the wife vowing not to use any cosmetics, something that will make her unattractive in the eyes of her husband. Anything that is within the province of a husband to rescind is also within the province of a father to rescind. The Torah equated father and husband by writing בין איש לאשתו ובין אב לבתו, “between a man and his wife or between a father and his daughter.”
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ונשא את עונה, ”and he shall bear her iniquity.” If someone, -in this case the husband- causes someone else to commit a sin, the latter person is burdened with that guilt. In this instance, the husband, by rescinding his wife’s vow after the time limit for this privilege had expired, thereby deceived his wife into believing that her vow had been cancelled. If she then violates the terms of her vow, it is the husband who bears the iniquity.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   נקום נקמת בני ישראל מאת המדינים, “Take vengeance for the Children of Israel against the Midianites.” Actually, it would have been appropriate for Moses to take this vengeance on this people who hated <i>Hashem</i>, but in view of Pinchas having been the one who commenced the reversal of the damage Midian had done to the Jewish people, Moses wanted him also to be the one who completed the <i>mitzvah.</i> (Compare verse 6)
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   וישלח אותם משה אלף למטה, “Moses sent them on the way, one thousand men from each tribe.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why Moses did not send out the whole army of Israel, even though the Midianites were a numerous people, seeing that they had five kings governing them and they lived in well fortified cities, he could not do so, because too many of the people had become victims of the seduction and as such were hardly qualified to endanger themselves in war and become an easy target for Satan to attack. Moses therefore decided to select few men, but men whose integrity had stood the challenge of seduction, men who were truly righteous. These men were known as righteous people, each within his tribe.
      Strangely, Moses reversed what G’d had said to him, i.e. to avenge the wrong done to Israel, and he instructed the soldiers to avenge the wrong done to G’d’s image. He did not issue any specific instructions concerning how to avenge that wrong. He took it for granted that these soldiers would not allow any living creature to remain alive, just as Samuel later on commanded that the Amalekites all be killed men women and children as well as all their livestock. Or, at least, he thought, they would be treated like the 7 Canaanite nations of whom G’d had instructed not to allow a single soul to survive. When Moses found out that these soldiers had allowed the women and children to survive, and that they brought home an immense amount of booty, he became very angry, especially that women who had already lost their virginity had been allowed to survive, as these types of women were the ones who had seduced the Israelites. He was less upset about the children being allowed to survive, and he did not mind the booty the soldiers brought home.
      It is further possible to assume that Moses was commanded to harass the Midianites in order to take the vengeance of the Israelites, and he dispatched only relatively few men, intending to smite only the cities of the Perisite (one of the Canaanite tribes) planning to destroy every tree, to seal off all the wells, as was the custom by ordinary invaders. Seeing that it is <i>Hashem</i> Who, -in the last analysis, conducts the fortunes of war,- delivered the cities into their hands as well as their kings, Moses certainly could not be angry at any of this. The only thing he was angry at was that the very category of women who had been the seductresses had been kept alive to become slaves in Jewish homes. His demand for male “innocent” children to be killed was part of the element of “vengeance” which G’d had commanded to be taken.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ויקצוף על פקודי החיל, “He was angry at the commanders of the troops.” He did not display anger at Pinchas seeing that <i>Hashem</i> Himself had granted him the covenant of peace.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ואתם חנו מחוץ למחנה...אתם ושביכם, ”as for you, encamp outside the camp, etc., you and your captives.” Also the captives were required to purify their garments that might have been in contact with the people slain during that campaign [after they were dead, of course. Ed.] All the clothing or vessels made of cloth or hide that were in their possession was subject to the same <i>halachic</i> restrictions as if they had belonged to Israelites in the first place. This was in order that these possessions in turn should not be capable of contaminating things belonging to the Israelites.
      This verse enables us to answer the question raised by everybody, why, after the wars against Sichon and Og when an immense amount of loot was captured, did Moses not already command these procedures of purification that the loot had to undergo. Granted that seeing those nations had been part of the seven Canaanite nations, concerning which in the wars against them even pig’s meat had become permitted, there was no need to purify their pots if even the contents of these pots had been permitted. (Compare ואכלת את שלל אויביך, “you may eat the loot captured from your enemies” Deut. 20,14). The Midianites not being Canaanites, the relaxation of these rules of ritual contamination did not apply to them. 
      Yet another answer to the question raised above, technical in nature, is that when such captured vessels have not been used for over 24 hours, any residue of food remaining in them is presumed to have become repulsive and certainly would not enhance the taste of anything cooked or baked in them now. Therefore, anyone eating from such vessels would not derive any benefit from the forbidden ingredients, the principal reason why these are forbidden. In this instance, the survivors who had been taken prisoners, had still been using their vessels on the way to where the Israelites were encamped, so that the fact that the remnants of food therein had already made the vessels repulsive did not apply. This is also why the Torah did not have to warn that anyone touching a dead body had become ritually contaminated and required seven days of remaining outside the camp of the Levites while undergoing purification rites. This law was well known, but seeing that this legislation was applied for the first time to gentiles, (captives) the Torah reiterated the laws [so that the gentiles would not feel discriminated against? Ed.] Seeing that only 2% of the people had been involved in the campaign it was important to issue the warning that they must not come into contact with their families until after they had completed the purification rites. The reason why these restrictions were not announced in the wars against Sichon and Og, was that when most or all the people have become ritually contaminated many laws of ritual contamination do not apply. [How can you exile most of the population from their homes for a week? Ed.] Seeing that in this instance only 2% of the arms-bearing men took part, things were different.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויאמר אלעזר הכהן אל אנשי הצבא, “Eleazar the High Priest said to the soldiers, etc.“ Moses, personally, conveyed the previous paragraph to the respective commanders concerning the ritual contamination of the people involved. Eleazar addressed the entire people who were all directly involved seeing that all received their respective shares of the loot and had to know how to purify the various vessels or garments. The only loot the commanders of 1000 troops each had taken for themselves were costly garments.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   תעבירו באש וטהר, “you shall pass through the fire and it will become ritually pure.” Nachmanides writes that no vessel that had been in direct contact with a dead body, or an animal’s carcass, would become purified simply by passing through fire, as the Torah recognizes only immersion in a ritual bath as the way in which such vessels can become purified. As a result, we must understand what is written here concerning making the vessel red hot, i.e. “passing through fire” as referring only to purification from the type of impurity caused by the pores of the vessels in question having absorbed some of the forbidden food that had been cooked or fried in it.
  
     וכל אשר לא יבא באש תעבירו במים, “and everything that during its normal use would not directly be exposed to fire, you shall pass through water.” <i>Rashi</i> writes that this refers to immersion in a ritual bath. The reason that this is sufficient is that the forbidden particles of food that concern us had not been absorbed at all by the walls of the vessel in question.
      Nachmanides questions this point, as in his opinion the term מעביר, “making something pass through,” is not associated with a ritual bath at all. When the Torah speaks about a ritual bath, the term used is ובא במים וטהר, “when it is immersed in water it will be purified.” Furthermore, even vessels that are used only cold require to be purified from their contamination by something in addition to a ritual bath. Besides, the requirement of immersing oneself in a ritual bath, is derived by our sages from a different verse, אך במי נדה יתחטא, “however, it must be purified with the water of sprinkling.”
      We must therefore understand the words תעבירו במים to mean that the vessels under discussion must be thoroughly cleaned in water, rubbed, scrubbed, etc., to remove residual forbidden particles. This is the appropriate process of cleansing, parallel to making vessels used on the fire red-hot, so that the residual forbidden particles are destroyed. This is parallel to the manner in which we clean different categories of utensils before Passover to ensure that no vestige of <i>chametz</i> still is attached to them. Those that are normally used on the fire have to undergo a cleansing process at least equal to their normal usage, whereas those that are not used on the fire have to undergo brief immersion in boiling water or if they are too big must have boiling water poured over them. Once the vessels that had served idolaters have undergone the preparatory steps described, they are all equal in that they still require immersion in a ritual bath.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   והרמות מכס לה' “you are to impose a levy (tax) for <i>Hashem.”</i> Nachmanides writes that the reason for this levy is that the loot under discussion was secured from the vengeance due to <i>Hashem. W</i>hen similar or even larger quantities of loot were secured as a result of the wars with Sichon and Og, <i>Hashem,</i> i.e. the priests and Levites His representatives, did not receive any share of it at all, as the priests and Levites by definition had been excluded from sharing in the lands of the Canaanite nations. They had not been excluded from loot from any other people or tribes.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   מן הבקר ומן החמורים ומן הצאן מכל הבהמה, “from the cattle, from the donkeys, from the flock- from all the livestock.” The system followed by the Torah here is known as פרט וכלל, listing individual items, all of which fit the heading mentioned afterwards.
      Ibn Ezra comments that the expression מכל הבהמה means, for instance, that Eleazar did not take any of the captured camels, as they were few in number. This is why no number was given as to how many such animals had been captured, and the share of the Levites among them was therefore not mentioned either.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   ויעש משה ואלעזר הכהן, “Moses and Eleazar the High Priest did, etc.” the princes are not mentioned here, as opposed to when the people were being counted. (Numbers 1,44) Nachmanides writes that possibly the reason is that the reason for the princes to be present during such a count, (31,13) is to ensure that Eleazar would not appropriate to himself an unfair amount for himself and the Levites. As soon as the princes and the community became aware that this could be perceived as the reason for their presence during the count, they refused to take part, as they trusted Eleazar implicitly and did not want to even give the impression that there was any possible suspicion that he would not share out the spoils fairly. Basically, whenever division of money, etc., is involved one must appoint additional witnesses in order to forestall such suspicions from being voiced. The people considered the High Priest as comparable to an angel whose motives in matters of money are beyond suspicion.
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
   ותהי המחצה, “the half amounted to, etc.” Nachmanides writes that there was a need to state what appears as obvious to the casual reader of the text. The Torah wanted to point out that since the day the loot was captured, and subsequently counted, and still later distributed, there had been zero shrinkage. None of the animals had died, and none of the silver, gold, etc., had disappeared. The levy was also handed over in accordance with the percentages specified by the Torah.
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
   עבדיך נשאו את ראש אנשי המלחמה, “Your servants took a census of the men of war under our command;” they meant that not a single one had fallen, become a casualty during this campaign.
  
     ולא נפקד ממנו איש, “and not a single one of us is missing.” No one has even been injured so that he would be hospitalized, etc.
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
   ויביאו אותו אל אהל מועד זכרון לבני ישראל, “they brought it to the Tent of Meeting as a remembrance for the Children of Israel.” Nachmanides explains this verse as the Israelites constructing various vessels made from captured gold coins and jewelry, these newly made vessels to be used in the activities connected to the holy service in the Tabernacle. If these vessels would only have been stored in the Temple treasury, the Torah should have written זכרון להם, “as a remembrance for the people who had brought them to the Temple treasury.” The reason that the Torah wrote זכרון לבני ישראל was that by their being used in the Temple service they acted as a remembrance for the whole people.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויבואו בני גד ובני ראובן, :”The Children of Gad and the Children of Reuven came, etc. In the preceding verse where the background to the quest of the tribes has been described, the tribe of Reuben is mentioned ahead of the tribe of Gad. Why did the Torah switch the order here? On the one hand, Reuven was the descendant of Yaakov’s major wife Leah, whereas Gad was the son of one of the handmaidens. On the other hand, it was the Children of Gad who had conceived the whole idea of settling on the east bank of the Jordan. Not only that, we know from Yaakov’s blessings in Genesis 49,19 as well as from Moses’ blessing of Gad in Deut. 33,20, that this tribe was militant and fearless. Their members did not consider that their relative isolation on the east bank from the other tribes would pose security problems for them. 
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   כי באה נחלתינו אלינו, ”for our inheritance has already come to us.” According to <i>Rashi</i> they meant that they already considered their share on the east bank as a <i>fait accomplit</i>, as an irreversible fact.
      Nachmanides argues that it would be most inappropriate for these tribes to speak in such terms in Moses’ presence, as it had only been promised to them conditionally. What they said was that they did not plan to inherit with the other tribes on the west bank and to thereby reduce the size of the other tribes’ inheritance, seeing that they had already received their allocation on the east bank. They phrased all this as a request, pointing out that since they owned more cattle than the other tribes this would be appropriate as the land on the east bank was admirably suited for grazing cattle.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויאמר בני גד ובני ראובן, ”the Children of Gad and the Children of Reuven said, etc.:” The Torah did not use the plural mode ויאמרו, “they said,” as one spokesman for both tribes did the talking.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   אם יעברו... ונתתם, “if they will cross, etc.,….then you will give.” Nachmanides sees in this verse a clear indication that at this time Moses did not give these two tribes all the land they had requested, except the cities that were required to accommodate their families during the period that their fighting men marched with the main body of the Jewish people. These were the towns that are mentioned here by name. The two tribes fortified those towns before moving with the balance of the people cross the Jordan. The rest of the land on the east bank they left as desolate land. This is why Joshua and the elders told them that if they would fulfill their undertaking to Moses they would also receive the areas not yet distributed (Joshua 1,12-16)
      Ibn Ezra explains on verse 30 that the implied meaning of the verse is that if these two tribes were not going to cross voluntarily with the main body, they would be compelled to do so against their will. As a result of such an eventuality they would receive their ancestral share on the west bank.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ויענו בני גד ובני ראובן לאמור, וגו, The Children of Gad and 'the Children of Reuven responded by saying:” נחנו נעבור חלוצים, “we are going to cross as the vanguard.” Nachmanides understands the two tribes as saying to Moses that there was no need to spell out what would happen if they did not cross the Jordan, etc.; not only would they do so but they would be in the forefront of the fighting men. Seeing that Moses’ instructions were G’d’s words, it was unthinkable that they should not accept His command. Note that originally, (verse 25) they had promised to do what Moses would command, and now they rephrase this saying they would do what G’d had commanded. 
  
  Verse 33
  
   ולחצי שבט מנשה, ”and for half the tribe of Menashe;” Nachmanides writes that originally, the members of that tribe had not requested that any of their ancestral share should be on the east bank. When the tribe saw that this whole huge chunk of land had been allocated to only two tribes, and that it was far more than these two tribes could expect to populate adequately so that a call went out for anyone interested to join them in settling that part of the land, some people of the tribe of Menashe expressed their willingness to do so. Possibly, these members of the tribe of Menashe were also herdsmen and owned substantial amounts of sheep and cattle. The meaning of the words ולחצי שבט מנשה therefore is not to be taken literally, as only two of the families of the tribe of Menashe are reported as living in that area, [eight families are mentioned including Tzelofchod. Ed.] The two families that were interested were that of Machir and that of Gilead. Between them they accounted for far fewer than half the tribe of 52000 fighting men at last count. The land and who it was shared out to, is mentioned only in summary form here, whereas in the Book of Joshua, chapter 13, more details are provided. 
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
   ואת נבו ואת בעל מעון מוסבות שם, “and Nebo and Baal-meon, with altered names;” <i>Rashi</i> says that the names Nebo and Baal-meon were names of pagan deities and the members of the tribe of Reuven changed the names of these towns.     Nachmanides raises the question that this is not sufficient reason to inform us of the names of these pagan deities. All the Torah had to write was that the members of the tribe of Reuven rebuilt these towns and changed their names. The names of the idolatries did not need to be revealed. It is the Torah’s custom elsewhere that when cities of pagans were captured to inform us only of the new names given to them by their captors. Furthermore, the words את שמות הערים אשר בנו “the names of the cities which they built,” are completely superfluous, as we already have been told in the first half of the verse that we are speaking of cities rebuilt by the members of the tribe of Reuven. These words therefore cannot refer to the cities of Nebo and Baal-meon.     I believe therefore, that the names mentioned used to be the names of these towns while they were still part of the land of Moav, before Sichon had captured them from the first King of Moav. The members of the tribe of Reuven continued to call them by these names, as the Torah nowhere says that ויקראו שמות לערים אשר בנו, “they gave names to the cities that they had built.” The Torah only wrote: ויקראו בשמות את שמות הערים, meaning they named the cities they had built by the names they had borne previously. They wanted that these cities would be known as the cities that existed on that site originally. It is also possible that they meant to embarrass the Moabites by showing the world that these formerly Moabite cities now belonged to the Israelites.
  The meaning of the words ואת שבמה, is that they built that town (from scratch). This was not a town that was rebuilt. 
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
   ויתן משה את הגלעד למכיר בן מנשה, “Moses gave the Gilead to Machir son of Menashe.” The meaning, of course, is that Moses allocated the territory of Gilead to the family of Machir, Machir himself having died long before the Exodus. His offspring had conquered the Gilead and it was customary that the children called themselves by the name of the founder of their family. It is remotely possible that the original Machir had still been alive, seeing that the decree that all the men between twenty and sixty who had been alive at the time of the Exodus would die in the desert would not have applied to, him seeing that he would have been way past 60 at the time of the Exodus.
  
  
  Verse 41
  
   ויאיר בן מנשה, “and Yair, son of Menashe, etc.” Nachmanides writes that this man traced himself to the family tree of his mother, seeing that he had taken possession of his ancestral land with that family. In Chronicles I 2,21 it is stated specifically that paternally he was the son of Chetzron, who in turn was a son of Peretz, son of Yehudah. [My version of the Tur, has this as Chetzron, son of Korach, clearly an error. Ed.] His mother was a daughter of Machir son of Menashe, as we have a verse stating: ואחר בא חצרון אל בת מכיר אבי גלעד ותלד לו את שגוב, ושגוב הוליד את יאיר ויהי לו עשרים ושלוש ערים בארץ גלעד, “after that Chetzron slept with (or married) a daughter of Machir, the father of Gilead. She bore for him Seguv, and Seguv fathered Yair, who had twenty three cities in the land of Gilead.” (Chronicles I 2,22)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   אלה מסעי, “these are the journeys, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> comments that the reason the Torah details all the various journeys of the Israelites here is to illustrate the innumerable acts of kindness performed by <i>Hashem</i> for the people. It is a testimony to the fact that in spite of having decreed death in the desert for the generation that had participated in the Exodus, they were not wandering aimlessly for 40 years but were constantly under His benevolent supervision.
      Nachmanides adds a further element and writes that the detailed report here is designed to negate the claim of people who feel that the story of the Israelites surviving for 40 years in a desert devoid of the barest essentials for survival is beyond belief, and these people diminish the experience by claiming that surely the Israelites were only at the edge of the desert all that time and had easy access to regions that were inhabited and civilised. By tracing the movements of the people, such assumptions by latter-day historians, real or so-called, are laid to rest by the Torah. Anyone tracing the route of the Israelites will not find even a hint at ruins of previous human habitation. The miraculous nature of the entire experience every step of the way is preserved in the minds of our people when we read these lines.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ויחנו ברפדים ולא היה מים לעם לשתות, “They encamped at Refidim, and there was no water for the people to drink.” Nachmanides points out that Moses has not mentioned the miracle of Marah, nor the miracle of the <i>manna</i> that became manifest in the desert of Sin in this review. However, seeing that what happened at Refidim was exceptionally remarkable, the people having literally put G’d to the test, the fact that a miracle involving the provision of drinking water occurred there is at least hinted at. After all, the name of that location was changed to <i>Massah</i> and <i>Merivah</i>, seeing that G’d had been sanctified in the presence of the whole people when water was produced miraculously from a barren rock. The location became famous additionally because near there Amalek attacked the people out of the blue, and they survived that treacherous attack intact, the first time that they had to fight for their lives.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  ויסעו מהר ההר ויחנו בצלמות ויסעו מצלמות ויחנו בפונן ויסעו מפונן ויחנו באובות., “They journeyed from Hor Hahar and encamped at Tzalmavet. They journeyed from Tzalmavet and encamped at Punan. They journeyed from Punan and encamped at Ovot. In <i>Parshat Chukat</i> (Numbers 21,10) we did not hear about these places at all, but were only told that when journeying from Ovot that the people became very frustrated at the long detour they had to take. It is not even stated there from which place they set out before arriving at Ovot.
      Nachmanides writes that the reason for the failure to mention Tzalmavet and Punan in <i>Parshat Chukat</i> is that they were located along the detour around the territory of Edom, and the people passed there while full of discontent at this lengthy detour. They spoke out against G’d on that occasion so that He dispatched the snakes, etc., against them. Eventually, Moses constructed the copper snake, and the people carried that snake on a pole all the way until they came to Ovot. That snake was removed only at that time. Seeing that the phenomenon of the copper snake continued during these journeys, the stops in between were not considered as relevant, as nothing in the condition of the people had changed due to their having made camp.
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
   והורשתם את הארץ וישבתם בה, “you will take possession of the land and dwell thereon.” According to the opinion of Nachmanides this verse is one of the positive commandments in the Torah. This means that if, for some reason, the people would decide to conquer a different land and to settle there, they would be in violation of this positive commandment to settle in the Holy Land. The commandment to take possession of the Holy Land and to settle thereon is deemed so important that the Torah repeats it on several occasions. This is the reason why our sages stated that anyone leaving the Holy Land to take up residence elsewhere is equivalent to having chosen for himself an alien deity. (Ketuvot 110) Our sages deal at length with the subject of a wife who refuses to accompany her husband to the Holy Land, etc. The same debate is conducted if the wife wants to settle in the land of Israel and her husband refuses.
      <i>Rashi</i> does not interpret the words והורשתם את הארץ in the same manner, but sees the whole verse as describing the circumstances that make our settling in the land of Israel possible, i.e. taking possession of it, being undisputed owners. According to <i>Rashi,</i> unless we are in physical possession of that land, our living there will always be of a temporary nature.
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
   לשכים בעיניכם ולצנינים בצדיכם, “as pins in your eyes and as thorns in your sides.” They will be as thorns in your eyes that prick you and make you blind, as a result of which you will constantly be misled so that you will not be able to learn from your past mistakes and will learn to copy the evil ways of these pagans, as a result of which they will harass you in your own country. Because of your being disloyal to Me, I will expel you from the Holy Land. Ultimately, the land will become “Judenrein,” devoid of any Jews.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   אל הארץ כנען, “to the land of Canaan.” Ibn Ezra explains this phrase, which is unusual, as meaning that the Torah had written אל הארץ, ארץ כנען, “to the land, the land of Canaan.”
      Nachmanides understands this as the Torah saying that the name the land is known by is “Canaan”, just as the name of the Land of Egypt, is “Egypt.” Both the land of Egypt is called מצרים, and the people living there are called מצרים. The construction is similar to Kings I 1,1 אל העיר ירושלים והמלך דוד, where we also would not have expected the letter ה before the word מלך.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ואלה שמות האנשים: למטה יהודה, וגו', ”and these were the names of the men: representing the tribe of Yehudah was Calev, son of Yefuneh.” Seeing that the tribes of Reuven and Gad already had received their ancestral heritage they were no longer in need of a נשיא , a “leader.” There are different opinions as to why the list of the leaders of the nation when the conquest began begins with Yehudah.on this occasion. One opinion holds that when the lottery took place Yehudah’s parchment came up first. All the tribes listed here had a leader described by the Torah with the title נשיא, except Yehudah, Shimon, and Binyamin. In the case of Yehudah, seeing that Calev was a venerable and well-known personality there was no need to give him a title for his authority to be accepted by the members of his tribe. Shimon did not have a new נשיא, seeing that the last one, Zimri, had disgraced himself so badly. The title held no allure for the members of that tribe as its significance had been debased. Binyamin actually did have a נשיא in the person of אלידד, whose name has been spelled אלדד in Numbers 11,26 before he had been elevated to the status of prophet. Seeing that a prophet is on a higher spiritual level than a mere “leader,” referring to him here a נשיא would have indicated a demotion. I do not know why the Torah found it necessary to introduce each one of these men as למטה בני פלוני,.... “of the tribe of so and so…” with the exception of the tribe of Yehudah. Both here and in the story of the spies Joseph is mentioned in addition to Menashe, because he had displayed especial fondness of the Holy Land. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ומגרשי הערים וגו', “and the open spaces of the cities, etc.” Nachmanides, explaining the plain meaning of the text, states that the text first commands that there should be an open space of 1000 cubits around the city. This is to be arrived at by measuring 500 cubits extending outwards from all four directions, and describing a square using the line forming the outer perimeter of these four sides. When the Torah speaks later (verse 5) of measuring 2000 cubits in each direction outwards, so that the city core will be in the center of the new perimeters, we wind up with a total of 4.000 000 cubits square in all. When measured from the respective corners to the outer rim of the city core, this area, of course, was far longer than 2000 or 500 cubits from the edge of the city core. [Nachmanides’ calculation of the size of the city including all its outer areas is by far smaller than the area arrived at by either <i>Rashi</i> or Maimonides. Ed.] The entire length of each side is called פאה, “corner,” by the Torah. The first 1000 cubits of “suburbia” were not meant to be used for planting gardens, etc., but were a “green-belt.”
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   מאת הרב תרבו ומאת המעט תמעיטו, “from the many (numerous) you shall increase, and from the few (in number) you shall decrease;” Nachmanides, quoting our sages who claim that all the tribes received territorially equal amounts of land, writes that we need to explain what is written here in terms of the number of families per tribe. A family who had received a large allocation of land (within its tribe) would have to cede relatively many cities of refuge from its territory, whereas a family that had received a relatively small parcel of land would not have to cede proportionately as much for the purpose of providing cities of refuge (including the cities of the Levites). This was so in spite of the fact that when these cities are listed by name and the tribal territory they were in, you will find that the tribes did not all contribute equal numbers. (Joshua chapter 21. [According to verse 3 in that chapter the distribution or allocation of these cities may have proceeded upon divine command after consultation with the <i>urim vetumim.</i> Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   את שלש הערים, “the three cities, etc.” Nachmanides writes that our sages said that Moses designated three cities of refuge on the east bank of the Jordan, a surprisingly large number in view of the few inhabitants (21/2 tribes), as murder was a more frequent occurrence in that part of the country. Although this seems irrelevant seeing that these cities were meant only for people who inadvertently committed manslaughter, there were many people who deliberately committed murder, making it appear that the act had been committed unintentionally. It had therefore become necessary to have such cities available until the true circumstances of the killing had been established. According to this interpretation the legislation took into consideration circumstances that would arise only in the future.
      Alternately, we could say that up until now the region of Gilead had been known as a region in which murder and manslaughter was a frequent occurrence.
      Personally, I am amazed at these approaches by some commentators, seeing that our sages (<i>Makkot</i> 10) stated that there were a total of 42 cities either being cities of the Levites, which did double duty, or cities of refuge on the west bank, whereas the total on the east bank, including the cities for the Levites amounted to only 6. There is therefore no numerical anomaly in the allocation of these cities. According to the arrangement just described, each tribe had a total of 4 cities that were capable of serving as cities of refuge. 
      Perhaps the fact that there were 3 basic cities of refuge (out of a total of only 6 such cities) in the region of the east bank was a special compliment to Moses for having allocated three such cities already during his lifetime before the west bank or any part of it had even been conquered. The whole arrangement was not unequal once we realise that the cities of the Levites were part of it, so that there were a total of 48 cities that could provide refuge for inadvertent killers.
      Looking at it from the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, it would appear that the area of the east bank which became part of the Jewish state was huge, considering that this territory comprised all the lands that formerly belonged to the two Emorite kings Sichon and Og by comparison to the west bank, land which the Torah went out of its way to describe with impressive detail. The lands of Moav and Ammon were also partially included, as the Emorites had captured them.. If judged by area rather than by population, it was certainly not excessive to allocate 3 out of the 6 cities of refuge to that region.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ולא תקחו כופר לנוס אל עיר מקלטו, “and you are not to accept ransom from someone who fled to his city of refuge.” The meaning is that the city elders must not accept a bribe to allow the person who should await the death of the High Priest while still in the city of refuge, and let him return to his hometown prematurely. There was no need for the Torah to warn that one must not settle for a ransom instead of the inadvertent killer taking up residence in the city of refuge. He would not fail to do so because he had to be on guard against avengers of the slain person’s family, his גואל הדם. Not only that, failure to make use of the city of refuge exposes the killer to the suspicion that he killed intentionally.
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  ולא תחניפו את הארץ, “you shall not pollute the land.” Nachmanides writes that seeing a little while ago (35,29) the Torah wrote והיו אלה לכם לחוקת משפט לדורותיכם, “these shall be for you a decree of justice for your generations,” we might have thought that the legislation of cities of refuge is applied also beyond the boundaries of the land of Israel; to prevent us from making this error the Torah now stresses that its concern with this legislation is that the Holy Land not become polluted, not that the whole globe not become polluted. The yardsticks of conduct and account- ability for failing to maintain the proper standards that the Torah applies to residents in the land of Israel are stricter than those applied to people riding outside that land, seeing that the presence of G’d, i.e. the <i>Shechinah,</i> does not hover over the Diaspora. Lands that are not holy in the first place, but are <i>halachically</i> ritually impure at all times, cannot be polluted by murder committed by man. The residents of the Holy Land are charged with the duty to preserve the holiness of that land. The choice of the term חניפה by the Torah here, a term that is usually applied to flattery, which is a form of misrepresentation of the true facts, is deliberate. as treating an intentional murderer as if he had killed accidentally, by accepting monetary compensation, is a form of distorting the facts. Allowing murder, even unintentional killing, [which by the way the Torah does not describe as הורג, “killing,” but chillingly, as רוצח בשגגה “murdering unintentionally,” Ed.] is apt to drive away the presence of the <i>Shechinah</i> unless the legislation written here is observed in all its details. In the <i>Sifri</i> the expression לא תחניפו את הארץ is understood as a warning to habitual flatterers not to treat the unintentional or intentional killer with flattery, i.e. by accepting a fine from him instead of what the Torah has demanded. The warning is repeated when the Torah writes כי הדם הוא יחניף את הארץ, implying that the guilt of the killer (intentional) must not be downgraded (a form of flattery, misrepresentation) by treating it as if it had only been an unintentional killing. The warning is that if we, the inhabitants of the Holy Land will deceive in this fashion, the land itself will deceive us by withholding its yield after we have toiled with ploughing, seeding, watering, etc 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  36, 7 ולא תסוב נחלה, “an inheritance shall not make the rounds.” Our sages state that this decree applied only during the first generation of the settlers to whom the land had been allocated. Nachmanides writes that what the verse teaches is that if anyone who qualifies for a share in the land on the day this legislation was published dies before he has a chance to physically take possession of his share of the land, and he left a daughter who is qualified to inherit his share of the land, she is not to marry a member of another tribe, in order that her father’s share will not eventually wind up as part of the holdings of her husband’s tribe. Once the physical distribution of the land had been completed, however, such a daughter is free to marry males from any other tribe. The reason is that by that time her original inheritance being a piece of land belonging to her father’s tribe is a well known fact which prevents a land grab by a member of another tribe. Seeing that at the time this legislation was published the exact date of when the distribution would occur had not been known, the legislation is written as if it applied to the entire generation. According to the plain meaning of the text the words ולא תסוב נחלה are not to be understood as providing a rationale for this legislation, i.e. that this legislation is designed to prevent the swapping of ancestral land, but we are dealing here with two separate commandments, each part of the laws of inheritance. 1) Girls inheriting the father’s estate are not to marry outside their tribe. 2) Women, who were daughters of fathers that had no male issue, and were married prior to the publication of this legislation, and who will inherit their father’s share of the land when the time came for distribution, cannot transfer by inheritance or other device their father’s share, but must allow such share upon their death to be inherited by the nearest relatives of their father’s tribe. The immediate application of this legislation was designed to solve the problem of the daughters of Tzelofchod, but they were only the role model for applying this legislation in the future. In other words, in the future this basic condition of ancestral lands remaining non-transferable to other tribes is valid even for women who had already been married when they became heirs to such land. If their sons who were members of their father’s tribe did not belong to the same tribe as their mother’s inheritance, they could not claim this land. 
  
  Deuteronomy
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   אלה הדברים, “These are the words, etc.” Nachmanides writes in a separate introduction to this Book that seeing that the generation Moses was addressing was the one that would enter the Holy Land, Moses detailed most of the Torah’s commandments that applied inside the Holy Land, omitting sacrificial offerings, purity laws as they relate to the priests, seeing that he had already outlined those, and at any rate, the priests do not need a refresher course, being by definition eager and willing to observe the laws in all its ramifications. He did, however, repeat most of the laws which applied to the ordinary Israelite a second time, adding warnings in many instances, especially laws connected to idolatry which he repeated more than twice.
      We also find in this Book a number of commandments that have not been mentioned in the first four Books at all, such as the laws pertaining to the levirate marriage, ייבום, or the laws about a groom who slanders the supposedly unchaste bride of his as having not entered marriage as a virgin. Moses himself had, of course, been made familiar with these laws by G’d when he had been on the mountain, before the spies had been dispatched. The thrust of the verse beginning here is that although these laws were communicated by Moses in ערבות מואב, the plain of Moav, not a single one of these commandments was new. The only “new” aspect of these commandments was the fact that they were now spelled out to the people.
      Another notable fact in this Book is that we do not find such sentences as וידבר ה' אל משה, “<i>Hashem</i> spoke to Moses, etc.” Neither do we find such lines as דבר אל בני ישראל, “speak to the Children of Israel (and tell them about such and such a commandment!)”
      It is possible that the reason the commandments mentioned here for the first time were not included in the first four volumes of the Torah may be that those commandments were not practiced in the desert. They would be practiced only once the people were in the Holy Land, although some of these commandments pertain to their bodies rather than to the land.
      Another reason for the non-publication of those commandments before now could be that they are not the type that are observed daily, the opportunity to observe them presenting itself only rarely and not to the average person. Before Moses got ready to relate all these various commandments, he used the present opportunity, a few weeks before his death, to admonish the people, and to remind them of past sins, and how they had caused <i>Hashem</i> a lot of grief during these years. He reminded them how G’d had treated them by invoking His attribute of Mercy and loving kindness time and again. He warned them not to become corrupt again by gambling that G’d would forever employ such forgiveness, etc. They should not rely on the fact that because they were human they were bound to err and sin from time to time, and that G’d, knowing this, would overlook their trespasses. While it is true that if G’d were not to take into consideration their evil inclination and their sometimes falling victim to its lure, neither they nor subsequent generations would ever qualify to conquer the Holy Land, however their daily conduct must not be based on such considerations. They must not forget that in spite of the prevalence of the attribute of Mercy, the attribute of Justice constantly tries to oppose that attribute and they could not rely on the attribute of mercy always prevailing.
  
     אלה הדברים, the words that Moses is about to speak refer to the words that are recorded in this volume of the Torah. Moses will first review the whole Torah, commencing with the revelation at Mount Sinai and the Ten Commandments. In verse 6 we would have expected the verse to begin with the words ויאמר משה, something that is missing here. We do find a similar construction where such an introductory remark is missing when Joseph names his first son Menashe, and the Torah reports that he said: כי נשני אלוקים את כל עמלי, “for the Lord has made me forget all my troubles,” (Genesis 41,51, as well as verse 52 concerning Ephrayim) where we would have expected at least the introductory words כי אמר. The reason that Moses used this introduction was to remind them that not quite a year after that G’d had told the people that they had encamped around Mount Sinai long enough, and that it was time to begin their journey toward their ultimate objective, the Holy Land. This was a pointed reminder that as far as G’d was concerned they had been sufficiently prepared to make war successfully against the Canaanites, whose measure of guilt by then was full, so that the Israelites should have every chance to defeat them. These introductory words continue until 4,40 ושמרת את חוקיו ואת מצותיו אשר אנכי מצוך היום, “you shall observe His decrees and His commandments that I command you this day, to carry them out, etc.” After this Moses called upon the whole nation of Israel that stood assembled before him saying: שמע ישראל וגו', 5,1 and began with a restatement of the Ten Commandments. Having concluded with that restatement, including minor additions, he emphasizes the uniqueness of G’d, i.e.שמע ישראל ה' אלוקינו ה' אחד, “Hear O Israel, the Lord our G’d, the Lord is One,” followed by all the commandments contained in this volume of the Torah. This is the reason why we have the formula here: דבר משה אל כל ישראל that Moses spoke to all of the Children of Israel, and the same formula is used in 5,1 when he is described as calling to all of the Children of Israel when exhorting them to learn and to keep the commandments. It was important that just as 40 years ago at the revelation to the previous generation all the people were assembled, now when the covenant is about to be renewed with a new generation the whole people must be in attendance at that event.
      When the Torah describes Moses as באר את התורה הזאת “explaining this Torah,” (verse 5) this is a reference to the Torah which the people had already heard from his mouth once before. He now reviews this part of the Torah and in a number of cases expands on it, filling in details not revealed up until now. He emphasized that all of this had been commanded to him by <i>Hashem</i>, i.e. he had not added anything of his own. The meaning of the word הואיל is that the initiative for this review is his own; he had not been told by <i>Hashem</i> to do so. The term is used several times in Scriptures for free-willed agreement, as for instance in Joshua 7,7 ולו הואלנו ונשב בעבר הירדן, “if we had only been willing to remain and settle on the east bank of the Jordan.” When Moses responded to Yitro’s invitation to dwell in his house, his willingness is also described by the word ויואל משה לשבת את האיש, “Moses agreed to dwell with that man.” (Exodus 2,21).
  
     במדבר, “in the desert.” Although at this time the people were already no longer in the desert but in the land adjoining Moav, accessible to civilization, Moses mentions that the Torah had been revealed in the desert. Onkelos claims that all the locations referred to by Moses are merely allusions, thinly veiled, to places where certain events had taken place, particularly the people’s misdemeanours that Moses at this point is not anxious to spell out.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   אשר יושב בחשבון, “who dwells in Cheshbon.” Nachmanides comments that the fact that Sichon is mentioned as “dwelling” in Cheshbon confirms that it was not his originally, but that he had captured the city from the Moabites. He had converted it to become his capital.
  
     אשר יושב בעשתרות באדרעי, “who dwelled in Ashtarots which is in Edre-ee.” This land belonged to the Re-fa-im of old, a race of giants, whereas Og was the King of the Emorites. Seeing that the Torah describes Og as having dwelled in Ashtarot it is clear that this is the name of a place (a region) within which is found the town of Edre-ee. Ashtarot was a valley, and the giants had built a town in that valley. This becomes clearer when we consider that Og has been described as gathering his troops there. (Numbers 21,33).
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   בחורב לאמור, “at Mount Chorev, saying;” Nachmanides writes that Chorev is not a mountain but a region adjoining Mount Sinai where the Israelites were encamped during that year. [In light of Exodus 33,6, where Chorev is clearly described as a mountain, this is somewhat difficult to follow. Ed.]
      Nachmanides is aware of the difficulty and suggests several alternatives, basing himself on the fact that Sinai is both referred to by the Torah on some occasions as a mountain, and on other occasions as a region in the desert. [I suppose it is reasonable to say that the sheep which had lost its way and which Moses followed only to be confronted by a burning bush, did not climb a mountain. (compare Exodus 3,1) Ed.] Possibly, in the words of Nachmanides- Moses’ hesitation before investigating that spectacle was based on the very fact that the bush was burning on the mountain whereas he was standing at the bottom at that time.
      Ibn Ezra simply understands the word חורב as an alternate name for Mount Sinai, explaining that the bush was burning on account of the extreme dryness in that region. The people of Israel used either name for that mountain, interchangeably.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ואומר אליכם בעת ההיא לאמור, ”at that time I said to you, saying:” Moses refers to the period before G’d had said to the people to get moving away from the region around Mount Sinai. At least, that is what we must assume according to the view that Yitro visited the Israelites prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai. The meaning of בעת ההיא is ”during the period that we were encamped around Mount Sinai.” The reason why Moses mentions this now is as if he were saying: “here we had received the Torah and you already had all the tens of thousands of judges installed as well as the law enforcers and were ready to begin the journey, and we began our trek from Sinai (Chorev) with all our elderly, etc., and suddenly you delayed us by demanding to first dispatch spies, a demand which resulted in all our plans becoming upset.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   טרחכם ומשאכם וריבכם, “your contentiousness, your burdens, and your quarrelsomeness.” Nachmanides explains that the plain meaning of the text is that Moses here repeated in an oblique manner what he had said to his father-in-law Yitro when the latter had enquired what Moses was busy with all day long. At that time (Exodus 18,15-16) he had referred to his duties as threefold: He had stressed that his duties included the settling of disputes arising between one Israelite and another. 
      He told Yitro that the duty to teach the people who had just left hundreds of years of slavery, involved only with the physical effort to survive such bondage, G’d’s law, was not only time-consuming, but difficult. This is what he alluded to when mentioning טרחכם, they were not such brilliant students who immediately grasped the knowledge offered, especially when it came to laws which did not appear logical to them. The word משאכם was a substitute for תפילה, prayer, as in ונשאת תפילה, (Isaiah 37,4) “if you will offer up a prayer.” A prophet, such as Isaiah in the verse quoted- is expected to offer up prayers to G’d on behalf of people who need their prayers for relief from problems to be heard by G’d. Finally, the word ריבכם used by Moses is self-explanatory. The words הבו לכם אנשים וגו', refer only to the attributes of the judges who are to be appointed.
      Alternatively, the word משאכם refers to the incidents when the people had demanded water, meat, etc., all matters that were beyond their leader’s ability to provide. The word משא is found in connection with that episode. (compare Numbers 11,11) 
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   וידועים לשבטיכם, “and familiar to your respective tribes.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that the word ידועים means that the men in question are well known to fellow members of their tribes, whereas if the same man appeared before Moses, he, Moses would not know who he is.
      Nachmanides writes that if <i>Rashi</i> were correct this would mean that that the word לשבטיכם would be inextricably linked to the word וידועים. In his opinion the reason why the Torah added the word וידועים is to teach that the judges must be capable and fearless men, i.e they must be known to the people as men of outstanding caliber. They must be known for the piety, fear of the Lord, etc., etc. Every member of their tribe should agree immediately that the person in question is fit to be a judge.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   כי המשפט לאלוקים הוא, “for the judgment is G’d’s.” Nachmanides writes that it is one of G’d’s tasks to see to it that His creatures practice justice among themselves. He has created man so that he practices fairness, etc., and the judges on earth are performing their task as G’d’s delegates when they save the oppressed from his oppressor, etc. If they (the judges) were to display fear of any man they would at the same time commit a serious breach of the trust placed in them by G’d.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ואצוה אתכם בעת ההיא את כל הדברים אשר תעשון, “I had commanded you at that time all the things that you have to do.” <i>Rashi</i>, quoting <i>Sifri,</i> explains that the “things” referred to by the word הדברים are the ten judicial difference between adjudging disputes involving only money or its equivalent, and judging matters involving life and death. (compare <i>Sanhedrin 32</i>).
      Nachmanides writes that if that were the meaning, Moses would be addressing the judges. [Nachmanides’ problem may be that if <i>Rashi</i> were right, why would Moses suddenly add the words “I commanded you at that time,” when this is what he had been doing all the time? Ed.]
      He considers that the plain meaning is that Moses here refers to what he had taught the people in Exodus 18,20 i.e. החוקים והתורות, הדרך אשר ילכו בה, “the decrees and teachings and the path they should pursue,” the ones Yitro had told him to make his primary concern. The reason that Moses reiterates what had occurred at that time was that the people knew that the plan to appoint all the judges had originated with Yitro, and that he had told Moses that if he were to adopt it G’d would be with him and he would be able to cope with the tremendous burden imposed upon him. Moses was at pains to explain, especially to the new generation, that none of these judges had the authority to formulate new laws. They had been instructed by Moses, who had received al the laws from G’d directly. Yitro’s function had been to help Moses how to successfully disseminate G’d’s laws and teachings, and how to ensure that it could be applied with a minimum of inconvenience to the people. His suggestions had been purely administrative, not legislative. Moses had not mentioned the author of these suggestions at this time, not giving Yitro credit for his suggestions, either because he did not want to embarrass the whole people assembled before him by reminding them that what had prompted Yitro to make these suggestions was that he had observed what a difficult people the Israelites were and what a hard time they had been giving their saviour. Perhaps Moses did not want to remind the people at that time that he had married a daughter of Yitro instead of a girl who had been Jewish by birth. It is also possible that the simple reason is that Moses had not adopted any of Yitro’s suggestions until he had consulted with G’d and obtained His consent, thus making the entire appointment of the judges part of G’d’s legislation.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   את הדרך אשר נעלה בה, “the road in which we should ascend, etc.” This is a reference to the initial steps prior to the conquest. The spies (people) did not voice any other purpose of the spies’ mission than to select the most effective route of approach.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ואקח מכם שנים עשר אנשים, “I selected from amongst you twelve men, etc.” Moses did not mention any titles these spies had been distinguished with, seeing that after they had disgraced themselves and led their peers into sin one is not allowed to make any complimentary remarks about the wicked.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויאמרו טובה הארץ, “they said: “the land is very good!” According to <i>Rashi</i> (based on <i>Sifri</i>) the two spies that reported on the land being so good were Joshua and Calev.
      Nachmanides writes that if it were correct that only Joshua and Calev had praise for the land, how could one accuse the entire people for believing the majority report of the other ten spies? Perhaps Moses’ accusation against the people for believing the ten spies was based on the fact that what these spies had reported was in direct contradiction to G’d’s own assessment of that land. If, in addition to G’d’s assessment and that of the most outstanding of the twelve spies G’d was considered as proven correct, the people had no excuse to side with the ten spies against the testimony of both G’d and the two senior spies. Once the ten spies realized that Joshua and Calev were firmly in favour of capturing the land of Canaan by war, they began to disseminate evil reports about that land, describing it as a land that consumed its inhabitants, and this is what Moses meant when he said (verse 27) ותרגנו באהליכם, “you slandered in your tents.”I believe, in accordance with what I have already explained in <i>Parshat Shelach lecha</i> on the relevant verses, that publicly, all the spies sang the praises of the land of Canaan. It was only in the privacy of their tents that the campaign of slandering the land and spreading fear was carried on. This is what Moses alluded to here when he recalled that the former generation of Israelites had slandered the land in their tents. The people themselves also had not dared to come out openly against the land within earshot of Moses at the beginning. Later on, they admitted that they had become frightened by their brethren the spies. This is why Moses had told them not to be afraid as they would not have to do any actual fighting; G’d would do this on their behalf.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
   גם בי התאנף ה', “<i>Hashem</i> also became angry at me;” Nachmanides reconstructs the proper sequence of events at that time. After Moses had recalled the events of the sin of the spies, and the nature of their sin, in the wake of which a whole generation of Israelites had been doomed to die in the desert, he continues to relate how his own inability to enter the Holy Land was also directly linked to the sin of these people. He contrasts the good fortune of Joshua and Calev, who because of their staunch loyalty to G’d on that occasion, are the only ones of that generation that will settle in the Holy Land. He relates all that had happened on that occasion except for the almost immediate death of the ten spies by a pestilence. He continues to explain that he would not be leading the Israelites across the Jordan but his successor, Joshua. He did not want to distract the people by dwelling on the disgrace and its consequences of a few individuals. He wanted the people (new generation) to concentrate on what had happened to their parents because they had been involved in that terrible sin.
  
     בגללכם, “on your account;” Moses makes it plain that if 40 years later, when there was no water the people had quarreled with him and with <i>Hashem</i>, if he had mistakenly struck the rock instead of speaking to it, and the result was that G’d forbade him to enter the Holy Land, none of this would have happened if on an earlier occasion the people had not been punished by having to wander in the desert all these years. They would have long been settled in that land, and the occasion on which Moses made his unpardonable error would never have presented itself. <i>Hashem</i> Himself had stressed that Moses and Aaron had missed an opportunity to sanctify Him amongst the Children of Israel, in other words, Moses’ punishment was due to the Children of Israel.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   האמים לפנים ישבו בה, “in former times the Eymim lived there.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the point Moses is making here is that contrary to a common belief that the land of the Moabites is the land that G’d had promised to Avraham in Genesis chapter 15, where these Eymim had been described as the Refa-im, this is not so, and the Refa-im that lived in the land at that time had not been the original Refa-im, hence the land you knew as being populated by “Refa-im” was not the land promised b G’d to Avraham; therefore dispossessing the Moabites would not be conquering land promised to you by <i>Hashem.</i> The name<i> “Refa-im”</i> applied to the people disposed by the Moabites was a “borrowed” name, seeing that this people were of similarly gigantic stature as the original<i> R</i>refa-im, G’d had driven them out on account of Lot’s children.
      Nachmanides has problems with <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation, asking why he should interpret our verse as referring to lands of the Moabites and Ammonites, lands which were never intended for the Israelites, lands which were not identical with the land of the <i>Refa-im</i> promised to the descendants of Avraham. <i>Rashi</i> himself has explained that two of the three mentioned in the covenant between the pieces in Genesis 15,19 the קיני, קניזי, קדמוני are tribes whose lands are not again mentioned in promises to the other patriarchs, two of which lands were reserved for the descendants of Lot, although they had been promised to Avraham’s descendants, (verse 19) in recognition of Lots’ not revealing to Pharaoh that Sarai was Avraham’s wife, [so that in a manner of speaking, Avraham had ceded this land as reward to Lot., pending the coming of the Messiah. The third of these tribal lands was reserved for Esau’s descendants, i.e. Edom, also to be eventually part of Israel, after he coming of the Messiah. Nachmanides’ point is that from a geo-historical perspective, why would the Torah bother to tell us about these territorial changes and not about others unless they were linked to the fortunes of the Jewish people and deliberately engineered by G’d? Ed.]
      He concludes that the correct interpretation of our verse (s) is the exact reverse of what <i>Rashi</i> has written, and that the Torah had reason to write these lines in order that we should not wonder about G’d being so insistent that we not harass either the Moabites or the Ammonites, in view of the fact that their lands had already been promised to our patriarch Avraham? If G’d had not had reason to give these lands to the descendants of Lot in the meantime, the present decree and caution would indeed have been difficult to comprehend. Proof that this is so is the very fact that the original inhabitants of those lands were such powerful human beings that unless G’d had specifically wanted it, the Ammonites and Moabites would never have been able to dispossess them. Seeing that this is so, now was not yet the time for the Israelites to grab these lands.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   יחשבו גם הם כענקים, ”they too were considered as equivalent to the giants.” This is the reason why mention is made of that fact in this context.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ובשעיר ישבו החורים, “and the Chorim used to live in the region of Se-ir.” The same considerations that are responsible for the Israelites not being allowed to make war or even harass the Moabites, (although their lands were on their route to the Holy Land, even) also are the ones why they must not at this time encroach on the land of Edom. That land had at one time been the land of the Chorites, who were identical with the tribe Chivi, mentioned in chapter 15 of Genesis above. Esau, Avraham’s grandson, had received it as a sort of dowry when he married the great-grand-daughter daughter of Tzivon, a prominent Canaanite belonging to that tribe. (Genesis 36,2) Tzivon, as mentioned there, was a son of the original Se-ir.
      It is possible that the reason why the Torah refers to that tribe as <i>Chivi,</i> was because in that neighbourhood there was a type of snake by that name that the people had to be on guard against. Various types of snakes including one by that name are referred to in Isaiah 11,8 where the lair חור of certain types of snakes such as פתן is mentioned. Compare especially Genesis 49,17 נחש עלי דרך. It is not unusual, historically, to find that names of certain places, landmarks and such, reflect a past association with some animal. Certain letters underwent repositioning when such places or animals were named. What was known as חוי may have been changed to חורי, so that the tribe known as חורי in the days of Avraham may have become the חווי in the days of his grandson Eau, or vice versa. During Avraham’s time these people lived in what later became known as Se-ir. It was most certainly something miraculous that the relatively few descendants of Esau should have dispossessed a far more numerous and well entrenched tribe. Moses may have referred to all these details to underline that possession of the descendants of Esau, Edom had been divinely assisted when settling in that region. It would not do to attack them, the time was not ripe for this in G’d’s timetable. G’d would retaliate against people who deprive others of their homeland unless instructed by Him to do so. He does likewise to nations who dispossess Israel of its ancestral heritage without having been bidden by Him to do so. This may be why Moses says כאשר עשה ישראל meaning as “Israel is going to do to Esau,” i.e. in the future, seeing that up until then Israel had not done any of this. [When G’d has promised, He will keep His promise, so that the promise by G’d that Israel would dispossess the Canaanites is described as fact rather than mere hope or even expectation. Ed.] Moses makes similar reference to the land of the Ammonites,
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ארץ רפאים תחשב, “it is considered the land of the Refa-im;” for this was also land originally owned by the Refai-im.
   ןהמעמונים יקראו להם זמזומים, “but the Ammonites called those people <i>Samzumim.”</i> This word is related to Psalms 140,9 זממו אל תפק, “do not let their plan succeed.” The doubling of the letter ז here reinforces the original meaning, i.e. that these people being so numerous and powerful cannot be denied anything they desire. The word תחשב here needs to be understood in conjunction with the name of Sichon’s capital חשבון, which already included the land of the original Refa-im.     It may also be possible to explain the line רפאים תחשבו that the people in that land now are considered like the giants of ancient times, i.e. the אימים, a race which caused fear in all the neighbouring countries. The land occupied by the Refa-im was very large for after the Ammonites had captured some of that land, Og the King of the Emorite in Bashan was a giant dating back to these ancient times, something described in greater detail in Genesis chapter 14 where the defeat of the Refa-im at Ashtarot Karnayim has been documented. This is the reason why our verses describe the lands of Ammon and Moav as having originally been owned and inhabited by the Refai-im. 
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   והעוים היושבים בחצרים עד עשזה, “as well as the Avites who dwelled as far south as Gaza.” Nachmanides explains that all these details are provided by Moses to show that although the Caphtorim are not part of the 7 Canaanite nations G’d promised the descendants of Avraham, seeing that they had settled in the coastal plain only after having expelled the Avites, a Canaanite tribe, when the Israelites later on occupied those lands this was quite legal. Further more, in Genesis 26,3 G’d confirmed the fact that the land of the Philistines was included in the Holy Land, as Yitzchok was in the land of the Philistines at the time when G’d promised him ”these lands.” Name changes by people who had supplanted others were historically quite frequent, and <i>Bereshit Rabbah 26,7</i> mentions in particular that the Chivi, as we mentioned a name analogous to נחש, snake, was so- called as these people were experts in what roots were safe to eat and which not, something extremely important to snakes which had been condemned by G’d to eat עפר, things growing directly in the earth. Moreover, in certain parts of the <i>galil</i> the word עוי was used interchangeably with <i>chivi.</i> Moses concludes by informing us that at that time all these lands were occupied by the <i>Chivi</i>, part of which used to belong to the descendants of Esau. <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> identifies the Avim with the Refa-im, speaking also about the gift promised by G’d to Avraham, seeing that no mention is made by Moses here of the <i>Chivi</i>, it is logical that the Refa-im replace that tribe in Moses’ recital here.
      This also seems to be born out when Moses in Deut. 7,1 speaks of seven nations G’d will fling out of the land and replace them with the Israelites, and six of the seven are identical with the names mentioned by G’d when He promised the land to the Israelites, the seventh, the <i>Chivi</i>, not having been included in the list in Genesis 15,19-21 where the Refa-im, apparently is meant to be identical with the <i>Chivi</i>. If not that, the “<i>Chivi</i>” might be either one of the three other tribes mentioned in that promise and none of the others, i.e. the Keyni, K’nizi, or Kadmoni.
      Our sages claim that Israel never inherited the lands of the three last mentioned tribes, and that this will be fulfilled only after the coming of the Messiah. If that is factual, there can be no question but that the “<i>Chivi</i>” is identical with the Refa-im in the promise to Avraham in chapter 15 of Genesis. The latter (<i>Chivi</i>) was the 6th of the sons of Canaan. (Genesis 10,17) His father had called him “<i>Chivi</i>.” However in the days of Avraham, over 200 years later, his descendants were known as Refa-im. Personally, I feel that <i>Chivi</i> was a nickname, based on his familiarity with the various plants and their roots, as I mentioned earlier. The word רפאים is also used in Scripture as describing things buried underground, as we know from Job 26,5 הרפאים יחוללו מתחת מים ושוכניהם, “are dead things formed beneath the water and the inhabitants thereof?” Or, Isaiah 26,19 וארץ רפאים תפיל, “you make the land cast out the dead.” The children of the <i>Chivi</i> increased drastically, and when the Canaanites eventually took possession of the land now known as the land of Canaan, the family of the <i>Chivi</i> grabbed a major share of that land. All these names describe in one way or another the sixth son of Canaan, <i>Chivi</i>. Since at the time of Avraham the tribe was known as Refa-im, G’d referred to that tribe by the name known to Avraham. Moses, here, refers to it by its original name. Some of these lands had been known as the land of the Chorim, etc. At any rate, at the time of Moses the lands formerly belonging to the <i>Refa-im</i> had already been parceled out to other tribes/nations and their names had been changed. Seeing that some of the lands promised to Avraham were not included in the lands that Israel was about to invade and conquer, Moses had to identify which lands were still forbidden to the Israelites to invade. Hence we have the references to the Eymim, the Bney Ammon, etc. On the other hand, lands that on the face of it had no connection to the Canaanites, such as the regions occupied by the Philistines, or the Caphtorim, were mentioned in order that we know that the people dwelling in them had themselves been interlopers.
      Let us now turn to <i>Rashi’s</i> explanation that the Avim were descendants of the Philistines, seeing that they are lumped together in the Book of Joshua, 13,3 and that the Israelites at this time were unable to dispossess them on account of the oath given by Avraham to Avimelech in Genesis 21,23 (which spanned 4 generations) Seeing that the Philistines there had been replaced by the Caphtorim, Avraham’s oath no longer applied. 
      Nachmanides challenges this interpretation by <i>Rashi,</i> claiming that the Avim have not been included under the heading of the Philistines, as in the quotation from Joshua the five leaders of the Philistines are mentioned first, without any mention of the Avim; only subsequently are the Avim listed as a separate nation. [Presumably, Nachmanides’ argument is based on the fact that the verse begins mentioning that there were only 5 such leaders of the Philistines, so that anyone mentioned after those five have been named is not included. Ed.] Furthermore, assuming that the land of the Avim had become permitted to the Israelites because they were not the original inhabitants there but had been replaced already by a previous invading force by the Caphtorim, who permitted the lands of the Philistines? [We know they had been there at the time of Avraham and at the time of Moses. Ed.] What reason was there that the lands of the Philistines should ever become part of the land of Israel so that Avimelech had felt threatened and asked Avraham for a non-aggression pact covering the next four generations? After all, the Philistines did not belong to the seven Canaanite tribes whose land G’d had promised to Avraham? The Philistines are after all descended from Mitzrayim, the second son of Cham, not of Canaan his fourth son! In light of all the above the true historical facts are that the Philistines as well as the Caphtorim had invaded and captured some of the lands previously occupied by the Canaanites, else how come Avimelech was King in Gerar, a territory at one time belonging to the Canaanites? The Philistines as well as the Caphtorim expanded southwards in the coastal plain and conquered Gaza, Ashkelon, Gat and Ekron from the Cananites. This made it legal for the Israelites to occupy lands that had been illegally acquired by its residents. Those lands, according to G’d’s promise to Avraham, had been intended as their ancestral heritage. As it happened, the Israelites did not actually conquer that coastal plain until long after the time frame provided for in Avraham’s oath to Avimelech had expired. Three generations of Philistines had already died before Joshua began his conquest of the land of Canaan.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ראה נתתי בידך את סיחון, “See! I have delivered in your hand Sichon, etc.” Nachmanides writes that this address by Moses is a quote from Moses’ address to the people commencing in verse 31. Here we are merely told that prior to the campaign Moses did send out spies to ascertain the militarily best way of provoking the confrontation. Once G’d mentioned the fact that in this instance Israel was to provoke war, Moses did not send any more spies, etc. The reason was that in the event that Sichon would have proved to be in a conciliatory mood, Moses would have violated G’d’s command to provoke war with Sichon. On the other hand, if Moses knew that the messengers dispatched to ask for permission to traverse the land would be rejected out of hand, why did he bother? We cannot answer that Moses sent these messengers from his own initiative in order to comply with the rule that prior to a war of expansion the opposing side must be given a chance to surrender peacefully, as per Deut. That command certainly did not refer to the 7 Canaanite nations of whom he had been told not to allow a single soul to survive! Moreover, normally, the people of cities captured in a war of expansion, authorised by G’d- would become prisoners of war, slaves, etc, whereas if Sichon had agreed, none of his land would have been touched at all? We must therefore translate the line ואשלח מלאכים in verse 26 as being in the past tense. He introduced the whole story by explaining that G’d’s hand had been involved from the first moment, and that Sichon’s refusal had been engineered by G’d so as to set in motion the scenario that would lead to his destruction, and his people would know that their king himself had been to blame. 
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   היום הזה אחל תת פחדך ויראתך על כל העמים, “From this day on I shall begin to place the fear and dread of you upon all the nations, etc.” Nachmanides understands these words as G’d making the nations of the earth afraid of the people of Israel so that when the Canaanites would come out to fight them they would do so with no confidence in themselves. If these words had been words of reassurance to Moses, what was the point, seeing that he would participate only in the two campaigns against Sichon and Og? Clearly G’d’s assurance is aimed at Joshua and the Jewish people as a whole.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   כאשר עשו לי בני עשו, “as the descendants of Esau have done to me.” According to <i>Rashi</i> the subject is the food and drink that the Israelites were interested in buying while traversing the land of Sichon. The reference could not have been to the crux of the matter, the permission to traverse the land, as the descendants of Esau were known to have refused this, so how could Moses have misrepresented the facts?
      Ibn Ezra has a problem with such an interpretation, as we would be faced with the Israelites contradicting themselves when the Torah cites as a reason that the Moabites could never be accepted as converts the fact that they refused to offer food and water to the Israelites? (Deut. 23,5) He therefore understands the words כאשר עשו לי בני עשו, as referring to the fact that the Israelites had made a detour around the land of Edom not because the Edomites objected to their traversing the land in an orderly fashion, בדרך, בדרך, but because their king had objected. Moses asks to be given the same privileges as the בני עשו as opposed to the מלך אדום had been prepared to grant them. Only the king had been afraid that the Israelites instead of staying on a rural pass would march into a city. Many other commentators do not see a contradiction in what is written in Deut 23,5 with what is written here. There is a difference between volunteering to a thirsty nation some water and selling water to a nation that clearly has managed for 40 years without such “favours” from any other nation. G’d’s objection to the Moabites’ behaviour was based on their lack of humanity in denying much needed water to a nation that owed its entire existence to that nation’s founder Avraham having once rescued him from captivity and the second time from being included in the people who lost their lives in Sodom by praying on behalf of the “righteous“ inhabitants of Sodom. 
      Some commentators feel that the line in Deut. 23,5 refers to the Ammonites, not to the Moabites. The Moabites had hired the services of Bileam to curse the Israelites, an act of extreme ingratitude that is quite enough to disqualify them from membership in the Jewish nation, and to enjoy the direct protection of the כנפי השכינה, the protectively outstretched wings of the Divine Presence. According to that view, at the time, the Moabites had offered bread and water.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
   ונחרם כל עיר מתם, “we destroyed every populated city.” Nachmanides writes that this was justified as the Emorites belonged to the seven tribes of the Canaanites concerning whom G’d had issued the decree: “do not allow a single soul to survive!” (Deut. 20,16) In light of this it is surprising that Moses offered the hand of peace to these people! I plan to explain this (compare Nachmanides on Deut. 20,17) as well as why no such offer was made to Og, King of Bashan, (but to the same tribe of people).The latter had come out swinging, without waiting for on offer of an olive branch.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   בזונו לנו, “we looted for ourselves.” In 2,35 the mode of the verb used for the same word “looting” is בזזנו. Why the difference? Our ages say that in chapter 2 the loot was universally acclaimed as something very welcome. Here, the Torah wanted to convey that the people already related with disdain, בוז, to the loot. This is also why here the Torah adds the words וכל הבהמה, an expression not found in
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   צדונים יקראו לחרמון שריון, “The people of Tzidon referred to Mount Hermon as “Siryon. Nachmanides explains that the principal intent of this verse is to inform us that the Tzidonim, the descendants of Tzidon the firstborn son of Canaan, called Mount Hermon while they were still in possession of it, “Siryon.” The Emorite, i.e. the fourth son of Canaan who occupied that region at the time when the Israelites were in the desert, having wrested it from their cousins the Tzidonites recently, called that Mountain <i>Snir,</i> another word for שלג, snow. They, called it thus to indicate that this mountain is almost all the time capped by snow. Seeing that it is so cold up there, it is without vegetation, חרב hence the letters חר in the name חרמון. Perhaps in the dialect spoken by the Tzidonim, the word שריון also reflects the fact that it is freezing cold up on that mountain.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   כי רק עוג מלך הבשן נשאר מיתר הרפאים, “for only Og, the King of Bashan remained from the remnant of the Refa-im;” Nachmanides feels that the message of the verse is that in spite of the fact that at that time, Og was the King of Bashan, his origin had been among the Refa-im. In order to suitably impress the reader with the physical dimensions of these Refa-im, of whom Og was typical, the Torah describes the size and raw material that his bed was made of. Any wooden bedstead would have collapsed under his tremendous weight. He lived in a city called Rabbah, which became his capital after the Ammonites had destroyed the Refa-im including his capital city, he was the only one who had escaped at that time. The purpose of telling us all this is that the Ammonites must have been a very powerful people if they had succeeded in defeating a race of giants of the dimensions of Og. The Israelites are reminded of the historical testimony of the achievements of the Ammonites down to their own period.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ואת הארץ הזאת ירשנו בעת ההיא, “and we inherited this land at that time.” <i>Rashi</i> says that the words ואת הארץ הזאת refer to the land mentioned just previously. The words מערורר אשר על נחל ארנון, are not connected to what has been described previously, but introduce a new section, seeing that the people of Israel inherited more territory, lands inherited by the tribes of Reuven and Gad mentioned at the end of the verse. This is clear from the fact that Mount Hermon is situated far to the north of the river Arnon.
      Nachmanides writes that in his view the words הארץ הזאת אשר ירשנו בעת ההיא וגגו' were all regions given to the tribe of Reuven.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   כל חבל הארגוב לכל הבשן ההוא יקרא ארץ רפאים, “the entire region of the Argov comprising all of Bashan, that is what used be called the land of the Refa-im.” Nachmanides trying to justify the letter ה [normally representing a definitive article, implying that the noun following is familiar to the reader, Ed.] in the word הארגוב, writes that Bashan and Argav are lumped together as a contiguous region, seeing that both regions formed part of the land of the Refa-im, the reader is familiar with what Moses is describing here. The region still bore that name at that time due to the fact that it was ruled over by the last of the famous Refa-im, the giant Og. It is also possible that Moses wanted to let us know that the region retained its original name although ownership had changed repeatedly.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ואתחנן, “I pleaded;” Nachmanides writes that when Moses mentioned the conquest of the lands of Sichon and Og, (3,21) adding the words ואת יהושע צויתי וגו', “and I commanded Joshua” (in preparation for his becoming his successor) it was because he wanted to stress that he himself was not going to cross the Jordan. He now added the reason why he felt sure about this, namely that he had already pleaded with <i>Hashem</i> to allow him to at least cross that river, but his plea had not been accepted. It was therefore his duty to pray to <i>Hashem</i> to give Joshua the strength without which no one could successfully lead the Jewish people.
  
     בעת ההיא, “at that time;” at the time when the decree that he himself would not cross the Jordan had become final and irrevocable. He had not made mention of his plea on the day it had been rejected.
      <i>Rashi</i> explains the words בעת ההיא as the period during which the armies of Sichon and Og were crushed and their lands conquered. When G’d had not accepted his prayer, Moses tried once more, including the request to appoint a suitable successor for himself. This was the prayer that he alludes to here, i.e. a prayer that had been well received by <i>Hashem</i>. In other words, only the opening words of our paragraph ואתחנן אל ה' are a reference to his plea on his own behalf. The only reason he made a public reference to his personal plea at all was to let the people know that he valued the merit of being allowed to set foot in that land so highly that he even had asked to revoke the decree that denied him entry, even as a private. He hinted that his not being allowed to enter that land was (at least partially) the people’s fault.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ועתה שמע ישראל, “Now, O Israel, listen!” after Moses had concluded the words of admonition and reminded them of their various past sins, all of which had caused negative fallout for them, so much so that only the second generation had been allowed to enter the Holy Land, he hints that their entry into this land was contingent on their not copying the mistakes of their fathers. Moses especially warns the people not to tamper with G’d’s commandments by either adding or subtracting from them. [A major insult of the Creator, Who does not need us, the creatures, to edit His work. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   לא תוסיפו, “do not seek to improve by adding, etc.;” an example would be adding a fifth paragraph to the four paragraphs of the Torah embedded inside the phylacteries.
      Nachmanides writes that the addition of a non-existent commandment to form say #614 instead of the traditional 613 commandments, is also included in the wording לא תוסיפו. However, Rabbinic decrees, based on legitimate inter-pretations of the Torah, and introduced as Rabbinic decrees are not included under the heading of the prohibition לא תוסיפו על הדבר אשר אני מצוה אתכם ולא תגרעו ממנו, “do not add to the word that I command you, nor shall you subtract from it.” These Rabbinic decrees, as a rule, serve to protect the average Jew from running afoul of Biblical decrees, and thereby become guilty of various kinds of penalties.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   עיניכם הרואות את אשר עשה ה' בבעל פעור, “Your own eyes that have seen what <i>Hashem</i> did with <i>Baal-Peor,</i> etc.” Ibn Ezra says that seeing Moses had mentioned the fact that the people had temporarily settled in the valley facing the temple to this deity, and some worshipped there, Moses begins with the laws of idolatry, pointing out that the people who had worshipped Baal-Peor had paid a heavy price for that.
      Nachmanides writes that seeing that Moses is about to launch into discussing details of <i>mitzvah</i> performance, he begins with aspects of idolatry, the root of the entire Torah legislation, and warns the people most graphically of the dangers involved in ignoring that legislation.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ראה, למדתי אתכם, “See, I have taught you, etc.” Moses means that he does not only command them laws and statutes, this day, but is also teaching them how to apply these laws.
      Alternately, seeing that he had instructed the people to perform these commandments in the land of Israel when they would get there, he is also about to teach them היום, this day (already), how to observe these laws, seeing he will not cross into the Holy Land with them. Or, the meaning is simply: “I taught you these laws so that when you come to the land you can fulfill them.”
  
     חוקים ומשפטים, “decrees and social laws;” Nachmanides writes that Moses warned against idolatry because this is the most serious sin, threatening the whole fabric of Judaism. He now lists a number of חוקים, statutes, decrees, laws that are G’d’s prerogative to decree without elaborating on them or without sharing their rationale with us, His creatures. On the other hand, the rationale of משפטים, laws governing inter-personal relationships, laws governing civilization without which life on this planet would be pure anarchy, are revealed in most instances, or are subject to scholarly research by examining the Torah text minutely.
  
     לעשות כן בקרב הארץ אשר אתם באים שמה, “to carry out there in the midst of the land that you are about to come to.” This point had to be underlined, as there are both decrees and laws of a social nature that do not apply in the Diaspora. Alternately, the whole verse is an allusion that the basic purpose of the laws of the Torah was designed for life in the Land of Israel.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ושמרתם ועשיתם כי היא חכמתכם ובינתכם לעיני העמים, “observe them for in the eyes of the nations this group of laws represents your wisdom and your insight.” Moses points out that apart from the internal value of the laws of the Torah, they have an “external” value, if performed; the success of a Torah observant Jewish nation is credited to our wisdom, which in turn is credited by the nations to these laws, observance of which is perceived as the key to the success of the Jewish nation.
      An additional benefit accruing to the people for observing the Torah’s laws is that the <i>Shechinah, Hashem’s</i> benevolent presence, will be hovering over us, always close at hand when we need to call upon Him for any legitimate reason.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   רק השמר לך ושמור נפשך מאד פן תשכח, “Only beware, and be very much on your guard lest you forget, etc.” According to Nachmanides these words are not merely part of Moses’ speech of admonition, but constitute one of the 365 negative commandments. We must not forget the origin of G’d’s commandments which we heard at the revelation at Mount Sinai when G’d spoke out of the fire, etc., and we witnessed His awesome glory, etc. Moses instructs further- worded as a positive commandment,- that we must inform successive generations of the details of that great event. This is important, even though hearing the laws from the mouth of the incomparable prophet Moses would be enough to obligate us to keep them meticulously. We have had so much proof of the legitimacy of Moses as a prophet that whatever comes out his mouth is bound to have G’d’s approval; nonetheless being reminded that originally these laws were communicated to the people without the use of an intermediary, even one as illustrious as Moses, acts as an anchor to our faith in the sacredness of the Torah. Reminding ourselves of that historic experience of the whole nation at Mount Sinai enables us to call anyone who tries to deny the Divine nature of any part of the Torah a liar. Anyone who challenges this, no matter how many miracles he performs, will not be able to shake our faith, and he reveals himself ultimately as a false prophet. This is why G’d said to Moses in Exodus 19,9 that the very fact that the people as a whole would experience an audible communication from G’d directly, would not only strengthen their faith in G’d, but would also strengthen their faith in Moses as a true mouthpiece of <i>Hashem</i>. By copying down the reports of these events in the holy Torah, this would enable also our children and their children in their time to know that all of this is true, that we are not copying down fairy tales. Our children will not accuse us of feeding them lies, when they can see that we, as well as our parents relate to them only what has been written down and copied faithfully, word by word and letter by letter, for many generations.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   אשר חלק ה' אלוקיך אותם לכל העמים תחת כל השמים, “which <i>Hashem</i> your G’d, has apportioned to all the peoples under the entire heaven.” Each nation has been assigned a star that acts in a manner of speaking as their guardian angel, supervises their fate. [Hence the study of astrology. Ed.] This is why they made themselves visual images of these stars, etc., eventually, even worshipping those images as if they had power independent of the Creator.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ואתכם לקח ה', “but you- <i>Hashem</i> took out personally, etc.” Seeing that you are part of <i>Hashem</i> you have never had an intermediary appointed by Him to look after you, but He Himself takes care of you. He took you out of the iron crucible that is Egypt, and in doing so He overcame all the protective guardian angels that were appointed to look after the vital interests of the Egyptians. If <i>Hashem</i> had not first overcome those forces appointed by Him, you would never have been able to escape from there.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   וה' התאנף בי, “And <i>Hashem</i> became angry at me, etc.” Moses repeats what he had said to the people already in Deut. 1,37, to tell them that G’d had told him at that time to teach the Israelites the laws they would have to observe once they were in the Holy Land. He uses this opportunity to tell the people to hear the laws from his mouth now seeing that soon there would not be a chance for him to teach them, as he was not going to die in the land of Israel, but near where he stood, on the east bank of the Jordan. The paradox of the situation is that Moses had taken the people out of Egypt so that they could keep the Torah in the land of Israel, and he, who had been appointed to teach them the Torah, would not live to experience this.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   השמרו לכם, “Take care of your selves!” Even though I am not crossing the river with you, I am exhorting you to be most careful.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   כי תוליד בנים, “When you beget children, etc.” Nachmanides understands the word כי here to mean “after.” Moses warns that after having gotten used to being in the land, having raised children and grandchildren, there may came a time when you take your possession of that land for granted, and you might forget the Lord Who has made all this possible for you.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   העידותי בכם היום “I call up against you as witness this day!” that you will perish in short order, (if you ignore my warnings) for He will not have a great deal of patience with you once you have become guilty of idolatry.
      Even though this paragraph is in the nature of a warning, Moses did not phrase it as if it were something conditional, i.e. he did not preface it with the word “אם, etc.” The reason is that over and above being a warning, this is a prophecy, and prophecies are not prefaced by “if.” Nonetheless, any prophecy predicting something disastrous need not come true, it is by its very nature a warning, exhorting people to make fulfillment of the prophecy unnecessary. The wording of this paragraph is also what prompted our sages to conclude that Moses in this paragraph alludes to both the destruction of the first Temple, as well as to the destruction of the second Temple. They read this into the wordsונושנתם בארץ, “you will have been in the land for a long time,” and they see in the use of the words בנים ובני בנים a double meaning, as if Moses was exhorting the people to have enough בינה, good sense, to conduct themselves in such a way that what he foresees will not have to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   ונשארתם מתי מספר, “and you will be left few in number.” This is not a reference to the total number of Jews, but a prediction that due to the dispersal of the people in the Diaspora, each host country will have only a small number of Jews. If a census were to be taken of all the Jews in all the various countries, they would still amount to a sizable number.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   ועבדתם שם אלוהים, “and there you will serve gods.” Moses refrained from adding the word אחרים, “alien, i.e. alien deities, as the Torah does on other occasions. This is an allusion to the Israelites who claim that when in the Diaspora people who engage in idolatry are not ritually impure.
  
     ולא יאכלון ולא יריחון, “that are unable to either eat or use a sense of smell.” Nachmanides writes that in the fist half of the verse Moses describes the inability of such so-called deities to ”see,” or to “hear,” meaning that they most certainly do not qualify for the title “deity.” By referring now to their inability to eat or smell, he adds that such so-called deities do not even possess the minimal attributes of all living creatures, the ability to eat or to use their sense of smell. In other words, these man-made objects are just that,-mere objects.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   ושבת עד ה' אלוקיך ושמעת בקולו, “then you will return unto <i>Hashem</i> your G’d, and you will heed His voice.” This too is an allusion to the redemption from the Babylonian exile when the people did return to <i>Hashem</i> and confessed their sins before Him [in the days of Ezra, Ed.] having listened to the exhortations of the prophets He had put at their disposal. In view of this, Moses was able to reassure the people that they would not disappear from the stage of history. This is reflected in Moses quoting G’d’s promise that He would remember His covenant with the patriarchs. (Leviticus 27,42) At the very end of our passage (verse 40) Moses hints at the final redemption, after which there will be no more exile.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   כי שאל נא לימים ראשונים, “Wish you would examine the history of mankind, etc.” Nachmanides writes that this verse introduces Moses explaining why <i>Hashem,</i> otherwise of almost unending patience, delaying retribution, will not do so if the Israelites become guilty of idolatry. Anyone examining history cannot fail to become aware of how much G’d has done for His people. He has not bothered to do anywhere nearly as much for any other nation on earth. He has revealed His existence, His presence, His power, to this people as to no other people. If, instead of loyalty and gratitude they were to turn their back on Him, what possible use could it be, to tolerate this and wait patiently for them to recognize the error of their ways? [I paraphrased a little. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
   ותחת כי אהב את אבותיך, “and because He loved your forefathers, etc.” according to Ibn Ezra the reference is to the three patriarchs.
  
     ויבחר בזרעו אחריו, “and chose his offspring after him;” the singular mode of the word זרעו, “his offspring,” shows that Moses refers here specifically to Yaakov, the last of the patriarchs. Had Moses used the plural mode זרעם, he would have been referring to the eight nations descended from Avraham.
  
     ויוציאך בפניו, “He took you out before Him.” According to Ibn Ezra, Moses refers to the anger at the Egyptians that prompted G’d to release the Israelites. In Leviticus 26,17 we also find the word פנים as meaning “anger.” Other commentators understand the word בפניו as referring to an angel of G’d. Compare Isaiah 63,9 ומלאך פניו הושיעם, “and the angel signifying His Presence, delivered them.”
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
   אז יבדיל משה שלש ערים, “Then Moses set aside three cities, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra the Torah means that on the day that Moses set side these three cities he addressed the words of the covenant to the people.
      Nachmanides writes that this is not correct, but that Moses assembled the whole nation (at the beginning of what is related in this Book) in order to explain the Torah to them, doing so in a spirit of admonition. When he concluded with his general admonitions, he warned them about specific sins, such as idolatry, the importance of remaining aware at all times of the uniqueness of the Creator. He concluded by exhorting them to observe the various statutes and general commandments of G’d in order to ensure their continuous well being, to ensure that <i>Hashem</i> would continue to shower His goodness upon them. Having done so, he invited the people to assist him in keeping the commandment of setting up cities of refuge. After that he proclaimed in a loud voice: שמע ישראל וגו', as we read at the beginning of chapter 5. He had commenced with explanatory comments of the Torah, and had similarly concluded with that theme [during the assembly reported in these 4 chapters. Ed.] 
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
   ויירשו את ארצו ואת ארץ עוג מלך הבשן, “they inherited his land as well as the land of Og, King of Bashan.” Seeing that Moses reverted back to what he had been speaking about at the beginning of his review of the Torah, a review occasioned by the successful campaign against Sichon and Og, this subject is touched upon again to show that Moses continued with his discourse explaining the Torah.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   אנכי עומד בין ה' וביניכם בעת ההיא, “I was standing between <i>Hashem</i> and between you at that time;” Nachmanides explains this statement as a reference to Moses having ascended the Mountain in order to listen to G’d’s words, words he relayed to the people until the day when <i>Hashem</i> addressed the people personally. (Verse 6) The period covered by Moses began on the first day of <i>Sivan</i> as we read in Exodus Moses had been instructed to relay G’d’s words to the people commencing with the line כה תאמר לבית יעקב, “Thus you shall say to the House of Yaakov” in verse 3 of that chapter. G’d’s instructions continued until He said לך רד ועלית, in     Ibn Ezra says that the passage we are reading here was said by Moses after the revelation at Mount Sinai, and that the meaning of the words is that after G’d had spoken to you “face to face,” and you had been unable to endure this and remain alive at the same time, G’d decided to use me as your interpreter as you yourselves had requested. Therefore, from then on I have been standing between you and between <i>Hashem</i>. Nachmanides does not accept this interpretation but prefers the interpretation of our sages, referring to his interpretation on Exodus 20,7 that the Israelites actually only heard and understood the first two of the Ten Commandments from G’d’s own mouth, and that they did not understand the other Commandments though their ears heard them. They had been under far too great an emotional impact. From the third Commandment onwards, Moses was already the interpreter. At any rate, at the time of the revelation, from the point of view of physical proximity, Moses had been asked by G’d to position himself so that he would be closer to the source of these words which appeared to issue forth from the Mountain, than the people who had remained at the foot of the Mountain. 
     לאמור, “to relay by word of mouth.” <i>Rashi</i> says that this refers to repeating the revelation at Mount Sinai, the words G’d had spoken to the people at that time.     Nachmanides writes that there is no need for this commentary at all, but that the fact that at the time the people had been so terrified by the accompanying thunder and lightning that they were unable to even properly understand G’d’s words. This had made it necessary that Moses repeat to them what G’d had said on that occasion. Moses was now going to verbalise what the people had remembered only in their minds, i.e their unspoken desire to have him be the go between <i>Hashem</i> and themselves.      Nachmanides continues that the part of the Torah known to us all as משנה תורה, “review of the Torah,” commences now with the restatement of the Ten Commandments. Moses did not introduce any changes into the first two of these Commandments, the ones that the people themselves had heard directly from the mouth of G’d. Moses also did not edit in the sense of “expand on” the third Commandment. He began explaining when he substituted the word שמור instead of זכור at the beginning of the fourth Commandment, that of Sabbath observance. He explained that aspect of the Sabbath legislation to them now, their already being familiar with the aspect known as זכור. He informed them that the שמור aspect had been revealed at the same time as the זכור aspect. He added the words: 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  כאשר צוך ה' אלוקיך, “as the Lord your G’d has commanded you “ <i>Rashi</i> understands these words to refer to the part of the Sabbath legislation given to the people at Marah, prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai, where they had also been taught about the red heifer and various items of civil law. Here he added: 
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  ושורך וחמורך, “as well as your oxen and your donkeys;” Moses explained that not only the immediate working of the soil that produces our livelihood is forbidden on the Sabbath, but that those who work the soil, the farmer’s agents, -if you will,- who help him produce a crop, must also rest on the Sabbath. In this context he added further  
  למען ינוח עבדך ואמתך כמוך, “in order that your servant, and your servant-maid rest just like you.” A reason for all this is: 
  
  Verse 15
  
  וזכרת כי עבד היית, “so that you will remember that you yourself used to be a servant;” Moses explains that just as G’d when He took you out of Egypt relieved you of the need to work seven days a week, you in turn, are to give your workers a day of rest, the same day as yours. In light of this, the true meaning of the phrase, beginning with the word למען in our verse, is that when you allow your servant to rest on the Sabbath you will be reminded that you yourself did not have this privilege until <i>Hashem</i> took you out of Egypt. This is what prompted G’d to  
   צוך ה' אלוקיך לעשות את יום השבת, “the Lord your G’d commanded you to “make” the Sabbath day.” Ibn Ezra comments that the word תעשה means that G’d commanded that the day of rest had to be on the Sabbath, i.e the anniversary of the seventh day of creation. [It would not do to pick any day of the week to commemorate that we enjoy a day of rest because the Lord took us out of Egypt.]      As to the fact that we commemorate this aspect by reciting the <i>kiddush,</i> Maimonides writes that in the first version of the Ten Commandments the Torah speaks of the special honour accorded to that day. The aspect of commemorating the Exodus on the Sabbath does not override the previously revealed aspect of commemorating the seven days of creation, on the last of which the Lord rested. This is why Moses refers to the previously revealed legislation of the Sabbath in which commemorating the seventh day of creation had been given as the primary reason. To sum up: there are two major reasons for the Sabbath rest. 1) To strengthen our faith in the Creator of the universe, who made constructive rest part of nature by demonstrating His own abstention from creative activity on that day. 2) The Lord’s special love for us, [not so for the other nations who labour under the curse to have to work for a living unceasingly, the legacy of Adam having ignored the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Ed.]     Nachmanides does not seem too impressed by Maimonides’ approach, as he cannot see how resting on the Sabbath is conceptually related to the Exodus from Egypt any more than any of the other commandments that represent symbols of our history, especially the Exodus. On the other hand, he does agree that Sabbath observance most certainly is conceptually related to the whole work of creation performed by the Creator during the six days preceding the history of mankind.     Nachmanides therefore would have Moses not add another dimension to the rationale of Sabbath observance, but to restate the aspect of G’d the invisible Creator having rested on the original Sabbath, to His people who more than any other people had experienced how He manifested Himself visually in their lives making this an additional point to reflect upon on every Sabbath when they would observe constructive rest. All the miracles performed by G’d in Egypt were, in a manner of speaking, a re-enactment of what our sages call חדוש העולם, a replay of the creative process, seeing that G’d proved Himself time and again to be able to make “nature” do His bidding when He wanted and where He wanted. Whereas the first time around there had been no witnesses who could report to us on what they had experienced, in Egypt there had been millions of such witnesses. [I have rephrased this slightly. Ed.] 
  
  Verse 16
  
   כאשר צוך ה' אלוקיך, “as the Lord your G’d had commanded you.” You heard it from <i>Hashem,</i> directly; and Moses adds immediately:
  
     ולמען ייטב לך, “and so that it will be for your benefit.” The construction here is similar to Psalms 85,13: “The Lord also bestows His bounty, and our land yields its produce.” [Basically, without G’d’s input the land would not yield its produce, but the latter is visible evidence, the former is just as real but invisible to man. Ed.] He continued to explain the ninth Commandment
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   לא תענה ברעך עד שוא, “Do not testify falsely against your fellow;” The version in <i>Parshat Yitro</i> used the term שקר untrue, false, whereas Moses here appears to expand the prohibition to someone who testifies to something irrelevant, something vain, something which is not enforceable by a court of law, for instance. Frivolous testimony, which may only serve to undermine one of the parties’ good reputation is prohibited by the Torah, also, one of the reasons being that the testimony employs directly or implicitly the name of the Lord. Moses continues with his elaboration, on the tenth Commandment,
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  ולא תחמוד , “and you shall not covet, etc.” In <i>Parshat Yitro</i> the commandment employs only the verb תמד, whereas here Moses added an additional phrase commencing with the verb אוה, to desire (in the reflexive mode). From the wording in <i>Yitro</i> we would have thought that only when steps are taken to translate one’s burning desire into practice does one transgress this prohibition. If Moses had not added the dimension of merely “desiring” a field, or an ox, we might have thought, that only when one engages in translating one’s desire into practice is this prohibited, but that “daydreaming” about it is not objectionable. Hence, he restated part of the original version to make the point we just mentioned.
  
     שדהו, “his field,” here Moses introduces a possession, other than chattels, i.e. real estate, something that is sold with אחריות, with certain guarantees by the vendor to reimburse the purchaser if his title will be challenged. Adding this dimension to the list of matters one must not covet closes the circle, i.e. all possessions that are subject to being sold and bought must not be coveted, even if one is willing to pay more than the market price for it in order to satisfy one’s craving for certain possessions. [I have slightly amended the wording in the interest of readers not thoroughly familiar with Jewish civil law. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ולא יסף, “which did not abate.” According to Onkelos the meaning of the expression ולא יסף is the same as ולא פסק, “it did not stop, was not interrupted.” [Such as someone catching his breath. Ed.]; neither did it weaken as it continued. The constancy of the voice showed that it was not a human voice.
      Nachmanides writes that the Torah had written in Exodus 19,19 that the sound of the <i>shofar</i> blast kept increasing in volume, and the sages explain that the reason for this was to enable the listeners to adjust to the increasingly overpowering volume. We therefore must distinguish between the sounds the people heard from the <i>shofar,</i> and the voice they heard from <i>Hashem</i>. G’d’s voice when He uttered the Ten Commandments, remained steady, even, did not rise or fall. It is fair to assume that Onkelos, who holds that the voice did not cease, bases himself on Jeremiah 48,33 ונאספה שמחה וגיל, where the same root means that “the joy over the harvest will be gone,” so that with the prefix לא the meaning would be that the joy would be continuous, never ending. [Our author quotes a couple of examples where the root יסף is also used in the manner in which Onkelos understands it in our verse. I suppose the concept that a voice is interminable is so unusual, that our author tried to justify Onkelos. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ואת תדבר אלינו, “and you will speak to us.” <i>Rashi,</i> explaining the feminine pronoun את when being applied to Moses, an outstanding example of manhood, sees Moses as reflecting that the people with their many demands, complaints, etc., had weakened his stature so that he felt no stronger than a woman. What upset him most about his people was, that instead of being desirous to come ever closer to <i>Hashem,</i> demonstrating their love for Him, they tried to distance themselves, relating to Him from feelings of fear and fright. If so, Moses expressed concern that G’d might react negatively to the people’s conduct. This is not compatible with the fact that G’d had told Moses that what the people had done was out of a feeling of profound reverence, “fear of the Lord” for Him, meaning that it was something positive. He therefore continues that the true interpretation is in accordance with what he himself had written, i.e the people not realizing that they would be hearing only the Ten Commandments, thought that G’d would reveal the entire Torah in the same manner, at once. Thinking about that, they became very much afraid that they would not be able to endure such a revelation for such a length of time. At any rate, G’d was pleased with their reaction and revealed only the Ten Commandments at that time.
      You should realize that the people’s request included not only that the supernatural nature of the revelation be cut short on that occasion, but they meant that at no time in the future would they want to be exposed to such overwhelming experiences as they had just experienced. They meant to include in that request even the generations after them, something that the Talmud (<i>Pesachim</i> 50) calls: לאו כל שעתא מתרחש ניסא, “miracles do not happen all the time;” we derive the meaning of what the people had in mind from verse 21 in our chapter: “this day we have seen that man can survive being addressed by G’d directly.” The word הזה, “this,” is restrictive, meaning only on this day was there such demonstration. It will not occur again. The people as an exchange for foregoing such revelations in the future, undertook to have complete faith in G’d’s prophets, thus making such revelations unnecessary. G’d’s (Moses’) response was יקים לך (Deut. 18,15) ...כמוני יקים לך נביא מקרבך, “He will make arise for you a prophet just like me, etc.” They were to follow the instructions of such prophets, just as they followed Moses’ instructions after the latter had enquired for guidance by G’d.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   מי יתן והיה לבבם זה להם ליראה אותי ולשמר את כל מצותי, “Who can assure that their hearts should remain theirs to fear Me and observe all My commandments!” The reason there is some doubt about this is that G’d has granted us free will and although “everything is within the power of heaven,” the exception is the ability of man, the creature, to choose his path in life.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ושמרתם לעשות כאשר צוה ה' אלוקיכם אתכם, “You shall be careful to act in accordance with what the Lord your G’d commanded you;” Nachmanides writes that this verse is a warning to meticulously observe the Ten Commandments, commandments which G’d personally gave to them at the Revelation.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וזאת המצוה החוקים והמשפטים אשר צוה ה' אלוקיכם ללמד אתכם לעשות, ”This is the commandment, the statute and the civil laws which the Lord G’d commanded to you to carry out.” The reason I was commanded to teach you these laws is because <i>Hashem</i> accepted your request to hear the balance of the Torah from my lips.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   למען תירא את ה' אלוקיך, “so that you will fear the Lord your G’d.” The purpose of learning the Torah in all its constituent parts and to carry out its imperatives, is to implant in you a degree of awe and reverence for the author of such a Book, the Lord your G’d. [The opinion of Ibn Ezra on 5,30, not spelled out by the author. Ed.]
      Nachmanides writes that he finds it impossible to accept that learning and keeping the Torah has as its objective 1) to acquire awe and reverence for our Creator, and 2) in order to enjoy a long life as a reward. 
      According to Nachmanides the separation of these two objectives, as spelled out by Ibn Ezra is misleading. In his opinion, study of the Torah is meant to result in performance, which in turn will lead to the reward for the performance. The three steps are so closely interrelated that they are continuous, not separate. [Having children and enjoying their development as worthy successors are all part of this lifestyle. my words. Ed.] This in turn assures continued tenure of the Holy Land, and G’d’s benevolent supervision of our affairs both as individuals and on a national scale. G’d’s overriding interest is to help us to be righteous persons and to reap the benefit thereof.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ושמרת לעשות אשר ייטב לך, “You shall be careful to perform so that it will be good for you.” Moses underlines that the whole purpose of what he commands the people is for its own benefit.
  
     ארץ זבת חלב ודבש, “a land flowing with milk and honey.” According to Ibn Ezra these words are the continuation of the verse concluding with the word לרשתה, “to inherit it,” in verse 1. He claims that this is so although it seems to be far removed from that sentence above. Alternately, we would have to conclude that the prefix ב is missing here and the Torah had meant to write בארץ זבת חלב ודבש, “in a land which flows with milk and honey.” Yet another possibility is to assume that the word לתת, “to give,” is missing and the verse has to be understood as concluding with the words כאשר דבר ה' אלוקי אבותיך לתת לך ארץ זבת חלב ודבש. 
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   שמע ישראל ה' אלוקינו ה' אחד, “Hear, O, Israel, <i>Hashem</i> is our G’d, <i>Hashem</i> is One.” Nachmanides agonizes over why, suddenly, Moses has seen fit to describe <i>Hashem</i> as “ours,” (ending נו) instead of as “yours,” (ending כם) as he did all the time while admonishing the people. Even in this very paragraph Moses again refers to <i>Hashem</i> as your <i>Hashem,</i> אלוקיך in the very next verse. He concludes that our verse is special, as Moses includes himself as the means by which <i>Hashem</i> had demonstrated His uniqueness, as He had not performed nearly as many miracles in all of history as he had performed by means of Moses. Having made that point, Moses reverts to his usual manner of referring to <i>Hashem</i> as the G’d of the people whom he addresses.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   בכל לבבך, “with all your heart.” Nachmanides, in the footsteps of the <i>Midrash,</i> understands the word “heart” here as representing the source of all our desires, as for instance, in Psalms 21,3 תאות לבו נתת לו, “You have granted him the desire of his heart.”
  
     בכל נפשך, “with all your soul.” This refers to the source of man’s intelligence, his brain, the analytical part of man, as opposed to the emotional part whose source is in the heart.
      As to our sages, who interpret the word more as the physical life force of man, when they understand Moses as exhorting the people to even sacrifice their physical life in the service of <i>Hashem</i> when the occasion demands it. (<i>Rashi</i> based on <i>Sifri</i>) They derive this from the wordבכל “with the whole, etc.” which is meant to add an additional dimension to the maximal imperative demanded by Moses in our relationship to <i>Hashem</i>. It is clear that the word בכל cannot mean that we should not only love <i>Hashem</i> with “half” our soul. The word must be intended to add an additional dimension to our love. Possibly, the word is inserted for stylistic reasons, seeing that it is used in connection with לבבך as well as with מאדך. Or, in order to make this more acceptable from a linguistic aspect, enduring pains, or losing limbs, is considered something less than losing one’s whole life, so that loving G’d with one’s whole soul must mean that one is prepared to give up one’s whole life for Him.
  
     בכל מאדך, “with all your resources.” Nachmanides explains the word as if the Torah had written מאד מאד, “very very much,” i.e. “love Him exceedingly much.” 
      According to our sages the dimension of love for G’d mentioned here is the one that is expressed in terms of one expending money or its equivalent to demonstrate that love. The reason why ממון, money or tangible assets are referred to as מאד, is because it is viewed in terms of something one amasses, i.e. המון, “a great quantity of something,” is closely related to the word ממון. Compare the proverb, Psalms 37,16 טוב מעט לצדיק מהמון רשעים רבים, “better the little that belongs to a righteous person than the great abundance of the wicked.” Moses demands that we love the Lord with the great abundance at our disposal. As to the very nature of “loving” the invisible and incorporeal G’d, our sages define it negatively i.e. what is not love of G’d. You are not to study Torah in order to make a name for yourself as a great scholar, or in order to qualify for long life both in this world and in the world to come; but you should do so because of who the author of the Torah is, i.e. לשמה, in admiration of His great name. (<i>Nedarim</i> 62) This, of course, raises the question of why Moses said למען ייטב לך ולמען תאריך ימים על הארץ, “in order that you will be well off and in order that you will enjoy many years on earth. etc., etc.” These words are not to be understood as an encouragement to perform the Torah for the sake of reward, but to inspire a degree of fear, seeing that such reward implies that if one does not qualify for it one qualifies for being deprived of what we nowadays would term “quality of life.” Alternately, the message in Moses’ words is that the pious must be oriented in two directions when performing the commandments; 1) love, 2) fear, awe. He must be conscious of love for him by His Creator, and requite that love, and at the same time he must be in trepidation not to anger his Creator by treating His commandments with disdain by neglecting them.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ושננתם לבניך, “You are to teach them thoroughly to your children;” Nachmanides writes that this too is merely a spelling out of something that had been clearly implied ever since the first commandment was given to Avraham to circumcise himself and his male descendants, and the Torah added that this commandment would be valid throughout the ages (Genesis 17,10) as well as many commandments with the rider that they are לדורותיכם, valid, applicable throughout your generations. Unless the knowledge of these command-ments will to be taught to each new generation, how could such commandments be observed in later generations? Similarly, in the next verse we are told that some of these laws have to be embedded in the phylacteries or the doorposts of your houses (verse 9), although we have read this in Exodus 13,9 spelled out already. What is new here is only the manner in which the written record of these paragraphs is to be constructed, etc. There are further details, which were handed down to Moses verbally, such as the precise type of knot that is required to enable us to wear the phylacteries on the head, etc. 
      Moses here added the commandment of the <i>mezuzah</i>, something not mentioned in Exodus
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   והיה כי יביאך, “It shall be when He brings you, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the purpose of this paragraph is to warn the people not to forget their past, when they were slaves in Egypt, and the Lord had saved them from that miserable fate, not to take their new found status for granted and not to forget the loving kindness shown them by <i>Hashem.</i> They must forever retain a degree of fear of the Lord and, in a manner of speaking, relate to Him as a servant does to his master.
      According to the view of our sages (<i>Chulin</i> 17) our verse means to permit the Israelites to enjoy what they would find inside the houses captured in the Land of Canaan during the war of conquest, even if the loot consisted of matters ordinarily forbidden to them by Jewish law. Such matters include even pork, or the fruit of fields in which two or more species of plants had been sown too closely together, violating the law against mixing seed. It is not quite clear whether the cisterns are mentioned as they may have been constructed by mortar containing something forbidden, and such forbidden material would endure long past the time of the conquest, when the temporary relaxation of forbidden perishables mentioned here had long since ceased to be legal. It is noteworthy that whereas Moses relaxed a whole slew of forbidden food, drink, etc., during the period of the war of conquest, no single concession regarding matters related to idolatry is mentioned. This will be made crystal clear not only in verses 14-15, but again when the Torah repeats in Deut. 7,25 that the people must not display any desire for the golden or silver vessels used by the local inhabitants in any manner related to idol worship. To make this point clear Moses insists that any altars or places of worship of the Canaanites be completely razed. (7,5-6)
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   את ה' אלוקיך תירא, “You shall fear <i>Hashem</i> your G’d<i>;”</i> After having commanded the people to love <i>Hashem,</i> Moses had to add that they must also fear Him, else they might, in their over-enthusiasm forget the boundaries of what is forbidden by becoming too familiar with <i>Hashem</i> and violate crucial prohibitions only to incur harsh penalties.
  
     ואותו תעבוד, “and Him you shall serve!” The manner in which you shall serve the Lord shall be reminiscent of the manner in which a servant serves his master. It is possible that Moses here alludes to the sacrificial service that is also known by the term עבודה, (compare עבודת מתנה in Numbers 18,7 or ועבד הלוי , in Number 18,23) We find a similar interpretation by the <i>Sifri</i> on the verse אחרי ה' אלוקיכם תלכו.....ואותו תעבודו in Deut. 13,5, where the “service” is understood to refer to the service in the Temple. There is an additional dimension derived from that, i.e. when there is no Temple in which to perform that service, the ”service” consists of studying how the service in the Temple will be performed when it will be rebuilt soon in our days.
      Ibn Ezra interprets the words את ה' אלוקיך תירא ואותו תעבוד as the former referring to the meticulous observance of the negative commandments, and the latter, as the meticulous observance of the positive commandments. This interpretation is not possible when applied to the verse cited by <i>Sifri</i> in Deut. 
  
     ובשמו תשבע,”and (only) in His name are you to render an oath.” This does not mean that it is a commandment to swear oaths, but if the occasion arises when you cannot avoid having to swear an oath, the only truth you must swear by is the truth known as <i>Hashem.”</i> This is why Moses follows up immediately with
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   לא תלכון אחרי אלוהים אחרים, “You shall not follow after other gods.” While on the subject of fearing G’d, loving G’d, serving G’d, we must not forget that no other so-called deity is to be feared, or otherwise appeased as they have absolutely no power and therefore neither deserve to be appeased or need to be feared.     Some commentators say that we must note that Moses did not say <i>tishava,</i> but<i> tishavea</i>,<i> a</i> significant nuance. The wording as we have it here implies that if gentiles who are aware of how seriously a Jew takes his oath want to force us to swear to the truth of something by our G’d, as opposed to by their god, you must abide by what you swore to under such conditions even though you acted under duress. Not only this, but your being asked to render an oath in the name of your G’d reflects the fact that you are known as a G’d fearing person, exactly what Moses commanded you to be at the beginning of this verse.     It is also possible that the words לא תלכון וגו' at the beginning of our verse refer to the opening words of verse 13, i.e. את ה' אלוקיך תירא, ”You are to fear the Lord your G’d,” and the words above define the extent to which you are to fear the Lord, i.e. sufficiently not to ever follow other philosophies, other alien deities. Your fear of the Lord is to be so tangible that His very name is to you like an oath; whenever you run to carry out one of your plans the very mention of His name is sufficient to ensure that if it is something constructive you will carry it out as if you had sworn to do it, and if it involves something negative, not compatible with His will, you will refrain from carrying it out as if bound not to do so by a personal oath.     The Talmud in <i>Temurah</i> 3 deals with this verse at length, claiming that an oath concerning secular matters is permitted by the Torah. [but the author of the famous commentary <i>Torah Temimah,</i> Rabbi Baruch Epstein, points out that the treatment in the Talmud leaves most of us more confused than we had been before. The major problem is the contradictory attitudes between Maimonides and Nachmanides on the whole subject of when a Jew may swear an oath not legislated by the Torah. Ed.]
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  לא תנסו את ה' אלוקיכם, “You shall not test the Lord your G’d.” The best known example of the Jewish people violating this commandment is found in Exodus 17,6 when the people tested “if the Lord is in our midst or not.” [The result of this insult to G’d was the attack by Amalek reported in the very next verse. Ed.] Making our loyalty to G’d dependent on His demonstrating His existence and His care to each one of us individually, is not only childish, but insulting to the Creator. How many times does G’d have to prove either His existence or His power to the Jewish people? Moses therefore warns the people not to stipulate that if they do not experience the hoped for results from their keeping the commandments they would abandon that path. Part of true faith is to accept even what appears to be a major, and sometimes irreversible setback in our aspirations with good grace, undiminished love for G’d, who by being the Creator, surely knows best and has His creatures’ best interests at heart. Moses makes this very point and that is why he continues with 
  
  Verse 17
  
   שמור תשמרון את מצות וגו'... ועדותיו, “observe the commandments…and His testimonies” Most of the “testimonies” are commandments designed to perpetuate in our collective memories these very miracles G’d has performed for us. We eat unleavened bread on Passover to commemorate the Exodus, we either offer the Passover, or remember it symbolically on our <i>Seder</i> plate when unable to offer sacrifices. We leave our homes and spend a week in a flimsy hut in order to commemorate that our G’d whom we worship kept an entire nation not only alive and well, but did so for 40 years in a totally inhospitable desert, although their conduct on occasion would have caused other rulers to abandon them. What is said here concerning not testing G’d is equally applicable to G’d’s established prophets. Once a prophet has proven his credentials as a true prophet, he is not to be subjected to constantly having to prove that he is still enjoying G’d’s ear. In the course of his speeches, Moses will also tell the Jewish people that should there be times when there are no prophets this is no reason to abandon G’d’s commandments, as there are competent sages, Rabbis, who are always at hand to inculcate the younger generation with authentic teachings of the Torah and the Books of the Prophets, as well as the deliberations of the oral law in <i>Mishnah</i> and G<i>emara.</i>
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ועשית הישר והטוב, “You shall do what is fair and good;” Nachmanides, approaching this line from a purely textual perspective, writes that Moses exhorts the people here that when they observe G’d’s commandments they should develop the feeling that what they are doing thereby is doing what is pleasing in the eyes of the Lord. In other words, the Jewish definition of “fair and good,” is what has been revealed by G’d to be so in His eyes. [Moses does not ask us to develop an independent moral code, possibly superseding the one G’d has established for us. Ed.] The assurance למען ייטב לך, “so that you will be well off,” is tied to your accepting His standards of what is fair and good.
      Our sages in the <i>Midrash</i> view the words ועשית הישר והטוב, as Moses, at this point, introducing a new concept in, especially, inter-personal relationships, the concept known as לפנים משורת הדין, “over and beyond the requirements of the law.” Up until now Moses had exhorted the people to be law-abiding, both in their ritual lives and in their relationships with their fellow man. Now, he asks them to do more than that. An Israelite, deserving of that title, is expected to seek out opportunities to demonstrate his concern for his fellow by voluntarily giving of himself or of his material wealth. The parameters are left open. The guidelines for such conduct over and beyond the strict requirement of justice are the knowledge that the Creator, by definition, is doing so all the time, and has even created a <i>quasi</i> legal instrument called <i>teshuvah,</i> repentance, enabling His creatures to escape the dreadful consequences of their failures that they would have to look forward to had G’d not afforded them the opportunity to turn the clock back by repenting, and thus rehabilitating themselves. A practical example of this kind of self-restraint is not to take revenge or emphasize one’s righteousness compared to one’s fellow who had demonstrated total insensitivity to such considerations. (Compare Leviticus 19,18: “do not take revenge and do not bear a grudge.” What was phrased there as a prohibition, or other legal restraints of unacceptable behaviour even when provoked, such as not even to curse a deaf person, Moses expands to initiatives of doing good, as something to be sought out as proof that we the creatures try to emulate the virtues of the Creator.) [I have paraphrased some of the last few lines. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   כי ישאלך בנך מחר מה העדות, וגו', “When your child asks you tomorrow (figuratively speaking)” The first category of questions by children who observe our rituals are questions concerning symbols commemorating historic events, i.e. עדות. Subsequently, questions will concern laws that appear not to be rooted either in our history or logic, חקים. Lastly, the child will question משפטים, penalties exacted for violating the Sabbath, by being stoned to death, for instance, or why someone sleeping with a woman and her mother should be subject to the death penalty by burning, etc. etc. The child will not ask his father concerning a whole range of laws that make sense to him, laws that are effective in fighting crime, etc. Moses tells the father that in the first instance he has to inform his child about the Exodus from Egypt and what had preceded it. This answer, basically is the introduction to the Ten Commandments in which <i>Hashem</i> introduces Himself as the One Who liberated the people of Israel from bondage under terrible conditions, something that surely entitles Him to expect something from us in return when He requests this. Having demonstrated His power to us at the time and having exerted Himself on our behalf is all that is needed to justify His legislating a lifestyle for us.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   לעינינו, “before our very eyes.” We the generation telling all this to our children, were privileged to have seen with our own eyes all that we are relating to you, to whom this will remain only “hearsay.” Seeing that to us this is more than hearsay, but something we experienced on our bodies, saw with our own eyes, we are certainly bound to acknowledge Him in every sphere of our lives. It does not matter whether the legislation is embodied in a framework of historical symbols, עדות, social laws, משפטים, or even laws that defy our powers of reason to understand, חוקים; we are bound to respect and obey them equally. WE are certain that all of them have been designed to make our life on earth and eventually in our own land, so much better than it would be without them.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   וצדקה תהיה לנו, “and it will be a merit for us, etc.” Although we are duty bound to observe all these commandments, and the idea that we would be entitled to be rewarded for doing so is quite beyond reason, Moses assures the people that such reward will nonetheless be in store for them, this being the nature of <i>Hashem,</i> Who devises ways and means to enable His people to acquire merits.
      Ibn Ezra writes that some scholars see in our verse (the word צדקה) an allusion to the world to come, where the reward for keeping the commandments will be handed out.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the meaning is that it is no more than fair and just that we keep <i>Hashem’s</i> commandments as by what He did at the Exodus He has acquired us as His eternal servants obligated to do His bidding.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   בך בחר ה' אלוקיך להיות לו לעם סגולה, “<i>Hashem</i> has chosen you to be for Him a nation a treasured people.” This status as a treasured people is evident by the fact that instead of appointing one of His angels to be your guardian angel, as He has done for all the other nations, He Himself acts as your guardian. This is why Moses continues and says
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   לא מרובכם, “(what motivated G’d was) not your being numerous, etc.” although it would have seemed appropriate that a great King, the King of the universe, should select a most numerous people as His special favorites. Throughout our history we have been taught (Proverbs 14,28) that ברב עם הדרת מלך, “where there is a multitude that is a king’s honour.” This would enable the King to appoint many generals to be in charge of different divisions of his armies. Although, in your case, you are not a numerous people, nonetheless <i>Hashem</i> chose you. 
  
     חשק, “desired;” the meaning of this word in this connection is that He established a permanent inseparable bond with you. We find this root in the same context in Exodus 38,12 and 38,18 וחשוקיהם כסף, where it describes how the silver bands connected the lace hangings of the Tabernacle to the pillars supporting them.
  
     ויבחר בהם, “He chose them;” He chose you out of all the nations that He had at disposal. The word בחר always means that the one doing the choosing had the option to select his choice from a number of candidates. The reason why He chose the Jewish people was out of a feeling of love for them. G’d had seen that this nation was worthy of His love more than all the other nations. Moses does not spell out a special virtue of the Jewish people that made them worthy of this extraordinary love of <i>Hashem.</i> When someone has been chosen as another person’s especially beloved, he must henceforth endure with equanimity anything that results from the fact that he is so beloved. Israel qualified as being especially beloved by G’d because they were a tough nation, a nation capable of enduring a great deal when being tested by their lover, <i>Hashem</i>. He took a liking to you on account of your forefathers the three patriarchs whom G’d had subjected to so many trials all of which they had endured uncomplainingly so that He eventually swore an oath to them promising to give them the Holy Land. He swore the oath in order that His promise previously not reinforced by an oath, should not become null and void on account of sins that the offspring of these patriarchs might become guilty of. As a result of this oath, G’d took this nation out of Egypt amongst all the miracles that were needed to accomplish this.
  
     ויפדך, He liberated you, redeemed you;” an allusion to how G’d smote the Egyptians on account of the Israelites; (compare Isaiah 43,3 נתתי כפרך מצרים, “I have given (away) Egypt as a ransom in exchange for you.”)
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   וידעת, “You must know;” the Exodus from Egypt surely taught you that the Lord your G’d is the true G’d, the One who created heaven and earth; this also taught us that this G’d is faithful and keeps His promises, including the various covenants which He entered into with your forefathers. You should know that just as this G’d keeps His promises so He will also exact retribution from those who deserve it. Each one of His enemies will be dealt with individually according to the severity of his sins. While it is true that sometimes we observe that G’d’s patience with a wicked person is extremely long, He will eventually, in His own good time, deal with such people, just as He dealt with the Egyptians. The reason that such retribution sometimes appears as long overdue, is that G’d also practices His virtue of rewarding everyone for his good deeds, and such wicked people as experience all this patience by G’d must have had good deeds to their credit for which they had not yet received a reward. Moses now reverts to 
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ושמרת את המצוה, “You shall observe the commandment, etc;” In order that you will not belong to the group of people classified as those who hate Him and who will perish, it is incumbent upon you to keep the commandments, all types of them, Belong to the group of people described as those who love Him, the ones who receive favourable mention!
      Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why Moses at this point repeated the previous call to observe the commandments, is to compare G’d’s keeping His promises to the patriarchs by redeeming their offspring; hence you should keep your part of the bargain by keeping His commandments.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   והיה עקב תשמעון, “it shall be the result of your listening, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> understands the unusual word עקב, “heel,” as a reference to the sort of thing one steps on without giving it a second thought. If we relate to those commandments of <i>Hashem</i> that in our superficial way of evaluating things we consider as insignificant, irrelevant, by observing even such commandments by <i>Hashem</i> meticulously, Moses tells us that we will qualify for extraordinary success in our daily activities on the farm, etc. If we accept this approach by <i>Rashi</i> as correct, the Torah here speaks of two distinctly separate matters. The משפטים judgments, surely do not fall into the category of things the average man belittles, considers irrelevant. Moses must be understood as saying that in order to qualify for all the blessings that follow immediately, it is not enough to meticulously observe the seemingly immaterial command-ments, but we must meticulously observe the laws governing inter-personal relationships, laws that form the fabric of society, of civilization We must not even belittle those when the amount at stake seems trifling.
      Nachmanides suggests that possibly <i>Rashi</i> had in mind the משפטים that deal with matters and amounts that appear trifling, and that many judges would feel inclined not to waste their time on. Moses warns not to develop a cavalier attitude towards such “trifling” matters.
      Other commentators understand the word עקב as something that is the result of what preceded it, its outcome. We find that word in such a context in Psalms 19,12 בשמרם עקב רב, “by observing them there is much reward.” The meaning of our verse then would be: “it will be, as a result of your observing My commandments, etc., especially the ones governing human relationships, that <i>Hashem</i> on His part will fulfill the promises inherent in the covenant He made with you.”
      The beginning of something, in classical Hebrew, is usually referred to as בראש, “at the head,” i.e. the Torah employs body parts to illustrate beginnings; it is therefore not strange that it employs another body part, the heel, as something describing the end, the conclusion.
      Onkelos translates the word עקב as חלף, “in exchange for.” The word appears in that context in Numbers 18,21 and 18,31 where it describes the various gifts set aside for the priests as being an exchange for the Temple service performed by them on behalf of the people at large. He understands the concept of reward as a “balancing of the scales”, reverting to “zero” by wiping out an indebtedness. It is like Isaiah 40,4 והיה העקוב למישור, “that which had been bent will be straightened out again.” The meaning of our verse then would be: “in compensation for your observing My social commandments on account of My maintaining the terms of My covenant, I will indeed respond generously.”
      The reason Moses stressed the social laws especially is that many of the other commandments are not applicable in many peoples’ daily lives. He who is not a farmer does not have to observe the dozens of laws that address the farmer. Women are altogether not obliged to observe positive commandments linked to a specific time frame. The social laws apply to one and all at all times hence Moses uses them as an example. Overall, Torah observance by the people is measured against the background of how the social laws are observed. Furthermore, seeing that even the bringing to justice of someone guilty of certain sins against his fellow man does not reverse the situation created by the sin, and therefore many people tend to have compassion with the perpetrator when he was not an intentional criminal, Moses has to stress that the element of deterring a potential sinner overrides such considerations, as we hear again and again וכל העם ישמעו ויראו ולא יזידון עוד, “and the whole people shall hear and see and not sin again.” (Deut 17,13, <i>et al</i>) When discussing the person who tries to lure others into sin, especially idolatry, Moses reinforces this exhortation by warning the people not to advance excuses for the sinner, not to cover up for him, and not to do anything that would make it difficult to convict the culprit. Family members of guilty persons are especially warned not to allow their family ties, or their fear of a violent family member to override their duty to society at large.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ואהבך, “He will love you;” Nachmanides writes that what Moses means is that if the Jewish people will perform the social commandments from feelings of love for <i>Hashem</i>, He, in turn, will love them. It is possible that the word ואהבך could be meant transitively, i.e. that G’d will make the Jewish people beloved in the eyes of the families whose members have become the “victims” of the application of these social laws. They will not hate the judges who convicted members of their families.
  
     והרבך, ”He will multiply you;” your numbers will not decrease through the loss of the sinners who have been put to death by the judicial process as demanded by the משפטים, the social laws of the Torah. A prime example would be the mass executions if there ever were to be a עיר הנדחת, a city the majority of whose inhabitants had turned to idolatry. (Deut. 13,3-19)
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   והסיר ה' ממך כל חולי, “<i>Hashem</i> will remove every sickness from you.” This refers to sicknesses that are part and parcel of everyday life. Moses adds:
  
     וכל מדוי מצרים “as well as all the bad maladies specifically prevalent in Egypt.” Probably, what are meant are different kinds of intestinal maladies, cancer of the colon, etc. Moses singles out these diseases with which the Israelites were familiar from their stay in Egypt, to assure them that G’d will cure them even from such diseases as part of the reward for observing the משפטים. He would instead afflict our enemies with such diseases. It is also possible that Moses hints here that if once afflicted with these diseases the meticulous observance of the social laws would cause G’d to heal the afflicted person, whereas non observance of these laws may bring in its wake such afflictions.
      When singling out specific commandments representing the social laws, משפטים, Moses singles out first (8,19) and foremost the eradication of every person guilty of practicing any kind of idolatry. 
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   והמם מהומה גדולה, “He will confound them with great confusion;” Moses reassures the people that although the Canaanites will not be wiped out overnight, G’d will utterly confuse them so that none of them will pose a threat. They will survive only long enough for the Israelites to have sufficient children and grandchildren to replace their numbers and not allow part of the land to become desolate because there are not enough of them to work the land. There will remain only small pockets of Canaanites throughout the land during that period.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ונתן מלכיהם בידך והאבדת את שמם, “He will deliver their kings into your hand and you will cause their reputation to perish.” The few Canaanites remaining in the land during that time will not amount to anything, politically or militarily. Anyone who tries to make a stand against you will fail.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   פסילי אלוהיהם תשרפו באש, “You are to burn their hewn or cast idolatrous images by fire.” Moses tells the people that although he had told them that G’d will conduct the war against the Canaanites [by means of various poisonous insects (verse 20) Ed.] just as He had done against the Egyptians at the sea of Reeds, He will not destroy their deities as He had done at the time when the Israelites had come out of Egypt. This is a chore that the Israelites themselves will have to perform. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   כל המצוה, “The entire commandment, etc.” Although I have already warned you concerning how the category of commandments known as משפטים are to be observed, similar instructions apply to the performance of the other commandments of the Torah as your successful life in your own land including your enjoying children and increasing amounts of livestock as well as bountiful harvests will depend on this, as mentioned earlier.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   וזכרת את כל הדרך,” you will remember the entire route, etc.” Nachmanides explains here that Moses reminds the people that they had first hand experience that by keeping G’d’s commandments, they, who had come this far, had enjoyed G’d’s miracles throughout their trek in the desert only because they did keep the commandments.
  
     למען ענותך לנסותך, “in order to afflict you by testing you;” Entering a desert that did not offer means of survival was indeed a great trial for you, and you were totally dependent daily on manna from heaven, never knowing if it would materialize on the following day. G’d did all this in order to train you to observe His commandments and to follow His instructions, where to go, when to rest, etc. He could have led you on a highway leading through cities, but He did not, as He wanted you to know that you could survive by means of His largesse alone. This experience taught you that following His commandments is the fountain of life.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   אשר לא ידעת ולא ידעו אבותיך, “you had no idea that one could subsist adequately on an exclusive diet of manna, nor did your forefathers know this.” Another way of understanding this verse is not the new dimension of the people‘s knowledge, but Moses wants the people to appreciate the extent of G’d’s loving kindness. Their forefathers, who had been loyal followers of G’d at all times, and had not rebelled time and again, had not been provided for by G’d as they had done, having their needs presented to them on a platter, so to speak. They had had to earn their livelihood by hard work, in particular their founding father Yaakov.
      There is yet another way in which we can understand our verse, i.e. that the words ויענך, וירעיבך, ויאכילך את המן are each something different, a subject by itself. The word ויענך, “He afflicted you,” refers to the trial of having to wander through a barren desert. The word וירעיבך, “He let you starve,” refers to the period until the manna fell, some 30 days after the Exodus, the time when the people had complained to Moses that he had taken them out of Egypt only in order to kill them in the desert. Finally, the words ויאכילך את המן, they were taught the great lesson that man does not live by bread alone, but by every utterance that emanates from <i>Hashem.</i> In<i> Yuma</i> 74 the Talmud uses our verse to establish the principle that there is a basic difference between the outlook of people “who have bread in their basket, and those who do not.” Although, G’d provided on a daily basis, the people, as opposed to shoppers in a supermarket, could not feel at ease until after the new supply had arrived and was seen to have arrived. The ongoing miraculous nature is what is stressed here and what distinguishes a Jewish people in the desert from Jews before and after who also had to put their trust in G’d. The words למען ענותך refer to the statementאשר הוליכך במדבר.ארבעים שנה, “Who has led you through the desert for 40 years,” as this is all part of the ongoing miracle, whereas the words למען אנסנו הילך בתורתי in Exodus 16,4 where the manna appears for the first time, does not refer to the manna as daily miraculous food, but refers to G’d in general providing the people’s needs. There, G’d uses this as a test to see whether the people are grateful for G’d’s largesse. The latter is the way to understand the verse before us at its face value. However, the commentary given previously is more in keeping with the moral/ethical values Moses is trying to convey throughout the Book of Deuteronomy.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   שמלתך לא בלתה, “your garment did not wear out on you.” <i>Rashi</i> [based on <i>Pessikta de Rav Kahane.</i> Ed.], explains the phenomenon as G’d’s clouds of glory that traveled with the Israelites everywhere, dripping moisture on their garments so that not only did they look as if freshly laundered and pressed, but the children’s clothing grew as the children grew. Ibn Ezra, quoting other scholars, claims that the Israelites had taken a vast variety of clothing out of Egypt with them. He himself considers it possible that one of the properties of the manna was that it did not cause perspiration in the people who ate it. He explains the phenomenon of the feet not experiencing swelling during all these years as also due to the qualities contained in the manna. Alternately, the slow pace at which the people moved was the reason that their feet did not swell. [Considering that in a period of 40 years the people traveled lass than 700 miles, it is hard to see anything miraculous in their feet not swelling. Ed.]
      Nachmanides disagrees with Ibn Ezra, seeing that Moses was at pains to explain to the people that observing the commandments had been the reason for their phenomenal success during the last 40 years. Moses simply points to the immediate past being an allusion to the future when, if they continue on the right path, G’d will continue to make life easy for them. It would be counterproductive to explain what Moses said here as being natural phenomena, when the whole point of Moses’ recalling the past is to encourage the people so that they would continue to qualify for the kind of miracles they experienced in the past. The basic lesson Moses is trying to get across is that man lives on everything that emanates from G’d, not just from what grows out of the earth and the oceans. New clothes are no insurance against moths, or other destructive agents of nature, so that a degree of G’d’s supervision is needed regardless of how secure one feels with what one owns.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   כי כאשר ייסר איש את בנו, “for just as a father from time to time chastises his son, etc.;” when a father does so, he does it for his son’s benefit; similarly our father in heaven employs such means for our benefit seeing we are His children.
  
     כן ה' אלוקיך מיסרך, “so is the Lord your G’d disciplining you.” The temporary afflictions experienced by the Israelites in the desert are examples of G’d’s using educational tools at His disposal. Solomon in Proverbs 29,17 phrases it thus: יסר בנך ויניחך, “Discipline your son and he will give you rest;” he continues with “ויתן מעדנים לנפשך, “and he will be a cause of delight to your soul.” By first disciplining one’s son, the goodies the father will provide will be so much more appreciated.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   כי ה' אלוקיך מביאך אל ארץ טובה אל ארץ נחלי מים, “for the Lord your G’dd brings you to a good land, a land containing streams of water, etc.” The whole land is like an irrigated garden for it contains many natural fountains as well as underground reservoirs of water. The latter irrigate the lowlands, the former the hilly regions. From there they run down as rivulets. The point Moses is making is that some of the springs are fed by accumulated rain that has been absorbed beneath the surface of the mountains, other sources of fresh water are the excess remaining from the nightly dew some of which rises after sunup and penetrates as mist into the surface of the mountainside. Moses refers to the latter as מעיינות, springs. Other springs simply emerge from deep in the earth, released from the subterranean aquifer. Moses refers to them as תהומות, “the depths (of the earth)”. Sources of fresh water are readily available both in the mountains and in the plains.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   אשר אבניה ברזל, “whose stones yield iron, etc.” The place you choose to look for stones will surprise you by harbouring iron.
      According to the Jerusalem Targum, the meaning is that the stones in the Land of Israel will prove to be as strong as iron. In other words, the land is full of quarries from which valuable building stones can be hewn. These stones will be useful in the construction of walls and fortifications. The reason why Moses did not praise the land for the silver and gold one might find there, is that the stones he mentioned would prove more useful than the silver and gold, which are only luxuries, not necessities.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ואכלת ושבעת וברכת, “you will eat, be sated, and bless the Lord.” This is the verse from which we derive the positive commandment to bless <i>Hashem.</i>
  
     על הארץ הטובה אשר נתן לך, “for the good land that He has given you.” At all times, and in every location whenever you will feel sated, you are to bless Him in acknowledgment of both the nourishing food and the land on which it grows. You are to especially express gratitude that the land is ours as an inheritance to be passed on to your children. This commandment is not dependent on our owning or living in the land during any particular period.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   וזכרת את ה' אלוקיך כי הוא הנותן לך כח, “you are to remember the Lord your G’d, for it is He Who gives you strength, etc.” Nachmanides explains that it was a well known fact that the Israelites counted among them men of outstanding bravery, experts in martial skills, and others of sheer physical strength, for had not their founding father Yaakov compared some of his sons to lions, wolves, etc.? Had they not defeated the most powerful Canaanite Kings in war? Therefore Moses takes pains to remind the people that such strength had been granted to these individuals by <i>Hashem</i>; they are not to credit their achievements in any sphere of activity to כחי ועוצם ידי, “to my own strength and the power of my hand,” but they are to remain mindful of the fact that without the active support of <i>Hashem</i> they could not have achieved any of this.
      Moses repeats once more his clarion call: שמע ישראל in chapter 9 reminding the people that the nations in the land of Canaan, on a man for man basis, are far more powerful than the individual Israelites, and they are more numerous, and it is only due to Hashem’s intervention on their behalf that past and future victories are possible. Those people even number giants as part of their population. If you were to leave everything to natural causes, you would never achieve your aspirations to subdue them. You must therefore constantly remain conscious of the fact that you have <i>Hashem,</i> Who is your commander-in-chief, and with such a commander-in-chief how could you fail?
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   אל תאמר בלבבך, “do not say, even in your heart, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> says that the meaning of the verse is that you may be tempted when you observe how G’d puts all these people to flight before you to credit your success to a combination of your righteousness and their wickedness. Moses warns you not to credit anything to your righteousness, but that only their wickedness caused them to lose their land.     Nachmanides does not agree with this interpretation, i.e. that the Israelites’ righteousness did not have any bearing on their success. Moses is telling the people that whether righteous in deed, or even righteous in their hearts, this could not have been a reason for G’d to dispossess another nation of their heritage. It was only their wickedness that is due to their suffering the fate that will unfold in another few weeks after Moses’ death. He underlines,
  
  Verse 5
  
     לא בצדקתך, “not on account of your righteousness;” as mentioned before, be it in deed or even also in thought; the only reason these people will lose their land and lives is their confirmed wickedness. An additional reason why they lose their lands to you, and not to another nation, is the oath <i>Hashem</i> had sworn to your forefathers to give this land in due course to their descendants. In the event that someone might counter that we have a specific verse in the Torah stating that G’d had chosen us because we are beloved by Him, and how could this be unless we had been righteous? Surely, G’d does not love a wicked rebellious people, and if so our righteousness must have played a role in our being victorious in our assault on the Canaanites! The answer is that our sins cannot annul an oath sworn by G’d to our forefathers, seeing that He had given the gift of this land to them reinforced by an oath. <i>Hashem</i> does not only love the good people, so that one could claim that they had had a share in receiving this land as a reward for their goodness. Besides, Moses reminds the people that whereas previous generations of Israelites might have been good, this present generation had been rebellious from the word “go!” How could they even dream that their goodness had played a role in their receiving the gift of this land! Moses now proceeds to illustrate the point he has just made. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ובחורב הקצפתם, “already at Mount Sinai you angered, etc.” Nachmanides writes that at the beginning of the Book of Deuteronomy, before embarking on elaborating on a substantial part of the Torah, Moses had taken the people to task for collectively committed sins that had not yet been forgiven, such as the sin of the spies and the sin at the מי מריבה, the waters of strife. Following that, he had explained the Ten Commandments in somewhat greater detail. He had especially dwelled on the unique nature of G’d the Creator, and guardian of Israel, and on the eternal bond between Him and the Jewish people. Moses issued specific warnings regarding all manner of idolatry, and he issued general warnings regarding observance of the Torah’s command-ments. Now he begins to zero in on specific commandments, but before beginning to single them out individually he once more recalls the people’s sins committed by them even after they had received the Torah in an act of revelation by <i>Hashem</i>. He did not admonish them on the various acts of insubordination in and around the sea prior to their receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai. The reason is that ever since their acceptance of the Torah at Mount Sinai their obligation to keep the commandments had become far greater than before they had entered into a covenant with <i>Hashem.</i> This is why he now prefaces his words by saying: ”already while at the Mountain you angered G’d.”
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ואפן וארד מן ההר, “I turned and descended from the Mountain;” Nachmanides writes that he has already explained that Moses had prayed on behalf on the people before beginning his descent from the Mountain, as we know from Exodus At the conclusion of that particular prayer G’d had already assured him that He had reconsidered His original intent to wipe out the whole nation. Moses, at this time, does not even refer to that prayer as he is intent on describing the 40 days of continuous pleading on behalf of the people, and even on behalf of Aaron, that he had spent on his return to the Mountain after he had shattered the Tablets 
      9,17, ואתפוש בשני הלוחות, “I grasped the two Tablets;” this too is part of the admonition, i.e. Moses described that he was unable to refrain from smashing the Tablets. He mentioned this as he wants to elaborate on the second set of Tablets, and what had occasioned the need for such a second set.
      It is also possible that he hinted at the favour he had done for the people at that time when he had risked immediate death by destroying G’d’s handiwork deliberately. He had done so for the sake of the people, as our sages explain in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 46 it is better to be convicted of infidelity while still only betrothed, than to be convicted after already being properly married. As long as the people had not received the Tablets, the final step in the nuptials between G’d and the people begun on the day of the revelation had not yet been taken.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  ואתפוש בשני הלוחות, “I grasped the two Tablets;” this too is part of the admonition, i.e. Moses described that he was unable to refrain from smashing the Tablets. He mentioned this as he wants to elaborate on the second set of Tablets, and what had occasioned the need for such a second set.
     It is also possible that he hinted at the favour he had done for the people at that time when he had risked immediate death by destroying G’d’s handiwork deliberately. He had done so for the sake of the people, as our sages explain in <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 46 it is better to be convicted of infidelity while still only betrothed, than to be convicted after already being properly married. As long as the people had not received the Tablets, the final step in the nuptials between G’d and the people begun on the day of the revelation had not yet been taken.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   כי יגורתי, וגו', “for I was terrified, etc.;” on account G’d displaying His anger at you in so many ways. First I was afraid that He would destroy you utterly as He had threatened to do; my fear had not yet abated as even the anger described as קצף, is still a great threat to the object of that anger. True, that G’d had relented somewhat, and no longer wanted to wipe all of you out with one fell swoop, but if I spent forty days and nights prostrate on the Mountain praying on your behalf I did so with good reason, until at the end of that period G’d accepted my plea, finally. I also had to pray on account of Aaron. I prostrated myself on that occasion, as I could not do so before. Moses describes the gold dust of the burned golden calf as having been “thrown: into the brook at the foot of Mount Sinai,” instead of mentioning that the people had been made to drink from it as reported in Exodus He omitted this detail out of sensitivity for their feelings. He did not want them to feel like a <i>Sotah</i>, a wife suspected of marital infidelity. Such a woman is made to drink from the water in which the ash of the red heifer has been dissolved.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ובתבערה, ובמסה, ובקברות התאוה, Ibn Ezra says that תבערה, is the name of a place, and that the people never made camp there for longer than a single day. This is the reason why this place has not been listed in the stopovers in <i>Parshat Massey.</i> The reason why Moses lumped together <i>Taveyrah</i> and <i>Massa</i>, is because at both of these locations the people had been guilty of complaining and putting G’d on trial, testing Him. Before the incident at <i>Massa</i> nothing had happened to the people at all.
      Some scholar says that the attack by Amalek was triggered by the people’s conduct at <i>Massa,</i> and that although Amalek had attacked the rearguard or stragglers of the people, Moses described G’d’s anger as “burning,” concentrating on the more serious sins of the people.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ואתנפל לפני ה', “I threw myself down before <i>Hashem;”</i> Nachmanides interprets these words as “I was forced to throw myself down on your behalf for forty days and forty nights on account of the terrible sin you had committed,” for initially, <i>Hashem</i> had threatened to destroy you all together, until I had completed my prayers.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ואמר אד-ני אלוקים...אל תשחת עמך, I said: “Lord, G’d, do not destroy, etc.” This had been Moses’ prayer before he descended from the Mountain, a prayer that had been responded to by G’d with the words: “I have reconsidered the evil that I said I would bring upon My people.” Moses did not mention the content of the prayers he offered during his forty days on the mountain after he had destroyed the golden calf, and executed the people most guilty of dancing around that calf for, in the words of Job 11,9, “its measure is longer than the earth,” [it would have been beyond the common people’s ability to comprehend. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   מבלי יכולת ה' להביאם אל הארץ, “beyond G’d’s ability to bring them to the land, etc.” Nachmanides points out that in Moses’ prayer to G’d after the debacle with the spies he uses the expression מבלתי יכולת ה' אל הארץ אשר דבר להם ומשנאתו אותם הוציאם להמיתם במדבר, instead of the words used here, i.e מבלתי יכולת ה' להביא את העם הזה אל הארץ אשר נשבע להם וישחטם במדבר.. Why, did Moses mention G’d’s oath to bring the people to the Holy Land in Numbers 14,16, whereas he did not mention a word about G’d having hated this people already in Egypt, and the orchestration of the Exodus only being a preamble to mask G’d’s inability to keep His promise? At the sin of the golden calf he only mentioned that G’d had “said” that He would bring them there? Nachmanides reminds us that the supposed argument by the nations Moses presents to G’d, must be understood in terms of how matters appear to these nations. If G’d had made the people perish after only a few weeks away from Egypt, the surviving Egyptians would have interpreted this as proof that G’d had never intended the people to get to Canaan, but had wanted to kill them where no one would be a witness to His inability, but in fact G’d had already hated the people in Egypt, and that is why He had allowed them to suffer so long. The Canaanites could not have used quite the same argument after the people had survived and prospered in the desert for a year and a half. They, and the surrounding nations, would have concluded that the Jewish G’d, though willing to bring the people to Canaan, had found out that after all this was beyond His power, and rather than have witnesses to His failure, He had killed His own people. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   בעת ההיא אמר ה' אלי: "פסל לך שני לוחות אבנים", “At that time <i>Hashem</i> said to me: ‘carve for yourself two stone Tablets;’” This was a sign that G’d looked once more favourably upon me, seeing that He was willing to inscribe these Tablets Himself. However, the second set of Tablets was distinctly different from the first set, seeing that the first set of Tablets was entirely the work of <i>Hashem,</i> He even supplied the raw material, presumably material not even found on earth.
  
     ועשית לך ארון עץ, “you will make for yourself a wooden ark.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that this is not the Holy Ark constructed by Betzalel when he made the Tabernacle about 3-4 months later. The meaning of the instruction in our verse is that the Tablets would be housed in the ark made by Moses until the time when the Tabernacle would be built and inaugurated. [at this point in time G’d had not even instructed Moses to build a Tabernacle. Ed.] After the Tabernacle was built, the ark constructed by Moses now would house the broken pieces of the first set of Tablets. 
      Nachmanides comments that our sages do not appear to agree with <i>Rashi’s</i> explanation (<i>Baba Batra 14</i> and M<i>enachot 9</i>9) The opinion expressed in the Talmud is that both the second set of Tablets and the broken pieces of the first set reposed in the same ark, i.e. the ark constructed by Betzalel. This appears as the more logical scenario, seeing that the ark constructed by Moses was not inside the innermost and most sacred part of the Tabernacle during the 40 years the people traveled through the desert. According to tradition, the only time the Holy Ark left the Tabernacle/Temple, was when the High Priest Eli’s sons took it with them in the war against the Philistines, as a result of which it fell into captivity until it was eventually repatriated by King David to Jerusalem, about 50 years later. According to the sages, the ark Moses constructed was to serve his carrying the second set of Tablets in on his descent from the Mountain, and they would repose there until the consecration of the Tabernacle almost 6 months later. The reason that Moses was not instructed to make an ark prior to receiving the first set of Tablets was that it was foreseen that these would be smashed and did not need an ark to house them. Therefore the words ויהיו שם in verse 5 mean that the Tablets would remain in that ark pending the construction of the Holy Ark surrounded by gold and covered with the golden lid on which were mounted the two cherubs.
      Taking a more pragmatic approach to the text, i.e. the <i>peshat,</i> it is possible to understand G’d’s instruction to make a wooden ark as already referring to the ark that would be constructed by Betzalel later, seeing that long before <i>Betzalel</i> was appointed to be the artisan in charge of constructing the Tabernacle, Moses had been charged by Gd with that project in Exodus 25,10 after G’d had told Moses to collect the requisite donations from the people for that project (Exodus 25,2-9). Execution of that project had been sidelined due to the sin of the golden calf until after G’d had become reconciled to the atonement for that sin having been adequate, [although it was never totally forgiven Ed. (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 102)] When the time had come, G’d briefly told Moses to make an ark for the Tablets, this being none other than the ark already mentioned in Exodus It was a way of G’d indicating to Moses that what had been interrupted due to the episode of the golden calf could now be resumed, including the collection of the donations for that project. This is the meaning of Moses adding after the words ויהיו שם, “they remained there,” the words: כאשר צווני ה', “as <i>Hashem</i> had (previously) commanded me.” He meant that the Tablets were to repose within that ark permanently. 
      When Moses descended from the Mountain carrying the second set of Tablets he deposited them in the אהל מועד, “the tent of testimony,” [the one Moses had retreated to after the sin of the golden calf, compare Exodus Ed.] in order to remain there until the Tabernacle had been constructed. If Moses had not smashed the first set of Tablets, he would have deposited them in that tent until Betzalel would have completed the Ark that was intended to house the Tablets permanently. It is most likely that what happened to the second Tablets also happened to the remains of the First Tablets. 
      [By the way, Eliyahu Ki Tov, ז'צ'ל in his booklets on the portions of the Torah’ illustrates by a calculation how both the first set of the Tablets in their fragments plus the second set, plus the Torah scroll written by Moses could be fitted within the dimensions given by the Torah for the size of the Holy Ark. He also adds a fascinating calculation as to the combined weight of the Holy Ark when it was being transported. Ed.]
      It is impossible to explain this in a different fashion, as Moses most certainly did not take the fragments of the first set of Tablets back up the Mountain with him. [This is true as long as we stay within the parameters of the <i>peshat</i>, without speculating on what happened to the letters of the Tablets, etc., etc., as the <i>Midrash</i> does. Ed.]
      We must not ask that according to what Moses relates in verse 3 and 5 respectively, that he must have placed the Tablets in an ark at hand as soon as he descended with these Tablets and that they remained in that same ark. We must not understand all of these steps as having occurred exactly in the sequence Moses portrays them. He was only interested in concluding the subject of the Tablets and the Holy Ark within which they reposed after the Tabernacle had been built. The principal part of Moses’ message was verse 4, in which he testifies that what <i>Hashem</i> wrote on the second set of Tablets was exactly what He had written on the first set. This being so, this set of Tablets also qualified for being housed in the original Holy Ark that G’d had told Moses about in Exodus chapter 25. <i>Hashem’s</i> holy name was honoured by His writing reposing in a Holy Ark on earth. With the words
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ואעש ארון, “I constructed an ark,” Moses concludes this interlude and returns to his main theme.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ואפן וארד מן ההר ואשים את הלוחות בארון אשר עשיתי, “I turned around and descended from the Mountain and placed the Tablets in the ark that I had constructed.” I did this immediately after descending from the Mountain
      .
  
     ויהיו שם, “they remained there.” Permanently. 
      [This is a part of Moses’ admonition. The emphasis is not on the fact that these Tablets were received, but on the <i>quasi</i> secrecy with which they were received, and the fact that other than Moses no one had ever seen what was written on these Tablets. Had the first set of Tablets survived intact their presence after having been displayed by Moses would have been an ongoing reminder of the revelation at Mount Sinai. Partly based on Rabbi Avraham Sabba in his <i>Tzror hamor.</i> Ed.]
  
     כאשר צוני ה'. “As <i>Hashem</i> had commanded me.” G’d had commanded that some of His glory be present on earth in the camp of the Children of Israel.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ובני ישראל נסעו מבארות בני יעקן, “The Children of Israel journeyed from Be-eroth-bney Yaakon.” <i>Rashi,</i> feeling the need to explain how this apparently unrelated verse fits in here, and posing the rhetorical question if these wells came to the place called <i>Mosserah,</i> explains the verse by following <i>aggadic</i> interpretations, saying that seeing this is where Aaron was mourned in style, it appeared to the people as if this was where he had died.
      Ibn Ezra, forever attempting to find a straightforward interpretation clearly suggested by the text, [author’s words, not mine. Ed.] is hard pressed saying the words בארות בני יעקן (of the descendants of Se-ir, Edom) were not places by the same name mentioned in Numbers [The name of this individual appears in the Bible three more times, in Chronicles I 1,42, in Numbers 33,31, and 32. Ed.] He claims that the place is the one we know as <i>Kadesh.</i> Similarly, according to<i> Ibn Ezra,</i> מוסרה mentioned here is not identical with the מוסרות mentioned in Numbers Only the “<i>Kadesh</i>” mentioned in Numbers 33,37 is identical with בארות בני יעקן. The name of the desert surrounding הר ההר is מוסרה. From that location the Israelites moved on to <i>Gudgoda. Gudgoda</i> is not the name of a mountain. It is a term for a region comprising Tzalmona, Punon, and Ovot. (Numbers 33, 31-42) Yotvata, is the place referred to as באר, as we know from Numbers This is also why it is described as ארץ נחלי מים, a land with brooks and rivulets providing water. The region responded favourably to water diviners. The verse (7) משם נסעו הגוגודה belongs with ויכהן אלעזר תחתחו “and Eleazar, his son, performed the priestly duties in his stead.” (6) I have already explained that after departing from Mount Sinai the (individual) Israelites no longer offered offerings on the Altar. [Ibn Ezra on Exodus ]
      It is possible that when arriving at Tzalmona they began to offer these sacrifices again and that is when Eleazar began his duties in practice. Perhaps on New Year’s Day, as well as on the Day of Atonement, these rites were performed. [In his commentary on Exodus 29,42 Ibn Ezra justifies the non-performance on most days with the non-availability of the requisite amounts of wine and olive oil, etc. Ed.] The justification for referring to Eleazar as performing his duties as his father’s successor at this point is that as a result of the golden calf episode the firstborn who up until that time had performed the priestly duties were exchanged for the Levites who had remained loyal, and among their various duties was the one to carry the Holy Ark on their shoulders during the journeys of the Israelites. Already in Numbers 6,23 Eleazar had blessed the people together with his father, i.e. had performed some priestly functions.
      Nachmanides refuses to accept any part of Ibn Ezra’s commentary on this subject (locations) declaring that the sudden emergence of locations that had not been mentioned in <i>Parshat Massey</i> is totally inadmissible. Furthermore, he sees nothing strange in locations appearing as having slightly different names on different occasions. He quotes numerous examples of this being the case. The Torah does so not only when referring to place names, but also when referring to the same people by different names. In this case where there is hardly any different between מוסרה and מוסרות, there is even less reason to “make a federal case” out of such nuances. He also sees nothing special about the variation from חור הגדגוד in Numbers 33,32, and הגדגודה in our verse here to justify looking for Ibn Ezra’s far-fetched stretching of the meaning of the text on these two occasions. He feels that the various locations mentioned here are so close to one another that they did not warrant separate mention in Numbers chapter 33. By allowing for the fact that the camp of the Israelites was about 12-15 kilometers in length, the front section had reached another location before the rearguard had even left it. He assumes that the people hardly moved more than 3 or 4 kilometers in an average day’s journey. When the Israelites journeyed sometimes for only a single day, they could easily have straddled both locations while encamped. He also argues that quite possibly, seeing mountains are named, the top of the mountain was named by a different name from the base of the same mountain, although both names fitted the same location. In a location known as חשמונה (Numbers 33,29) there were numerous wells in the field, collectively known as the wells of the sons of Yaakon, בארות בני יעקן, in order to water their flocks. The Israelites passed that region in their journeys and moved on to a place known as מוסרה. They encamped around the wells known as בארות בני יעקן, and remained there for some time. Moses singled out two places, Gudgoda and Yotvata as areas that were also well watered, skipping others which did not have much to commend them, seeing they had all been mentioned already in <i>Parshat Massey</i>. It is also possible that when Aaron ascended the mountain הר ההר to die there, a mountain that was facing the place known as מוסרה, that the people then moved back to Mosserah to mourn and eulogise Aaron in a manner befitting such a beloved leader. This is what is reported here when Moses writes that they journeyed from בארות יעקן to מוסרה, and that the notables of the people used these 30 days to each pay their respects to Aaron at his grave, ascending the mountain where he had died in order to do so. The Torah had not actually written that the people made camp in בארות בני יעקן. Once the thirty days of mourning were over, they moved on at greater speed all the way to Gudgodah. From there they moved to Yatvata The location was known as Yatvata on account of the abundant supply of drinking water in that region. This was by way of contrast with the desert of Tzin, which qualified for the description ציה וצמאון, completely devoid of water, a region in which one could only perish from thirst. The reason why Moses inserted reference to the death of Aaron at this juncture, may have been that he had already mentioned praying on behalf of Aaron who might have died many years earlier if not for Moses’ prayer. He wanted the people to know and to remember that if Aaron did not die until the fortieth year this was proof that that he had not been guilty of sin but died of old age. He did not die until his son Eleazar was sufficiently mature to become his successor.
      As to the formulation (verse 6) ובני ישראל נסעו, “the Children of Israel journeyed” (in the third person), as opposed to Moses speaking in these portions in direct speech i.e. “you have done,” “I have done, etc.,” Moses spoke to them in direct speech when he admonished them. Here he was merely relating some historical facts, without implying criticism of the people.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   בעת ההיא הבדיל ה' את שבט הלוי, “At that time <i>Hashem</i> set apart the tribe of Levi, etc.” According to <i>Rashi,</i> the “time” referred to by Moses was the episode of the golden calf.
      Nachmanides adds that if we accept <i>Rashi’s</i> comment it refers not to the actual setting apart of the tribe of Levi by <i>Hashem,</i> but to the time when <i>Hashem</i> made up His mind to do so. In fact, no action was taken until the second year in the second month. Alternately, what <i>Rashi</i> had in mind was Exodus 32,26-29, when Moses asked for volunteers to execute the people who had actively worshipped the golden calf as a deity. At that time only members of the tribe of Levi had responded to that call. 
      Personally, (Nachmanides writing) I believe that the correct interpretation is that the words בעת ההיא which appear here a second time, refer to the same time as the first time Moses used this expression, (10,1) the time when Moses had been invited to carve out the Tablets for G’d to inscribe the second set of Ten Commandments upon. At the time when G’d became reconciled with His people, He did make some changers in the hierarchy of that people by appointing the Levites <i>en masse</i> to take over the functions previously reserved for the first born in each family. At that time G’d had also become reconciled to Aaron’s role in that tragic episode, and He commanded to make the special vestments for the High Priest which proclaimed to all the people that Aaron as well as his sons were held in high esteem by <i>Hashem.</i> At that time Moses had also been commanded to arrange for the seven days of consecration of the Tabernacle and the inauguration of the priests into their positions. This also enabled Moses to say that Eleazar became High Priest in place of his (deceased) father, as there was no need for him to be anointed first, seeing that the anointment to the priesthood, by the oil of anointment was for the members of that family something hereditary, and did not need to be renewed every time a new High Priest was appointed. The setting apart of the priests from the ordinary Levites, and the Levites from the other tribes of the Israelites, occurred simultaneously. <i>Hashem</i> had decided at the time of the episode of the golden calf that these changes were imperative for the development of the people as His people, and that is implied in the lineנתונים נתונים , that the Levites were, so to speak, placed at the disposal of the priests to assist them in their holy tasks. (Numbers 8,16-19)
      Another possible approach to the words בעת ההיא on this occasion, is that at that time <i>Hashem</i> decided to set apart the priests from the remainder of the tribe of Levi, in that they too were allowed to carry the Holy Ark. [only the descendants of Kehat, one of the families of the tribe of Levi, had qualified for that privilege, anyways. Ed.] We have proof that the priests did carry the Holy Ark from Deut. 31,9 ויכתוב משה את התורה הזאת ויתנה אל הכהנים בני לוי הנושאים את ארון ברית ה', “Moses wrote down this Torah and gave it to the priests, the members of the tribe of Levi, who carried the Ark of the covenant of <i>Hashem</i>.” They are the ones who would perform the sacrificial service and bless the people in the name of <i>Hashem</i>.
  
     עד היום הזה, “until this day.” Moses added this on account of Eleazar the new High Priest, and it is as if he had written “then <i>Hashem</i> set apart the tribe of Levi, etc., etc., a condition which remains in force till his day.”
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ועתה ישראל מה ה' אלוקיך שואל מעמך כי אם ליראה, “And now, what is it that the Lord tour G’d asks of you, except to be reverent?” Nachmanides writes that the word ועתה, “and now,” is a continuation of what is written at the end of verse 13 לטוב לך “for your benefit.” In other words, Moses wants the people to understand that any demands made by <i>Hashem</i> on His people are never motivated by what is “good for Him,” but by what is good for His people. The route may be a little circuitous, i.e. when the Jew, by obedience to G’d, demonstrates a degree of reverence for Him, then all the commandments he performs will turn out to be for his benefit. As proof that performance by the Jewish people of these commandments cannot be designed to benefit the Creator, Moses reminds the people
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   הן לה' אלוקיך השמים, ושמי השמים, הארץ וכל אשר בה “Here the heaven, the most remote regions of heaven even, the earth and all that is therein, etc.” Seeing that He owns it all, and that ownership confers tremendous glory upon Him, how could He be in need of your contributions for His sake rather than for yours?
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   רק באבותיך חשק ...ויבחר בזרעם, “Only your forefathers did <i>Hashem cherish,</i> to love them, so that He chose their offspring, etc.” Moses means that the Jewish people are the choicest of their forefathers’ offspring, as opposed to Ishmael, Avraham’s sons from Ketura, and Esau. 
     ביום הזה, “as of this day.” This is a formula meaning that what is true and applicable on this day concerning this subject, will continue to remain true and applicable. 
  
  Verse 16
  
   ומלתם את ערלת לבבכם, “Circumcise, (remove hindrances) the foreskin of your hearts!” This is required in order for your hearts to become receptive to <i>Hashem’s</i> words.
  
     וערפכם לא תקשו, “and do not stiffen your necks.” A subtle reminder of the fathers of the present generation of Israelites who had been characterized as קשי עורף, “stiff-necked.” Obstinacy was a characteristic of the Egyptians, one that the Israelites due to their lengthy stay in Egypt had adopted also, believing it to be a virtue. It manifested itself by the Israelites still believing that there were positive aspects, advantages, to certain forms of idolatry. Moses, in addressing the new generation, a generation that had not been raised in Egypt, tells the people not to allow themselves to become victims of the same errors their fathers had become victims of, and not to be brainwashed by concepts that had proven utterly false. Surely, someone as close as they were to the Lord of lords, the Creator Himself, did not need to have recourse to one of His ministers, or even only deputy ministers!
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   אשר לא ישא פנים, “Who does not show favour,” to any of the other deities and their followers to protect them more than others.
  
     ולא יקח שוחד, “and Who will not accept a bribe.” Even when He is confronted by a totally righteous person, who did commit a single sin, and who wishes to atone for it by foregoing his claim to a reward for a merit he has to his credit, (trading off performance of a commandment against violation of a commandment) He will not overlook the sin committed by not exacting retribution where it is deserved.
      The proper manner to explain the words אשר לא ישא פנים, is that <i>Hashem</i> is not going to show favoritism to the powerful people on earth in their litigation against the less powerful. Neither will He accept bribes by the wealthy in their quarrels with the poor. But, He will punish the guilty according to their deserts. Verse 18 spells out that G’d will especially see to it that the underprivileged will not become victims of perverted justice.
      10.18. לתת להם לחם ושמלה, “to give them bread and clothing.” G’d will provide the basic necessities of life for those who have no one else to look after them.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  לתת להם לחם ושמלה, “to give them bread and clothing.” G’d will provide the basic necessities of life for those who have no one else to look after them.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   הוא תהלתך, “He is your praise.” Nachmanides explains this to mean that whenever you feel that you want to praise someone you will praise Him. He is the only One worthy of praise.
      Another possible explanation is that when any other nation praises you, the Jewish people, it will always be in connection with and on account of your special relationship to Him.
  
     והוא אלוקיך, “and He is your G’d.” You are the only nation upon whom G’d “bestowed” His name. All the other nations have been assigned by G’d to the supervision of their fates by one of His deputies. Your superiority is visible through all the miracles G’d performed on your behalf.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ושמרת משמרתו, “you shall keep His charge.” Nachmanides understands these words to mean that we must maintain an attitude of reverence and fear even, which will ensure that we will not sin. Having previously commanded us to love Him (G’d), Moses now commands us to fear Him, as familiarity of the beloved might cause the beloved to sin inadvertently. This fear/reverence relationship covers all the various types of commandments in the Torah.
      Alternatively, this may be a command by Moses to emulate G’d in our relationship with creatures of whom G’d has demonstrated that He is especially solicitous. He declared His concern for the poor, the orphan and the widow, so we must relate to them with equal concern. He practices the virtues of being merciful; hence we, His creatures, must learn to practice that same virtue.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   אשר הציף את מי הים סוף על פניהם...ויאבדם ה' עד היום הזה, “Who poured the waters of the Sea of Reeds upon their faces…and He wiped them out until this day.” Nachmanides agonises over the meaning of the words עד היום הזה, “until this day.” After all, all the Egyptians who perished in the sea remain dead forever. What does any of this have to do with “היום הזה”? It is possible that Moses by speaking of היום הזה, reverts to the loss of horses and riders that the Egyptians experienced at that time 40 years ago, and which to the best of his knowledge had not been made good until the time when he was speaking. As a result of that stunning military defeat, according to Moses, Egypt had become relegated to being a “third rate kingdom.”
      Ibn Ezra understands Moses to mean that never since that time until now did there arise among the Egyptians personalities of impressive stature as Egypt had produced many of while the Israelites were still in that country. This would have been a fitting punishment for a people who in spite of being blessed with an abundance of riches allowed themselves to descend to unparalleled depths of depravity. They reached a zenith in their wickedness when they set out in pursuit of a nation that had been redeemed by the Creator Himself, personally.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ואשר עשה לדתן ואבירם, “and what He has done to Datan and Aviram, etc.” Moses does not mention what G’d had done to Korach and his family and followers and how heavenly fire consumed the 250 people offering incense. The sin of those people who had encroached on privileges reserved for the priests was such that it is irredeemable even after death. History has shown that King Uzziah who tried to arrogate similar privileges to himself, was similarly stricken. What had happened to those 250 men therefore was not something unique to the generation of the Israelites in the desert; this is why Moses did not mention it as such at this time. [Compare Chronicles II chapter 26. Uzziah only became stricken with leprosy, was not burned by heavenly fire, according to that report. Perhaps the fact that he was stricken after having been specifically warned was sufficient of a miracle for Moses in the opinion of our author to compare his fate to that of the 250 men who had heeded Moses’ dare to offer incense. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   לא כארץ מצרים היא אשר יצאתם משם, “it is not like the land of Egypt from which you have departed.” According to Nachmanides, the plain meaning of these words is meant as a warning to the people to be careful to observe the commandments of the Torah in that land as that land depends on rainfall, not like Egypt; therefore, non observance would lead G’d to withhold the necessary rainfall at the appropriate times. Moses impresses all this upon the people a second time in the second paragraph of the קריאת שמע that commences with verse 13 in this chapter. Moses refers to the land of Egypt and what goes on there to remind them that although it is easy for the Creator to arrest the flow of the river Nile if He so desires, and to thereby bring to an immediate end the prosperity of that land and its inhabitants, He does not interfere with His natural law without severe provocation. To interfere with the rainfall in the land of Canaan represents far less of an interference with natural law than arresting the flow of the river Nile, hence the people of Israel better be on their guard not to provoke G’d. Moreover, He Who had to go out of His way to enable the Israelites to be liberated from bondage by a number of miracles, would not hesitate to respond if the people for whom He had taken all this trouble were to show themselves ungrateful by violating His rules of conduct.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   בכל לבבכם ובכל נפשכם, “with all your heart and all your soul.” <i>Rashi</i> points out that Moses had already warned the people individually to do just that, whereas now he warns them to love G’d with all their collective hearts and with all their collective souls (hence the plural endings in both words).
      Nachmanides explains the matter as follows: G’d is not prepared to perform miracles at all times, especially when it comes to interference with the amount of rain required and the season at which the rain descends. He does not, on account of a few individuals deviate from His laws, re-arrange all of nature, so that the sinner’s field is not irrigated and the fields of the righteous enjoy abundant rainfall, although the two fields are adjoining. Therefore, in this paragraph Moses addresses the people as a unit when exhorting them to love G’d with all their hearts and souls, whereas in the first paragraph of the קריאת שמע when he addressed them as individuals he did not threaten what would happen if some individual were not to follow his instructions. He will however, address that problem in chapter 29 17-19. As a rule, G’d reserves miracles for extreme situations, such as total perversion of the people or total righteousness. The former will produce recognisable unnatural catastrophes, whereas the latter will produce extraordinary and recognizable bounty by G’d, the Provider. 
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ואכלת ושבעת, “you will eat and be satisfied.” According to Ibn Ezra these words refer to the previous words (verse 14) דגנך, ותירושך, ויצהרך, “your grain, your wine, and your oil,” rather than to the more recent words עשב בשדך, “the grass in your field.”
      Nachmanides writes that the correct interpretation is that the words ואכלת ושבעת refer to the both דגן, תירושך, ויצהרך as well as to עשב בשדך. They even refer to the livestock mentioned in our verse as בהמתך. The <i>Sifri</i> interprets this as meaning that when your livestock has enough to eat, then your land will be able to provide the harvest it is meant to provide. Another possible approach is that the word ובהמתך does not refer to what you will eat, but to the fact that your livestock will produce its young, just as the soil will produce its yield.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ושמתם את דברי אלה, “You will place these words of Mine, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> explains that Moses means that even after you will be exiled, when the prompt fulfillment of the promise we just read is not likely, you are not free from the obligation to observe those commandments of the Torah that are not tied to residence in the Holy Land.
      Nachmanides writes that it is obvious that those commandments that are to be fulfilled with our bodies, as opposed to with our land, remain applicable also in the Diaspora, but the <i>Sifri</i> writes that this obligation is derived from this verse. In other words, according to that interpretation our verse serves as a בנין אב type of interpretation. Just as when it comes to thanking the Lord for having received our food and blessing Him, this is an obligation that applies wherever we find ourselves, so other commandments that are capable of fulfillment all over the globe remain in force also during periods of exile.
      It is possible, that from the perspective of the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, that Moses implies that the father should speak about these aspects of the Torah to his children, just as Moses had commanded in the parallel paragraph of the קריאת שמע in Deut. 6,7 that the father must teach the Torah diligently to his children and seize every opportunity at home and outside, by day and by night to inculcate these precepts in his children’s minds and hearts. Moses adds the words כימי השמים על הארץ, “like the days of the heaven over the earth,” to remind us that this is an ongoing obligation, one without a time limit.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  כי אם שמור תשמרון, “For if you will diligently observe, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that this paragraph too refers to what has been written previously when Moses warned that non-observance of the commandments will lead to exile from the Holy Land. He adds here, by implication, that if these commandments are not observed, there will be no need for an exile as the people will not take over that land in the first place. If you neglect the commandments after you have established yourselves there, your tenure will be short-lived.
  
     ולדבקה בו, “and to cleave to Him;” Ibn Ezra sees in these words the ultimate objective of Torah observance and love of <i>Hashem</i>, i.e. if you will observe all the commandments in the right spirit, you will achieve the closest relationship with <i>Hashem</i> that it is possible for a human being to have, the relationship known as דבקות, cleaving to Him.
      Nachmanides understands these words as a warning, one of the types of warnings against worshipping idols. He bases this on Joshua 23,7-8 where Joshua juxtaposes pursuit of idols with cleaving to <i>Hashem</i> exclusively. In that paragraph of the Book of Joshua we read as follows: “and without intermingling with these nations that are left among you. Do not utter the names of their gods or swear an oath by them; do not serve them or bow down to them. But ‘hold fast,’ to the Lord your G’d, בו תדבקון, as you have done to this day.” Moses, according to Nachmanides, does not aim at what the select few are capable of achieving in the search for closeness to G’d, but he speaks about the minimum that every Jew must strive for.
      It is possible that the reason why Moses introduced the term דבקות here is because by striving for this kind of closeness one concentrates on G’d and what His expectations are of His creatures, so much that one does not have time or desire to explore other religions and what the nations of the world see in them that they pursue those deities. This would again be parallel to Moses’ exhortation to speak to one’s children of the Torah during all hours of the day and night, and in all localities, barring places reserved for excreting. The positive of what we are to do, is matched by the negative, as for instance in the verses quoted from the Book of Joshua. Nachmanides suggests that an ideal relationship with <i>Hashem</i> could be that when one speaks to fellow humans one does so only from the lips outwards, whereas one’s heart, and one’s mind is still tuned in to <i>Hashem</i>, simultaneously. He speculates further that possibly these elitists among us have reached a level of spirituality that can be compared to the wish we express at every funeral that the soul of the departed be enfolded by what our sages have described as צרור החיים, the bundle of eternal life. [Compare Samuel I 25,29, Avigail’s wish to David, and Maimonides’ comment in his <i>hilchot Teshuvah</i>Ed] The words כאשר עשיתם עד היום הזה may be Moses’ way of describing the intimate relationship that existed between G’d and His people, who received a daily portion of heavenly bread, a supply of meat, apparently materializing miraculously, a well that moved with them every step of the way so that drinking water was always at hand in the desert, etc. Joshua, who speaks to the people after these miracles have ceased and the people have begun to live a “normal” life, exhorts them not to forego the intimate relationship with <i>Hashem</i> that had been forged during the years in the desert.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   כל המקום אשר תדרוך כף רגלכם בו לכם הוא, “Every place where the sole of your foot will tread will become yours;” According to our sages (<i>Sifri</i> on our verse) Moses assured the people of two distinctly separate promises here. 1) Any place the Israelites felt they wanted to conquer would not be denied them. Having done so, the commandments of the Torah would apply in any of the lands conquered as the people were under an obligation to conquer the lands as far as the river Euphrates. Secondly, there is another promise,
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   לא יתיצב איש בפניכם, “no one will stand up against you;” neither in the land of Canaan, nor in the surrounding countries will you encounter serious opposition. As far as the opinion expressed by some scholars, that David’s conquest of Syria was in the category of a private conquest, not part of the commandment to conquer the land promised to the patriarchs, the reason is that the campaign had not first been approved by the <i>urim vetumim</i> in the breastplate of the High Priest, this was only because he had not yet conquered all the territory belonging to the seven Canaanite tribes. (Compare <i>Gittin</i> 47<i>)</i>
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ראה אנכי נותן לפניכם היום ברכה וקללה, “See, I present before you this day, a blessing and a curse.” According to the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, the reason why Moses suddenly switches to the singular mode when addressing the whole people, is that he is addressing each one of them as individuals.
      Some commentators feel that Moses’ words, in this instance, were addressed to Joshua, and that he charged Joshua with blessing the people when they would cross the Jordan. Still other commentators feel that all the blessings and curses in the Book of Deuteronomy are expressed in singular mode, there is therefore nothing unusual here.
      A different approach altogether, concentrating on the choice of the introductory word ראה, “See!” describes the different manner between how Moses approaches the Israelites’ choice of their fate to that of the nations at large. When one engages in drawing lots for something, one exercises extreme caution to ensure that neither of the lots is visible to the parties participating in the draw. Moses, in outlining the choices before the Jewish people, makes sure that they can see clearly the choices at each one’s disposal. He therefore urges them to choose “life,” which is equated with “blessing.” He, so to speak, invites the people to let him place his hands on “blessing,” by their choosing to opt for performance of G’d’s commandments. He underlines this even more by not phrasing their choice as “iffy,” i.e. with the word אם, i.e. “if you do so and so you will receive a blessing,” but as something definitive, i.e. אשר תשמעון, “that you will hearken, etc.” The term אשר is also reminiscent of the word אשרי, “hail to.” Moses implies that he already hails them for having chosen correctly.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ונתתה את הברכה על הר גריזים, “you shall deliver the blessing to Mount Gerizim;” <i>Rashi</i> writes: כתרגומו, meaning that he agrees with Onkelos’ translation of the word הברכה as “the ones pronouncing the blessing, i.e. the Levites.”
      Nachmanides does not agree. He argues that seeing that Moses had as yet not instructed the Levites to pronounce these blessings, how could they be the subjects in this verse? He feels therefore that the meaning of our verse is that Moses encourages the people to choose the path of blessing (instead of the path that leads to a curse). This is why he first warned of the alternative in verse 28, explaining that the curse would result from failure to heed the laws of the Torah.
      Moses commanded that the blessing be dispensed on Mount Gerizim, i.e. that there they would bless the people that hearken to the commandments of <i>Hashem,</i> whereas the ones failing to do so would be cursed on Mount Eyval. It is also possible that all the tribes would be blessed, conditionally, and all the tribes would be cursed conditionally. Another scenario could be that the Levites pronounced both the blessings and the curses, or even that a single person pronounced both the blessings and the curses. After that (27,12) Moses explained which tribes were to position themselves on which of the two mountains at that time, and all had to confirm both the blessings and the curses by answering “Amen” when they heard same. The reason why this whole procedure is reported in two sections, part here and part in chapter 27, is that Moses had introduced it here when the people were not on location, whereas in chapter 27 he is at pains to point out that this procedure is to be one of the very first commandments performed as soon as the people had crossed the river Jordan.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ושמרתם לעשות את כל החוקים ואת המשפטים, “you are to carefully perform all the statutes and all the social laws.” Here too, Moses mentions the statutes and social laws ahead of other types of legislation. When mentioning these laws in details, he deals first with the need to abolish all traces of idol-worship, just as he had done in <i>Parshat Vaetchanan</i>.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   לשכנו תדרשו, “you shall seek out His presence.” You are to come from afar and enquire as to the directions you have to travel to get to the location of the Tabernacle/Temple. You are to gradually congregate in larger and larger numbers, each encouraging the other to make the pilgrimage to the House of the Lord.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   מעשרותיכם, “your tithes;” according to <i>Rashi</i> the reference is to the “second” tithe, as well as the tithe of the newly born animals which needs to be consumed in Jeru-salem, (or its equivalent). The expression תרומת ידכם, refers to the first ripe fruit of the seven species for which the Land of Israel is especially famous.
      Nachmanides writes that <i>Rashi’s</i> commentary is indeed the view of our sages of old, (<i>Sifri, 63)</i> whereas the plain meaning of the text Moses mentions refers to the various sacrificial offerings which all need to be consumed within the holy precincts; having mentioned that requirement, Moses adds the various gifts intended for the priests and Levites, encouraging the Israelites to bring these to Jerusalem (or wherever the Temple stood at that time) in order to rejoice together with the priests and Levites who were found there in large numbers. These were not looked upon as poor people in need of a hand out, but as the people’s representatives who performed the service in and around the Temple as delegates of the people at large. He explains the term תרומת ידכם, as an allusion to the generosity, ידכם, of the donor, seeing that as opposed to the tithes, the Torah had not mentioned how much of the harvest had to be reserved for the priest under the heading of תרומה, “heave offering.”
      Personally, (still Nachmanides writing) I feel that the term תרומת ידכם refers to free-willed gifts, or offerings on the altar, not connected to obligatory parts of the harvests that the Torah commanded to set aside for various members of the Jewish society. In connection with offerings for the altar, Moses mentions three separate categories, עולה, burnt offering, none of it being eaten by even the priests, זבח, meat-offerings, the major part of the animal being eaten by the donor, and נדר, or נדבה, different categories of vows that have to be fulfilled by a certain time in the holy precincts. The former was promised formally, using specific wording, giving the animal in question the same status as an obligatory offering, the latter was donated without the donor using predetermined language. (Not having said הרי עלי, “I am assuming the obligation of an offering”, but having simply said: “this will be a free-willed offering.”) The תרומה that Moses speaks of does not refer to livestock, but to money or other chattels that the donor elevated to a degree of holiness by the manner in which he designated it for the Temple treasury. He may even bring an animal of his to the Temple and then proclaim: “this is a gift of mine to be used as the Temple treasurer sees fit.” The wording תרומה in this context reflects what we have read in Exodus 35,24 כל מרים תרומת כסף וגו', “every person who elevates a gift of silver, etc.” As long as this gift had been under the control of the donor it had not yet become sanctified at all. What the returning soldiers handed over to Eleazar in Numbers 31,29 as donations from their loot is referred to as תרומה, although its ritual status was completely secular at the time. The reason why Moses did not refer to תרומותיכם, and said תרומת ידכם, was to prevent us erring and thinking that he referred to gifts which the donor had been obligated by the Torah to bring to the priest, although the size of that gift was at his discretion. The common denominator of all the various items mentioned in our verse was that they had to be present within the holy precincts of the Temple Mount.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   לא תעשון ככל אשר אנחנו עושים פה היום, “Do not do as we are in the habit of doing here this day;” Ibn Ezra writes that what Moses referred to here, according to the plain meaning of the text, as suggested by some commentators, is that the strict division between holy precincts and less holy precincts had been blurred in the desert due to the frequent need to break camp, and to journey. Accordingly, Moses would warn that such liberties as people took in the desert they will not be able to take once the people are settled on their land.
      Ibn Ezra does not agree with this explanation, but he feels that Moses refers to the people in the camp who were not so pious, not so observant, who took liberties with the sacrificial offerings after the death of Aaron. He tells these people that they must bring the firstborn of their animals to the priest as prescribed by Torah law. It is most unlikely that Moses included himself in the laxity practiced, even though he uses the word אנחנו, ”we,” when referring to people doing things that were not approved of.
      Nachmanides explains our verse almost completely different, i.e. Moses referring to restrictive rules that would be relaxed [in some respects, i.e. meat, in order to qualify as food, did not first have to be sanctified. Ed.] After the people were settled on their land.
      While in the desert, anyone wishing to eat meat, his own animal, had to first designate it as a sacrifice and bring it to the courtyard of the Tabernacle where it would be slaughtered. Seeing that the Tabernacle moved from site to site with the people, there was no fixed site where such offerings had to be presented. It was therefore assumed by them that as long as they offered such animals on an altar, say, next to their own tents, this would be all right. Not only that, but if someone did not feel the urge to eat meat, he did not have to bring any animals as sacrificial offerings at all. He therefore did not feel that he had to come to the Tabernacle even on the Holydays if he did not feel like eating any meat. A situation had arisen where the “man in the street” made his own judgments on such matters. Similarly, the impression had spread that as long as those who wanted to eat meat had performed the burning of the parts of the animal meant to be burned on the altar had been burned there and the blood sprinkled, no more had to be done, seeing that each family would have their own altar next to their home. Moses therefore warns that this was not at all what the situation would be like once they would be settled in their land. 
      This is also what our sages had in mind when they said that it was general practice for the Israelites to offer their vows on private altars. [As opposed to the pilgrimages undertaken to the Temple where the requisite offerings for the festival would be offered. compare <i>Zevachim</i> 117. Historically, it is a fact that even under the most pious kings of the Kingdom of Yehudah, until about 100 years before the destruction of the first Temple, during the reign of Yoshiyahu, the practice of private altars on which people sacrificed voluntary offerings to <i>Hashem</i> had not been eradicated. It took over 900 years after Moses’ death to finally accomplish this Compare Chronicles II 34,3 Ed.]
      Our author, commenting on the above, questions the line in which Nachmanides claims that while in the desert the people had not been given permission to offer these private offerings near their respective tents instead of having to bring them to the Tabernacle. He claims that from the above-mentioned comment in the Talmud <i>Zevachim</i> it is clear that such permission did exist regarding offerings known as קדשים קלים, offerings of a relatively lower degree of sanctity, i.e. the ones that could be consumed in their tents by the owners. He concludes that what Nachmanides may have meant by the words “wherever they pleased,” was “within the encamp-ment,” which itself was “holy in the sense that the <i>Shechinah</i> rested over the entire camp all the time.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   כי ירחיב, “When He will expand (your boundaries);” Nachmanides makes the point that the term כי ירחיב, in this paragraph is not to be confused with the expression ואם ירחיב, in 19,8, where the Torah foresees further expansion of the Land of Israel [most commentators consider this a post messianic period. Ed.], but in verse 9 there we read –in connection with the establishment of cities of refuge- that more than the original three on the east bank of the Jordan must be added. In that context the meaning of the word is “when,” in the sense of after completion of the conquest. If the meaning of the two expressions were identical, eating meat that had not first been consecrated as an offering would not be permitted for the Israelites until after Joshua had completed the conquest and settled the people on their allocated parcels of land. In chapter 19 the line we quoted must be understood in connection with the paragraph at the beginning of that chapter, a paragraph which discusses changes that would occur after G’d has more or less wiped out the seven Canaanite tribes from the region of the West Bank of the Jordan. The need to establish additional cities of refuge begins only after the people have been settled. Verse 9 there may even refer to the time when the remainder of the ten tribes mentioned in G’d’s first promise to Avraham in Genesis chapter 15 have also been eliminated. In our verse the reference is to the beginning of the conquest, and according to <i>Chulin 17,</i> בשר תאוה, meat of animals that had been slaughtered without having been consecrated as offerings first, became permissible at once, as soon as settlement began. Even though, on the face of it, permission of such meat appears to be contingent on the owner living far away from the Temple, the words כי ירחק ממך המקום, “when the Temple is far away from you,” (verse 21) is not to be understood as actual physical distance of the individual concerned. The Torah means that when the Israelites, instead of living next to the Tabernacle, as they did for 40 years in the desert, will be scattered throughout the Land of Israel, it would not be practical to require them to come to Jerusalem, to the Temple every time they wanted to eat meat.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   וזבחת וגו...כאשר צויתיך, “you will slaughter…in accordance with what I have commanded you.” Our sages understand these last words to mean that Moses had instructed the people orally in the details of ritual slaughter.
      According to Nachmanides the plain meaning of the words is that Moses refers to the previous occasion in the Book of Leviticus when he had taught the priests all the particulars of ritual slaughter when they had been instructed in the sacrificial Temple service. (Compare <i>Vayikra Rabbah, 22.)</i> At that time the word used by the Torah for ritual slaughter had been ושחט. (Leviticus 1,5 <i>et al)</i> In classical Hebrew the meaning of the word is to sever the trachea and the esophagus of the animal. The reason why a different term for slaughtering has been chosen by Moses on this occasion, is presumably because the word שחט had always been used in connection with animals, some or all of whose blood would be sprinkled on the altar after slaughter, whereas this is not the case when the animal had not been consecrated as an offering. The word זבח implies a secular activity then, but the procedure is the same as that employed for animals to be offered on the altar. The author adds that the verse וישחטם במדבר in Numbers 14,16 refers to the slaughtering of the Jewish people, but not as sacrificial lambs. In that verse Moses puts imaginary words in the mouths of people, about an event that did not even take place. The line could not therefore be used to refute our premise. 
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   אך כאשר יאכל את הצבי ואת האיל, “However only in the manner in which the deer or hart may be eaten;” seeing that while in the desert only peace-offerings could be eaten by laymen, not venison, which by definition are not fit for offering on the altar, the former are subject not to be consumed while one is in a state of ritual impurity, a restriction that does not apply to eating venison of the permitted categories. 
  את הצבי ואת האיל, “the deer and the hart;” [most of what follows is culled from Nachmanides’ commentary, although the author here does not attribute it until much later. Ed.] Two mammals with split hooves, chewing the cud, which, because they are free roaming, cannot be offered as sacrifices in the Temple. It is not the objective of this verse to teach that the fat parts on these free-roaming animals that are similar to those on the domestic beasts, must not be eaten, as they must be burned on the altar; they are permitted, seeing the whole animal has remained profane in status. Moses draws a comparison between cows and deer as different categories of mammals only in that henceforth both types may be eaten also when not in a state of ritual purity. This point is clear by the absence of the word כל, “all of it,” when permitting it to be eaten. Nowhere do we have a verse that says יאכלנו כצבי ואיל alone, without this statement being limited by the context in which it appears. The meaning of the word 
     אך in this instance, is that it introduces a warning. Seeing that prior to the latest piece of legislation it had been forbidden to eat any meat unless the person eating it was ritually pure, and the meat had originally been part of a consecrated animal, and had not been remained uneaten for more than the period allocated to that type of sacrificial offering, I might have thought that all the restrictions applicable to consumption of sacrificial meat did not apply to בשר תאוה, meat from non-consecrated animals, and that it would most certainly be in order to also consume meat from animals that had been consecrated and whose blood had been offered on private altars. Moses therefore is at pains to spell out that the only restriction that does not apply to the eating of such animals is that although allowed to be eaten, the fat parts and the blood must not be eaten, although they are not fit for the altar. The reason why Moses had to warn the people at this juncture once more not to eat blood from non-consecrated animals was because when the prohibition to eat blood was spelled out, the Torah had also stated ואני נתתיו לכם על המזבח לכפר, “I have reserved the blood to serve for you as an atonement on the altar.” (Leviticus 17,11) I might have thought that the prohibition to eat blood applies only to blood that could serve as our atonement, and that therefore blood from non consecrated animals is permitted. Moses makes sure that no one can make such a mistake. In connection with the חלב, the fat on the kidneys and parts of the liver that is burnt on the altar, Moses does not repeat the prohibition as applicable also to non-consecrated animals. The קרב, “the entrails” of consecrated animals (Leviticus 1,13) are not all forbidden, whereas that of non-consecrated animals, are not all permitted.     Furthermore, seeing that here Moses commanded that the manner of slaughtering these domestic mammals that are potentially fit for the altar, is the same as that of doing so for permissible free-roaming animals, I might have concluded that the domestic animals’ blood when the animal slaughtered as בשר תאוה, meat that may be eaten in a state of ritual impurity, needs to have its blood covered (burial) just as does the blood of the free-roaming beasts after slaughter. Moses therefore adds the words: על הארץ תשפכנו כמים, “you shall pour it out on the earth just as you do with water.” (Verse 23) Moses did not say בארץ תשפכנו, which would mean that the blood of such animals has to be buried inside the earth.     There is yet another concern that Moses wanted to address here, again something he was afraid the people might easily misunderstand. It is a fact that while in the desert, none of the שלמים, peace offerings, the ones whose meat are eaten primarily by the owners, could be eaten until after the requisite procedures with its blood had been performed by the priests. It is also a fact that when no such procedures were performed with the free-roaming animals, it was almost automatic that meat would be eaten that still had some blood in it. One might have thought that this was in order, just as one might have thought the same concerning all manner of birds, none of which other than the pigeons are fit for offering on the altar, that therefore such blood would be permissible without the procedure of “burying,” i.e. “covering” it in the earth first. One might also have thought that the birds would not require the same degree of slaughter and that stabbing them to death would suffice. [After all, even with the pigeons that are offered as sacrificial offerings the Torah did not stipulate שחיטה, slaughter, but מליקה, nipping, (Leviticus 1,15) Ed.]      Moses therefore had to spell out that the blood of birds, other than the pigeons and turtle doves which qualify as offerings on the altar, must also be covered, the reason being that the pigeons and turtle doves did not qualify as שלמים, peace offerings on the altar, but only as burnt-offerings or as sin-offerings. In both instances the layman did not get to eat of those. I might therefore have assumed that just as mammals that have not been consecrated as offerings, do not need their blood covered, neither do these birds, or that the blood could be consumed after the bird had been stabbed to death. One might even have assumed that bird’s blood could be eaten and was not included in the prohibition of mammals’ blood. Moses therefore goes on record that it must be poured out, just like water. In fact, pouring out the blood might be misconstrued as a practice customary among the pagans who worshipped demons, satyrs, and the like. Moses therefore repeats that צאן ובקר, most of the bodies of which are offered on the altar, must have almost all the blood poured down the drain of the altar, except for the minute amount sprinkled on the altar. This needed to be repeated in the event that an animal had proven to be unfit as an offering, having developed a blemish that had not existed before. In effect, the blood of such a blemished animal is neither treated like the blood of a sacrificial animal, nor like the blood of an animal that had not been consecrated at all.     Nachmanides writes further on our subject, adding a historical perspective, which explains the apparent change of attitude to blood. Immediately after the Exodus, when the Israelites were still very much under the influence of the practices of the Egyptians, they considered the new desert environment described by Moses as the region in which all these demons and satyrs were at home. (Compare Deut. 32,10 for a description of that howling wilderness.) The Torah had already stated in Leviticus 17,7 that certain sacrificial rites performed in the Tabernacle were designed, among other reasons, of course, to disabuse the people from still offering sacrifices to the demons and slaughtering animals in that process. According to Maimonides, in his <i>Moreh nevuchim</i>, section 3, chapter 46, it was part of that rite that men and beasts, i.e. the satyrs, sat at the same table and shared the blood of the animal sacrificed in their honour. It became essential then as a first step in reeducating the people to establish that slaughtering livestock was acceptable only if its blood was earmarked for the altar of <i>Hashem.</i> Permitting בשר תאוה, eating of meat from animals that had not been first consecrated to <i>Hashem,</i> would have made the task of weaning the Israelites from their former customs so much harder.      Now, however, Moses is addressing a generation who did not have to discard heathen practices as they had been raised under the כנפי השכינה, the protective wings of the presence of <i>Hashem.</i> Therefore, considerations mentioned in Leviticus 17 no longer applied. Moses, i.e. the Torah, was not concerned that once settled in the land of Israel, where due to the distance of most of the people from the Temple, non-consecrated meat had to be made available, did not worry about pouring out the blood. The Egyptians had abhorred cattle and sheep and had not eaten their meat anyways as we know already from when Joseph entertained his brothers at lunch. (Genesis 43,32) However, the Egyptians, great hunters, did feast on venison, and therefore steps had to be taken to prevent the blood of free-roaming bests from being eaten. The Torah therefore decreed burial of a kind for the blood of such animals. (if they were the kind Jews may eat.) Covering such blood with earth would ensure that it is not offered to the satyrs. [Abravanel and others raise many objections against that interpretation, Ed.] 
  
  Verse 23
  
   רק חזק לבלתי אכול הדם, “only remain steadfast not to consume the blood!” Our sages quote this line as proof that the Israelites had been deeply steeped in blood. [The prohibition against eating blood is repeated 7 times in the Torah. Ed.] Nachmanides writes that although the reason given by the Torah here and elsewhere for not eating blood, i.e. that it is equivalent to eating the animal’s life-force, its “animalistic soul,” is certainly adequate, and justifies the many repetitions of that prohibition, he, personally, does not feel satisfied with this reason. There must be some additional reason for Moses exhorting the people by calling out “only remain steadfast, etc.” What is the special steadfastness and faith that Moses believes is necessary in order to withstand the supposed allure of eating blood? Expressions such as the one used by Moses here are normally used when someone is encouraged to keep his courage when going to war, as Moses himself used when he charged Joshua with the task of leading the people after he had gone. (Compare Deut. 31,23) We find such exhortations when they concern the whole range of commandments, but never when they concern the observance of only a single commandment, and especially a negative commandment where one is not required to do something but is only required to refrain from initiating an act of rebellion against G’d!
      But it appears to me that Moses employed this expression because he was aware to what extent the Israelites, while still in Egypt, had clung to this particular kind of idolatrous practice. They had slaughtered animals to these deities, for why else would the Torah in Leviticus 17,7 have accused them of having done so by writing; “so that they will not continue to slaughter to the satyrs, etc.?” They had gathered the blood of these animals in order to present them to the demons and had eaten some of the blood. By doing so they were considered as if they had called upon these demons, especially in order to have their future foretold for them.
      Clearly, that was not the major reason why the Torah prohibited the eating of blood. The Torah has revealed that reason repeatedly when referring to the blood representing the essence of life, and that we must not eat it, as we would absorb too much animalistic “genes” by doing so. G’d has arranged things so that by presenting the animal’s blood to Him on the Altar, it atones for our cardinal sins, resurrects us in a manner of speaking, instead of us becoming more like animals. The Torah was concerned that people who had their future foretold by them after eating blood, and the predictions had come true, that this would be a strong stimulant for other people copying such practices, and it requires great fortitude to withstand such a temptation.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   שמור ושמעת את כל הדברים האלה, “Safeguard and hearken to all these words;” the reason why Moses changed the customary formula of observing various types of commandments by listing them as חוקים, משפטים, עדות וגו', is that he wanted to include matters which go beyond legislated mode of behaviour and which fall under the category of ועשית הישר והטוב, “do what is fair and good,” to go beyond what is demanded of them, in order to demonstrate that they act in the spirit of the Torah voluntarily, not only under compulsion and threat of penalties.
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   איכה יעבדו הגוים האלה את אלוהיהם ואעשה כן גם אני, “how did these nations serve their respective gods, and I will do the same.” Nachmanides, disagreeing with <i>Rashi</i> who sees in these words a warning, writes that these words must not be understood as a warning by Moses not to engage in idolatry. The prohibition not to engage in idolatrous practices had been spelled out often enough. Rather, it is a warning to the people not to adapt heathen forms of worship and apply them to the worship of G’d, as the rituals and pomp and ceremony of the heathens appeals to them, and they thought that all that was wrong with it was that it had been directed at the wrong address. Moses stresses that everything connected to idolatry is a תועבה, an abomination, in the eyes of <i>Hashem</i>.
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   כי גם את בניהם ואת בנותיהם ישרפו באש לאלוהיהם, “for they even burn their sons and daughters by fire in honour of their gods.” Clearly, it must be an abomination to G’d to have His creatures burned when they are free from sin. Moses, in insisting that the Israelites observe כל הדברים all the words that he had commanded them, warns that they must neither add so-called “improvements” of their own, nor must they abolish part of the ritual G’d had commanded them.
      Our sages (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 60) derive from this verse that one is culpable for worshipping idolatry even when one does so in a manner which is most disrespectful according to our mores, seeing it is the method such deities are being worshipped by those believing in them.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, Moses warns at the beginning of the verse: “you must not do so to (or even for) the Lord your G’d,” i e. to worship G’d as they do, on every hill, and in every valley. Neither must you convert such sites to henceforth serve as houses of worship for <i>Hashem.</i>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   כי יקום בקרבך נביא או חולם חלום, “If there will arise among you someone proclaiming himself as a prophet or as someone receiving messages from heaven in a dream, etc.” 
      [There is a bracket by the publisher in my edition that calls attention to a <i>gematriya</i> our author (did not completely) publish in his commentary known as <i>Baal Haturim</i> in which the letters of the word נביא , prophet, (63) are shown to have the same numerical value as the word ובנה, “and her son.” The author did publish the other half of this, i.e. that the word בקרבך is equivalent in numerical value (324) of the words זו האשה (324) “this is the woman,” i.e. the woman experiencing the immaculate conception, who gave birth to the founder of Christianity who was <i>halachically</i> a Jew. Clearly, the author, living as he did in Christian Spain in the 14th century where the Inquisition held sway, did not want to expose himself to the accusation by the Inquisition that he had labeled that man as a false prophet. <i>Chumash</i> editions printed in predominantly Christian countries either omit the author’s comment on this verse altogether or present it in an entirely unintelligible form i.e. that the numerical value of the word בקרבך=the numerical value of the word זו. Ed.]
      To the question why the Torah (Moses) refers to such an impostor as נביא, prophet, the answer is simple, i.e. the Torah calls him by the title this man claims to possess. He claims that G’d appeared to him while he was fully awake and appointed him as His messenger. 
      Nachmanides writes that it is possible that the Torah does not refer to an impostor at all, as some people possess souls that have been endowed with some gift of prophecy. Such people have some knowledge of future events although they themselves do not know the origin of such knowledge. They are in the habit of going into temporary seclusion and during that period and while in such seclusion, a spirit reveals to them parts of future events and the when and where of such events. When his listeners find out that the predictions by such people came true, they refer to him as a “prophet.” While we can only speculate on the source of such “prophets’” knowledge, Nachmanides suggests that possibly the soul of such a person, during its nightly sojourn in heavenly regions, established some kinship with disembodied heavenly beings who divulged such knowledge to his soul.
      Ibn Ezra writes that it is possible that the person described by Moses is someone who had “stolen” his prophetic announcement from a true prophet whom he had overheard as speaking of a vision he had. The “so-called” prophet discussed by Moses uses his knowledge of the true prophecy to establish his credibility concerning additional predictions that he had invented himself. [Compare Jeremiah 23,30 on this subject. Ed.]
  
     ונתן אליך אות ומופת, “and he furnishes you with a sign or a miracle.” Nachmanides defines the meaning of the word אות as a visible sign that what the prophet predicted may indeed come to pass. [If the impostor predicted an event which in his words would occur in, say, three years’ time, he would need something to enable him to enroll his followers before the three years were up. Ed.] He would predict that the “sign” was something that would occur in short order and when it did, it would establish his credibility. The root of the word אות here is analogous to Deut.33, 2 ואתה" מרבבות קודש,“ “having arrived, materialized, with myriads of holy angels.” The word מופת refers to something supernatural that this impostor performs in the presence of all his listeners, immediately, again, in order to establish his credibility as having contact with the supernatural. In both instances the objective of such a “prophet” is not to compete with accredited prophets, but to mislead his listeners into believing that he had had a revelation asking him to make the people “update” their religious beliefs by introducing worship to additional deities. 
      [This editor used to have difficulties with believing that the Jewish people could be naive enough to “fall” for such heretical claims by impostors, until I had learned the passage on Rav Ashi’s nocturnal encounter with the apparition of King Menashe, son of the illustrious King Chizkiyah, and his wife, daughter of the famous prophet Isaiah, and the commentary on that <i>aggadah</i> by Rabbi Yitzchak Arama in his <i>Akeydat Yitzchok.</i> Compare<i> Sanhedrin</i> 102, and this editor’s translation of <i>Akeydat Yitzchok,</i> pages 374-378. Ed.]
      When Moses demonstrated that by throwing his staff on the ground it turned into a snake, and when he took hold of its tail it reverted to becoming a harmless staff, the people were encouraged to believe him when he predicted that G’d had charged him with orchestrating their release from bondage which, of course, would take a little longer to accomplish.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, what Moses speaks about is an impostor who does not even claim to speak in the name of <i>Hashem,</i> but who claims to have been appointed as a prophet for an alien deity, and this is what is meant by ואשר ידבר בשם אלוהים אחרים, “that he speaks in the name of other gods.” 
      He will die, ומת, (compare Deut. 18,20) because this is the penalty for anyone prophesying in the name of other gods whether truthfully or not. That person is guilty of idolatry that carries the death penalty.
      However, our sages (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 90) explain our verse as speaking of a “prophet” who claims to speak In the name of <i>Hashem</i>,” claiming to have been authorized by <i>Hashem</i> to deliver his message that it is now in order to practice some aspect of idolatry, and that the deity in question is a junior partner of <i>Hashem</i> having assisted in the creation of the universe. The impostor may also try to convince you that <i>Hashem</i> is truly a greater G’d than anyone preceding him. This, while sounding harmless to the average Jew, is a basic form of idolatry, because it posits that there was anything of substance before <i>Hashem</i> created the universe. He claims to have been authorized to ask you to acknowledge these earlier gods in some way, even if ever so briefly. All such propositions are equally idolatrous, and the proponent qualifies for the death penalty.
      The Torah here commands explicitly that even if such a “prophet” claims to preach in the name of <i>Hashem</i> and his lifestyle is no different from that of any other pious Jew, these are not any considerations in his favour; he tried to lead you astray, hence he must be executed. The impostor in question dresses up his message by acknowledging the Exodus from Egypt, by acknowledging the revelation at Mount Sinai, etc., as he knows full well that it is useless to even question such historic events which are firmly anchored in the people’s collective psyche. 
      [This is why the founders of the Christian religion built on the truth of the “old” testament, but by updating G’d’s attributes tried to introduce a new version of <i>Hashem</i>. Ed.]
      There never has been another <i>Hashem</i>, there never will be, and His essence or attributes are not subject to change. He revealed Himself at Sinai, in order to leave us in no doubt about all this.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   כי מנסה ה' אלוקיכם אתכם, “<i>Hashem,</i> your G’d is testing you, etc.” the reason why <i>Hashem</i> allows such a person to perform a miracle, or to correctly foretell an unlikely future event, is to put your faith in Him to a test, to see if you will use such people to try and foretell future events for you, thus subverting your absolute faith in Him. During the period in our history when there were prophets, the people when puzzled about events, would indeed turn to the accredited prophet and ask him to enquire from G’d about the meaning of events which they could not reconcile with what they had been taught to expect. Nachmanides has explained that the term ”test” when used by the Torah always refers to how it looks to the person being tested. G’d Himself never needs to test anyone as He is aware of man’s belief and reactions to so-called “tests.”
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  אחרי ה' אלוקיכם תלכו, “You shall follow <i>Hashem</i> your G’d;” Nachmanides interprets these words as Moses urging the people to follow G’d’s advice exclusively, and if they feel the urge to know something in the future because they are consumed with worry, to turn only to Him <i>via</i> His accredited prophets. They are to emulate our matriarch Rivkah, who, when she was unable to account for what by all accounts was an unusual pregnancy, went to “enquire from a Divine source.” (Compare Genesis 25,23)...
   ואותו תיראו, “and Him you shall fear.” You should be secure in your heart that life and death are domains that are exclusively His, only He can decree death, and only He can decree life, therefore there is no point in fearing anyone else. 
     ואת מצוותיו תשמורו, “and His commandments you shall observe;” the Torah taught to you by Moses. 
     ובקולו תשמעו, “and to His voice you shall hearken.” As a prelude to observing all His instructions, the ones communicated by His accredited Rabbis, in addition to that which is spelled out in the written text of the Torah. The reason why Moses appears to repeat himself here to some extent is because he wants to counter any effect of the words of a false prophet. Some people, out of fear that maybe the false prophet is a true prophet and not listening to him could bring harm on oneself, are inclined to “play it safe.“ Moses therefore warns such people not to do so. There is no other authority than <i>Hashem</i> that is authorized to issue any instructions whatsoever to His people. This is all part of the warning in 12,31, לא תעשה כן לה' אלוקיך, “do not do thus to the Lord your G’d.” The exclusivity of the nature of <i>Hashem</i> must be preserved at all times and in all places.     Ibn Ezra understands the words אחרי ה' אלוקיכם תלכו, as an appeal by Moses for the Jewish people to emulate <i>Hashem</i> whenever and wherever that is possible. We are to follow in His footsteps to the extent that He has revealed them to us. The words: ואותו תיראו, he understands as warning us not to ask “why” before we perform His commandments. The words ואת מצותיו תשמורו, he understands as meaning that “performance” of the commandments is what is what is important, not any additional reason of why you do it, i.e. because you agree with it. The words: ובקולו תשמעו, he understands as any explanations, rationales, supporting these commandments being only a reminder of the essential element of each commandment being its performance whenever possible. The meaning of the words ואותו תעבודו, “Him you shall serve,” is “in deed,” whereas the words ובו תדבקון, “and to Him you shall cleave,” mean “with your heart, throughout your life from its beginning to its end.”
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   אשר לא ידעת אתה ואבותיך, “that you did not know, and that your forefathers did not know either.” Moses mentions “your forefathers,” so that in the event that someone close to you, as close as your friend, i.e. even your own father, would try and seduce you to follow idolatrous ways, enquire from the other ”fathers” if they had ever heard of such deities as your own father now proposes that you should worship. They will confirm that your father is lying to you.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   לא תאבה לו ולא תשמע אליו, “do not accede to him and do not hearken to him.” Moses points out that both a mere expression to accede to such requests, or even listening to it without protest and giving the impression that you consider such proposals seriously, is culpable in <i>Hashem’s</i> eyes. 
     ולא תחוס עינך עליו, “and your eye must not pity him,” you must not have pity on him so as not to cause him to be executed. 
     ולא תחמול ולא תכסה עליו, “and do not be compassionate with his plight, nor cover up for him.”
  You must not dodge your duty to testify against such a person in court. 
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ולא יוסיפו לעשות כדבר הרע הזה, “so that they shall not continue to commit such evils.” If the law against people preaching idolatry publicly or privately were not strictly enforced such a “disease” would become an epidemic.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ודרשת וחקרת, “You shall seek information and investigate.” Nachmanides, commenting on this phrase-ology, writes that there is a reason why the Torah urges painstaking investigation in connection with the phenomenon of the עיר הנדחת, the city of which the majority of the inhabitants have adopted idolatry, and also in the case of an individual who is found committing idolatry, whereas the same is not required for the false prophet or the seducer. The self-professed false prophet has already advertised his sin to all the people whom he addressed with his “divinely inspired” message. No court is needed to establish these facts. In the case of the seducer, מסית, the Torah had already called upon his victim or prospective cohort to come forward and to testify against the seducer. It has warned the victim not to be moved by pity. What more could the court do if the people addressed by the Torah fail to come forward? A seducer, who always acts under the cloak of secrecy, cannot be brought to trial except through the cooperation of the victim with the Torah. Knowledge about the first two situations is usually based on rumours first, not on eye-witnesses. The Torah therefore urges not to accept such rumours as fact, but to investigate the accusations thoroughly and without prejudice. 
      We have a similar instruction by the Torah concerning conflicting testimony about a crime or sin by separate sets of witnesses. There too, the Torah (Deut. 19,18) writes: ודרשו השופטים היטב, “the judges must conduct careful examinations etc.,” seeing it is difficult to know which set of witnesses speaks the truth, both having a clean record up to that time.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ונתן לך רחמים ורחמך והרבך, ”He will grant you mercy and be merciful to you and multiply you.” Moses wants us to set aside the concern that by applying death penalties we will decrease the number of Jews, and he promises that, on the contrary, by testifying against such sinners and bringing them to justice, <i>Hashem</i> will see to it that we will continuously increase in numbers.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   בנים אתם לה' אלוקיכם, “You are children to <i>Hashem</i> your G’d;” Seeing that in Leviticus 21,5 the Torah had forbidden the priests to make bald spots on their heads and their flesh as signs of mourning because even in mourning they are not truly orphans, being holy unto G’d, Moses wants to assure the people at large that they are no less beloved by <i>Hashem</i> than are the priests. All the Israelites are holy, and all are <i>Hashem’s</i> children. As proof of this, they are to observe the same restriction spelled out for the priests already in Leviticus. According to the tradition cited by our sages (<i>Sifri 89</i>), the prohibition mentioned here applies only to such incisions when they are made as signs of mourning for a dead relative, both in the case of ordinary Israelites and in the case of the priests. (Although the prohibition in Leviticus did not mention the word למת.) 
      Ibn Ezra writes that seeing that you have been told that <i>Hashem</i> considers you as His children and He loves you more than a mortal father loves his children, you must not register your dismay at what you perceive as something that <i>Hashem</i> has done to you by disfiguring the body He has lovingly given to you. Just as you know that a mortal father’s actions are always motivated by his love for his son, so G’d’s actions are even more definitely motivated by what He knows as being good for His children, even if at the time we, His children, are unable to understand this. We must always subscribe to the cliché of “Father knows best.”
      It is possible that the reason that this prohibition first appeared as if it applied only to the priests was that when a priest engages in such disfiguration he thereby disqualifies himself from performing his duties in the Temple until such a blemish has healed. Now the time had come to extend this prohibition also to the ordinary Israelites.
      <i>Rashi</i> explains that seeing that you are <i>Hashem’s</i> children it is incumbent upon you not to disfigure “His” property. Ultimately, your body belongs to Him.
      Nachmanides disagrees with <i>Rashi,</i> saying that if he were correct this prohibition would apply also if it did not involve mourning for a dead person.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   כי עם קדוש אתה, “for you are a holy nation.” Moses reminds the people that we, the Jewish nation, are not like other nations; therefore you must not conduct yourselves as they do.
      Some commentators phrase it thus: Moses, by reminding the people that they are all G’d’s children, explains that there would not be any point in disfiguring oneself even if one loses father or mother, as we always retain our immortal Father, <i>Hashem.</i> 
      Personally, (Nachmanides writing) I believe that the principal meaning of the words כי עם קדוש אתה is an assurance that every Israelite basically is entitled to a life after the death of his body, i.e seeing that you are a holy nation, and that you are children of <i>Hashem,</i> you are not even the kind of creature that could die in the accepted sense of the word, i.e. that the death of your body would mean the end of your existence. Seeing that this is so, your parents when no longer “clothed” in a physical shell known as “body,” are not really dead, and therefore you did not suffer the kind of loss that gentiles suffered when they lose their parents. If, nonetheless, weeping, and other forms of mourning, were not outlawed for you by <i>Hashem</i>, this is a concession to the nature of human beings who upon being irrevocably being separated from their near and dear ones, express their grief in this fashion. Our sages, keeping in mind our verse, have decreed that such mourning must not exceed the limits prescribed by our sages.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   לא תאכל כל תועבה, “You must not eat anything that is an abomination.” Nachmanides writes that this wording [the additional word כל, all, Ed.] expands the prohibition we have been taught in Leviticus chapter 11 in the sense that it teaches that the reason why eating the foodstuffs mentioned is forbidden, is because their consumption would leave a spiritually negative effect on our pure, G’d-given souls.
      The meaning of the term תועבה whenever it appears, is “something hateful and despicable,” the common denominator of the forbidden foods being that if absorbed by our tissue they are apt to leave behind an effect of deadening our spiritual impulses. The reason why the Torah actively promotes the eating of the fowl labeled טהור, is to contrast them with the vast majority of birds that are טמא, ritually impure, the flesh not being suitable to feed a pure soul. It is therefore a general rule to be remembered that everything the Torah has forbidden us, -although it had expressly permitted it for the rest of mankind in Genesis 9,3- is an abomination. The Torah does not need to repeat this again and again when referring to low life such as creeping reptiles large and small, -as most civilized persons, even gentiles refrain from eating these creeping creatures;-but by giving us the details of how to recognize animals that are “pure”, as well as forbidding consumption of the flesh of even such animals when they have died from natural causes, as opposed to ritual slaughter, it delineates clearly the creatures and their respective condition before death, that do not fall under the heading of תועבה, abomination. The consumption of animals that are suffering from a terminal disease or injury is not specifically mentioned as forbidden under the same heading, as the reason is not that they confer negative spiritual influences when eaten, but that they infect the person eating them with something physically poisonous but not spiritually poisonous.
      Our sages (<i>Kiddushin</i> 57<i>)</i> derive from the wording כל צפור טהורה תאכלו, “you may to eat every ritually pure bird,” (verse 11) [and the apparent repetition, slightly amended in verse 20 of כל עוף טהור תאכל, Ed.] that the live bird which served as part of the offering of the person healed from the dreaded <i>tzoraat</i> skin disease (compare Leviticus 14,8) has not been infected and is therefore potentially fit for consumption by Jews (if caught without injury after having been released) The emphasis by the Torah on the word טהורה in verse 11 is to tell us that the ritual impurity from which the person afflicted with <i>tzoraat</i> is infected does not transfer to the bird, as no living creatures other than man is susceptible to that kind of disease. None of G’ds creatures other than man, is susceptible to transmittable ritual impurity before it dies.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   וזה אשר לא תאכלו, “this is the type of bird you may not eat;” this includes birds which have undergone ritual slaughter. The following had to be stated explicitly, as once no longer alive, such birds are susceptible to ritual impurity. One might have thought since the ritual impurity that had left the person stricken with <i>tzoraat</i> had been transferred to his offering, that offering had become contaminated. The Torah therefore indicates that this is not the case.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   כי עם קדוש אתה, “for you are a holy nation.” Nachmanides writes that Moses deliberately wrote the prohibition of mixing milk and meat right next to the reminder that we are a holy nation, to remind us that although milk and meat cannot be considered abominable foods, else how could each by itself be perfectly acceptable, but in order to remind us that we are not merely not abominable, not despicable, but on a much higher spiritual level, one that needs to concern itself also with more refinement in matters physical and material. A holy nation does not display signs of inhumanity, ruthlessness, and insensitivity, even when relating to its domestic animals. Milking a mother animal in order to boil its young in that milk is considered an act of extreme insensitivity towards both of the animals involved. Even though mixing any kind of milk with any kind of meat is included in the prohibition listed here, so that in the vast majority of situations the element of insensitivity <i>vis a vis</i> specific animals is not involved, seeing that basically any nursing woman or animal is considered as a “mother,” first and foremost, and every suckling is considered as a גדי, “kid,” observing this law brings home the underlying motive contained in it to each one of us. 
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   היוצא השדה, “that emerges from the field, etc.” The Torah took it for granted that the reader mentally adds the word מן, “from,” after the word היוצא.
      Some commentators understand the words היוצא השדה as referring back to the word תבואת “yield of, harvest of,” in the earlier part of our verse. The message- i.e. what additional information does the expression היוצא השדה yield for us, would be that even the seed used in planting is also subject to the laws of tithing.
      Even though we read in the text the words כל תבואת זרעך “all the produce of your seeds,” this is not meant literally, as there are crops that do not require tithing, except for the categories of crop spelled out by the Torah in verse 23, i.e. grain, wine, and oil. The word דגנך, loosely translated as “your grain,” comprises five species of grain, the kinds subject to becoming fermented, i.e. wheat, barley, oats, spelt and rye. The meaning of the word תירוש is new wine that has not yet fermented. The word יצהר refers to the oil from olives. The meaning of the line עשר תעשר את כל תבואת זרעך therefore is: “make certain that you properly tithe all the types of harvests that are subject to the laws of tithing.” The words היוצא השדה are a warning not to be overly eager and give tithes of grain still in the ground or fruit still on the tree, seeing that the tithe is subject to being measured and even a generous “over”-tithing (giving by estimate but definitely more than the required 10%) would invalidate the whole procedure and leave the crop as טבל, untithed, and therefore forbidden food.
      The plain meaning of the text is designed to teach us that even grapes and olives do not become subject to the laws of tithing (from a Biblical perspective) until after the olives have been converted into oil, and the grapes into wine. The expression שנה, שנה, usually translated as “annually,” means [<i>halachically</i> speaking, Ed.] that the duty to tithe in the manner described applies during two successive years at the beginning of the <i>shemittah</i> cycle. At the end of the third year of that cycle any remaining tithes from the previous two crops plus the new crop’s tithes have to be distributed to the poor, the second tithe during the third and sixth year of the cycle is not consumed by the owner in Jerusalem, but instead is shared out among the poor, as distinct from the first tithe which is given to a Levite.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   מקץ שבע שנים תעשה שמיטה, “At the conclusion of seven years you shall institute a remission.” Nachmanides writes that in his view the Torah here refers to the whole year being made into a “remission,” i.e. no pursuit of agriculture either at planting time or at harvest time, precisely as implied by the words (Exodus 23,11)—והשביעית, תשמטנה ונטשתה “and in the seventh year, leave it untended and abandon it.” The words תעשה שמטה in our verse are a variation of the words quoted from Exodus. You are to relate to your agricultural duties in the seventh year just as you relate to your business or vocational concerns on the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath. What Moses adds here is that in addition to being a year of “vacation,” from hard labour in exchange for devoting that time to spiritual matters, i.e. devoting your time directly to matters of G’d, is that you are also to take a “vacation” from collecting bad debts, overdue loans. In Jewish law this is known as שמטת כספים, a year of remitting, i.e. forgiving, of outstanding debts. Any outstanding debts that you could not collect by the end of that year, the Torah asks you to forgive.
      Ibn Ezra understands the word מקץ as meaning “at the beginning.” He argues that the beginning and the end of something are called מקץ, i.e. every line has two ends, or two beginnings, both extremities at either end are called קץ. Nachmanides disagrees, seeing that the beginning of a cycle of seven years is known as השנה הראשונה, with the emphasis in the cardinal number “the first.” Had the Torah spoken of מקץ השנה השביעית , Ibn Ezra’s commentary would have been acceptable.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, it seems obvious that the word מקץ here means “at the end,” as everything has a beginning and an end. Similarly, any string of numbers has a beginning and an end, Number 1 is considered the ראש, head, beginning of the sequence, and number 10 is deemed to be the end, סוף of such a sequence of 10 numbers. Seeing that, as I explained, the verse speaks about the remission of work on the land, the description מקץ clearly denotes the end of the year, harvest time. The meaning of מקץ is the same as the word בקץ, or בסוף, both meaning “at the end.” We encounter the word in connection with the lid of the Holy Ark upon which were mounted two cherubs, described as כרוב אחד מקצה מזה וכרוב אחד מקצה מזה, “one cherub at the one end, and another cherub at the other end.” (Exodus 25,22) Nachmanides continues at length, but I have decided to condense his commentary.
      It follows that the words מקץ שבע שנים refer to the beginning of the eighth year, seeing that the end of the seven years had just occurred.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   את הנכרי תגוש, “You may “dun” the gentile (who owes you money) for repayment.” According to <i>Rashi,</i> based on<i> Sifri</i> 113 this is a positive commandment, i. e this positive commandment applies only in your dealing with the gentiles, not in your dealings with fellow Jews who are considered as your brothers. This is an example [i.e. not to dun fellow Jews, Ed.] of a negative commandment not spelled out but arrived at by deductive reasoning from a positive commandment that has been spelled out. It means that if you “dun” a fellow Jew you have violated both a positive and a negative commandment simultaneously. 
      According to Maimonides (positive commandment #142) both commandments are viewed as positive commandments, i.e. remitting loans that are past due to fellow Jews, and insisting on repayment on loans made to gentiles, just as it is a positive commandment to charge a gentile interest on loans extended to him. 
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   כי לא יחדל אביון מקרב הארץ, “for destitute people will not cease to exist within the land.” Nachmanides writes that some commentators (notably Ibn Ezra, whom he does not name in this context) write that Moses means that there never will be a time when no one is destitute in the land of Israel, seeing that Moses in his prophetic vision foresaw that the Jewish people would never observe Torah law in their entirety, without exception, so that the presence of a destitute person would be unimaginable. The law not to dun creditors at the end of the seventh year of the <i>shemittah</i> cycle therefore envisages such situations.
      Nachmanides finds this approach difficult, as it is not the custom of the Torah to engage in the kind of prophesy that accuses the Jewish people ahead of time of disloyalty to G’d without qualifying such a prophesy with a conditional phrase such as “if in the course of time, etc.” introducing such a prophecy. It is uncharacteristic for the Torah to legislate one of the basic commandments as something to be applicable to people who have been labeled beforehand by the Torah as deliberate sinners. He therefore prefers to explain our verse as follows: seeing that in spite of the blessings that accrue to you when you do observe the laws of the Torah, and the resultant affluence in the land it is practically impossible that sometime in the future there will be not be an instance of a destitute person, unable to repay his loan on time, one must not dun such a fellow Jew at the end of the <i>shemittah</i> year to repay his loan, but must forgive it. The reason Moses adds the words: בקרב הארץ, is to include not only the narrowly defined borders of the seven Canaanite tribes, but to include other regions in which the Jews are settled at the time in question. This somehow expands what Moses had defined in verse 7 as specifically “your land that <i>Hashem</i> gives you.” Now he envisages the possibility of exile and wants us to practice the law of remitting overdue debts even in exile, where the whole <i>shemittah</i> legislation does not apply, seeing we have no land to practice it on, and even if we did, the land is not a “holy land.”
  
     ולאביונך בארצך, “and to your destitute in your land.” The word בארצך, “in your land,” is problematic seeing that supporting the needy is not a commandment dependent on residence in the land of Israel. The same question can be raised against the phrasing of verse 7, where Moses mentions the law as applying “in one of your gates, in your land, etc.” Perhaps the intention in both instances is to teach that as long as the poor in the land of Israel and the poor in the Diaspora both appeal for help, the poor in the land of Israel are to be given precedence.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   שמור את חודש האביב, “You shall observe the month of spring, etc.” The Torah in Leviticus, chapter 23 has already provided us with a list of these festivals and details regarding their observance as well as the communal offerings to be offered by the priests on those occasions. [Also, more specifically, in Numbers chapter 28. Ed.] This is why Moses does not repeat the legislation concerning these offerings. The emphasis in this chapter is on the duty for the male adults to make the three pilgrimages to the Temple each year in order to pay one’s respects to the <i>Shechinah,</i> the benevolent presence of <i>Hashem</i> in the Temple. Although certain of G’d’s blessings may only be consumed within the boundaries of the holy city of Jerusalem, notably the second tithe, (at anytime of the year), there are three fixed dates when such appearances are mandatory. Whereas Moses does not repeat the precise dates of these festivals, the Torah having done so twice already, he does repeat the months in which these festivals occur.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   וזבחת פסח לה' אלוקיך, צאן ובקר, “you are to slaughter the <i>Pessach</i> offering for the Lord your G’d consisting of the flock and the cattle;” Nachmanides writes that from the plain text, as compared with 14,4, the meaning of such words as צאן, בקר is illustrated as respectively שור and שה, oxen and sheep. This would lead us to believe that Moses includes an ox or calf as a possible candidate for the <i>Pessach</i> offering. Seeing that elsewhere (Exodus 12,3-4) the Torah had restricted the animals fit to serve as the <i>Pessach</i> offering to being a male sheep or goat both below the age of I year, the term בקר, cattle used by Moses here must refer to the unspecified offering called חגיגה, festival offering, which may consist of any of the domestic mammals normally offered on the altar as a שלמים, peace-offering. Each individual will bring the type of animal he can afford to discharge the commandment not to appear before the Lord empty handed. (Verse 16) The fact that the formula used by Moses here, i.e. וזבחת פסח...צאן ובקר is similar though not identical with such formulas elsewhere where it says מן הצאן ומן הבקר תקריבו את קרבנכם, (Leviticus 1,2) makes it clear that what is discussed here is not the Paschal lamb but the accompanying <i>chagigah</i> offerings.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ולא ילין מן הבשר אשר תזבח בערב ביום הראשון לבוקר, “no flesh that you offer on the previous evening shall remain overnight until morning.” Nachmanides writes that the reference is to the offering presented on the first night of this seven-day holiday. Neither the calendar date of the first day of Passover nor the evening ushering it in, had been mentioned by Moses in this paragraph. Seeing that the consumption of the Paschal lamb and when and how it is to be eaten and consumed has been described repeatedly, Moses only repeats a ruling here that applies beyond the time of its being offered, namely not to allow it to become נותר, left over offering, something basically an affront to the sanctity of consecrated meat, and to G’d.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ובשלת ואכלת, “you are to roast it and eat it.” Actually, ובשלת means to prepare it so it is fit to be eaten; seeing that the Torah had forbidden for it to be boiled in water, etc., already in Exodus 12, Moses refers to the known manner of its preparation, i.e. roasting on the spit.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   וביום השביעי עצרת לה' אלוקיך לא תעשה מלאכה, “and on the seventh day you will observe an assembly for <i>Hashem</i>; on that day no work is to be performed.” Nachmanides draws to our attention that Moses here has not referred to the prohibition to carry out work on the first day of Passover, neither did he refer to the work prohibition on <i>Shavuot</i> or <i>Sukkot</i>, just as he did not refer to the commandment of the four species to be used on the <i>Sukkot</i> festival. The New Year holiday and the Day of Atonement are similarly omitted altogether in this chapter. The reason is that Moses’ main concern in this chapter is to emphasise the commandment to make the pilgrimages to the Temple on the three festivals on which they are mandatory. The reason why the work-prohibition on the seventh day of Passover is highlighted, is that on that day <i>matzah</i> does not have to be eaten, it is eaten voluntarily only because leavened bread is prohibited, a law that had as yet not been sufficiently defined. The wording וביום השביעי, וגו' is a hint that though we might have thought that by eating <i>matazh</i> for 6 days, as mentioned in our verse, that this concludes the Passover festival, it is not so, but the seventh day is special, including a work prohibition. We might have thought it is special only in that we continue to eat מצה, but the fact is that it is a full-scale festival, no work is to be performed. It is distinguished as such by the presentation of another fire offering of a communal character in honour of the day. [It is, of course, the anniversary of the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, and the drowning of the Egyptian army in its waves and, being so, concludes the celebration of the Exodus. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   מהחל חרמש בקמה, “when the sickle is first out to the standing grain.” The precise date when this occurs has already been spelled out in Leviticus 23,15 as being the 16th of <i>Nissan</i>.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   במקום אשר יבחר ה' אלוקיך לשכן שמו שם, “in the place that the Lord your G’d will choose to rest His name there.” Nachmanides explains that the message of our verse is that once the Temple will be erected, the communal sacrifices on the festivals will not again be presented in any other location. This has already been hinted at once before in verse 5 where the Torah (Moses) stated that once in the Holy Land, the Israelites would not be allowed to sacrifice the Paschal lamb (an individual offering) in any of the towns that they dwelled in. It is also possible that the meaning of our verse is that the previously legislated pilgrimages on these festivals will not become applicable until the permanent Temple has been built in that location.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ושמרת ועשית את כל החוקים האלה, “You shall observe and perform all these decrees.” Nachmanides says that the reason why Moses applied the term חוקה, decree, to these festivals, is because the Torah did not offer a rationale for the observance of the festival of <i>Shavuot,</i> and it did not offer a rationale why this festival is to be observed 50 days after the offering of the Paschal lamb. Some commentators answer the question simply by saying that seeing this is the anniversary of the giving of the Torah, and its observance does not depend on G’d offering His reasons for the legislation, it deserves to be described as a חוקה, legislation by decree.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   שבעת ימים תחוג לה' אלוקיך, For seven consecutive days you shall celebrate to the Lord, your G’d;” this imperative is directed at the entire community, or Moses exhorts every individual to offer up his burnt offerings and his peace offerings.
  
     כי יברכך ה' אלוקיך, “for the Lord your G’d has bestowed blessings on you;” the seven days of jubilation are in respect of all the blessings <i>Hashem</i> has bestowed upon you.
      Some commentators hold that the blessings referred to are in the future [just as the word יברכך is in the future tense Ed.] At that time, instead of rejoicing for only seven days, your life will be one of ongoing joy.
      It is noteworthy that the expression שמחה does not appear in conjunction with the holiday of Passover, seeing that the stalks of the crop are still in the ground and it is premature to rejoice in a harvest that has not yet been brought in. By <i>Shavuot,</i> when part of the crops of the field and orchards have been reaped, but have not yet been stored, the rejoicing is for one day only. By the time <i>Sukkot</i> has rolled around it is time to rejoice in thanksgiving for a full week. The Torah therefore, repeats the word שמחה, joy, in that connection
  
     ובכל מעשה ידיך, “and in all your handiwork.”.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   שופטים ושוטרים, “Judges and enforcement officers,” Moses appended this portion immediately after that dealing with the festivals involving pilgrimage to Jerusalem, to tell us that although he commanded us to make the pilgrimages to the place where the priests perform their service and you have an opportunity to consult with them on any matter that is of concern to you, be it of a legal or ritual nature, this is not sufficient, and you must appoint the appropriate mechanism in every city, i.e. judges and enforcement officers.
      Nachmanides writes that actually, already in Exodus 21,6 and 22,7 the Torah clearly presumed the existence of a judiciary, i.e. אלהים, as well as פלילים; the addition here is the command to appoint enforcers of the judgments handed down. Here we also learn that such institutions must be established in all towns in the land of Israel. When someone feels that he has been wronged, it is up to him to cry out, i.e. to demand that the judges meet to hear his complaint. (Compare Ezekiel 44,24) According to what is written here, Jewish communities in the Diaspora do not require permanent courts, etc., but these are convened on an <i>ad hoc</i> basis. This is also the view of Maimonides (<i>hilchot Sanhedrin</i> 1,2).
  
     לשבטיך, “according to your tribes.” <i>Rashi</i> explains this to mean that every tribe must establish such courts in each of its cities. This means that a city populated by members of different tribes has to establish at least two separate courts.
      Nachmanides writes that it is possible to understand our verse to mean that there should be a tribal high court for each tribe. The members of that high court, as one of their tasks, have to oversee the appointment of lower courts in each city under their authority. Litigants are not free to choose a court other than that in the city where they live. This applies even if two litigants resident in the same city agree to take their case to a court in another city, this is also forbidden. The local court can force any litigant belonging to that tribe to appear before it, even if the litigants themselves prefer to appear before that tribe’s supreme court instead. The tribal high court, however, can demand that certain litigants have their case dealt with by that court (instead of the local court). If the need arises to rectify some impropriety or deficiency in the tribal courts’ set up, the problem must be dealt with by the <i>Sanhedrin,</i> the Supreme Court. Details about the functions of this Supreme Court are discussed in tractate <i>Horyot.</i> The local courts are obligated to operate on the basis of the instructions they receive from the Supreme Court.
      The plain meaning of our verse is “you have to appoint judges that are members of your respective tribes, so that members of a certain tribe will be judged by judges belonging to that tribe, in the various cities.”
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   צדק, צדק תרדוף, “Righteousness, righteousness, you shall pursue!” According to Nachmanides the reason why Moses repeated the word צדק here is to exhort not only the judges to pursue righteousness but also the ordinary citizen to pursue every avenue to ensure that public affairs are run on a basis of righteousness. Judges appointed to a court must be people possessed of a blameless reputation. [Sodom also had judges, but what judges! Ed.]
      Ibn Ezra writes that the reason the word appears twice is to teach that righteousness must be pursued regardless of whether it results in one’s advantage or even if it is liable to result in one’s disadvantage. Alternately, Moses repeated the word to encourage you to make this pursuit something that is not restricted to a one-time effort, but to urge to keep striving for righteousness.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   לא תטע לך אשרה, “Do not plant for yourself a tree that symbolises idolatry.” Nachmanides writes that any tree planted at the entrance of the Temple is described as אשרה, suggesting that a reason for this might be the fact that in Psalms 50,23 the words ושם דרך אראנו, instead of using the conventional translation, could be read with the letter ש having the dot on the right, so that it would mean “and there I will show him the way.” When Bileam (Numbers 24,17) speaks about visions he has, he describes them also as אשורנו, the same as אראנו, “I will see it.” If in the popular parlance of the gentiles, such trees are spiritually symbolic, the Torah does not want us to employ idolaters’ symbols in connection with our spiritual Center. [Moreover, we must not confuse the holiness of beauty (in nature) with the beauty of holiness. [My version of the concept. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ולא תקים לך מצבה, “neither are you to erect a pillar for yourself;” <i>R</i>ashi explains that even if that pillar is not in honour of idolatry but in honour of <i>Hashem</i>, this is not an acceptable venue for honouring <i>Hashem</i>.
      Nachmanides writes that if <i>Rashi</i> were correct then Moses should also have prohibited the erecting of altars, seeing that this is also a cultural symbol of all idolaters and we are commanded not to copy their cultural mores (Leviticus 18,3). Moreover, the Torah expressly commanded us to destroy all such altars, not only not to erect them. (Compare Deut. 12,3) Perhaps we need to understand what is written here in light of historical facts. The Canaanites, i.e. every one of them, owned a pillar used for idolatrous purposes, whereas only a minority of them actually built altars to offer sacrifices to their deities. Hence, Moses draws a distinction between the two types of idolatrous symbols.
      Personally, (Nachmanides continuing) I believe that the Canaanites erected altars in each one of their temples for the purpose of offering sacrifices thereon; at the entrance to each temple they had erected a tall pillar on which their priests stood. Beyond that, at the entrance they had planted decorative trees in order to serve as landmarks for the people approaching the temple. The local Christian population in that country does so even in our time. <i>Hashem</i> hates all their “cultural” displays and He outlawed every pillar and every tree located in an entrance of a temple, house of worship. He did not outlaw altars altogether, as they are needed for facilitating the Jewish way of presenting sacrifices to <i>Hashem</i>. In Yaakov’s time this prohibition was not yet in force, as the general principle of ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו, “do not adopt any of their religious or cultural mores,” had not yet been legislated. This is why Yaakov had been free to anoint pillars, erect altars, and the like in order to worship <i>Hashem</i> Nowadays, after the revelation, all of this has been outlawed as it would create the impression that we are not so different from other religions. Or, we would even stoop as low as to bow down to a אבן משכית, a flooring stone. (Leviticus 26,1) [Mosaic flooring with or without images as part of the pattern]
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   לא תזבח לה' אלוקיך צאן ובקר, “You shall not slaughter for the Lord your G’d an ox or lamb (that is blemished);” after having told the people that erecting an <i>asherah</i> or pillar, even in honour of <i>Hashem</i> is prohibited, Moses warns now that when offering animal sacrifices on the altar designated for this, the animals used must be free from any kind of blemish.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   כי ימצא בקרבך, “if there will be found in your midst,” Nachmanides comments that it is commonplace for the Torah, whenever addressing the laws known as משפטים, laws dealing with inter-personal relations, that the first item on the list that follows always deals with idolatry or with those practicing it. 
  
     איש או אשה, “a man or a woman, etc.” Seeing that it is part of the psyche of women to tend to inadvertently commit idolatrous acts by consulting soothsayers, or generally turning to people who claim to know the future, they tend to be impressed by people performing acts that demonstrate their extra-sensory capabilities. We find Biblical proof of this in Jeremiah, chapter 44.15 and onwards     In the <i>Sifri</i> the reason for the separate mention of man and woman in this verse is explained as due to the fact that when speaking about the עיר הנדחת, Deut. 13,14, the Torah had described the guilty persons as אנשים, men, to indicate that if the instigator had been a woman the whole legislation of a city that had allowed itself to be seduced does not apply, the Torah had to emphasise that in the case of individual idolaters no difference is made between the punishment for men and women.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   והוגד לך ושמעת, “and you have been informed, and you will hear, etc.” The apparent repetition of the same thought means that whenever and wherever this accusation is brought to your attention you must immediately commence an investigation. As soon as you establish that the rumours you have heard are factual, you have to lead the guilty party to his or her place of execution where you will stone the guilty party to death.
  
     נעשתה התועבה הזאת בישראל, “this abominable thing has indeed been carried out in (the land of) Israel;” the wording suggests that this legislation also applies in the Diaspora, seeing the word בקרבך which is used in the legislation of עיר הנדחת in conjunction with the word תועבה has been omitted here. The word בישראל at the end of this verse makes it clear that such conduct cannot be ignored in any Jewish community wherever it is located.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   על פי שנים עדים, “based on the testimony of not fewer than two eye-witnesses;” Ibn Ezra explains that seeing the words והוגד לך ושמעת in verse 4 sound as if the first verse speaks about information obtained clandestinely, whereas the word ושמעת refers to openly received information, but not information by eye-witnesses, etc., I might have concluded from the wording in verse 5 וסקלתם באבנים ומת, “you shall stone the party in question to death,” that this is sufficient to convict such people. The Torah had to state that no matter what, without two reliable eye-witnesses against the accused no conviction, and certainly no execution can take place.
      Rav Saadyah gaon explains the words על פי שנים עדים או על פי שלשה עדים to mean that the testimony of the two witnesses must be submitted to no fewer than three judges. [This has not been found in Rav Saadyah gaon’s writings, and in my edition of Ibn Ezra, he does not attribute it to him, but to some unnamed scholars. Ed.]
      Nachmanides questions the validity of such an interpretation seeing that the text does not remotely refer to the people who are supposed to accept this testimony and to act upon it. Besides, seeing that the Torah discusses capital offences, we have a rule that no court composed of fewer than 23 judges may deal with cases involving capital punishment. The plain meaning of the text, according to Nachmanides, is that if there are no more than 2 eye witnesses to the offence mentioned, this suffices to hand down a death penalty, provided the testimony of the two witnesses is above reproach. Some commentators say that the meaning of the verse is that if one set of two witnesses contradicts what a set of three witnesses testifies, two of the testimonies cancel each other out and the remaining witness is decisive. This works either in favour of the accused or against him or her..
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   דברי ריבות בשעריך, “matters of dispute in your respective cities;” <i>Rashi</i> understands this verse not as referring to strife of a secular nature, but to disagreements amongst Torah scholars on how to rule in a matter brought to them for a binding decision. One group of sages tends to declare the object under discussion as ritually pure, whereas the other group disagrees.
      Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text the words בין דם לדם, refer to murder that has been committed, and there is a disagreement as to who is guilty of committing it. The words בין דין לדין refer to disputes involving money, or money due as compensation. The words בין נגע לנגע refer to injuries of different kinds caused to people or to the status of houses afflicted with what appears to be <i>tzoraat.</i> Finally, the words דברי ריבות בשעריך refer to any kind of disagreement between scholars or laymen. The phraseology, i.e. the examples, quoted in the text, has been chosen on the basis of what occurs most frequently. Disputes involving human relations and their belongings are much more frequent than disputes involving finer points of religious ritual. This is why Moses concludes with reminding the people that all of these disputes must be resolved, even by the highest tribunal, on the basis of the revealed law of <i>Hashem,</i> the Torah, and the judges must show that they have ruled on the basis of Torah law.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ימין או שמאל, “to the right or to the left.” <i>Rashi</i> says that even if the ruling is such that it appears what the man in the street knows to be right as being left, and vice versa, i.e. that you are convinced that the decision is flawed, you must accept their decision and conduct yourself in accordance with it. You cannot, because of your conscience, say that you refuse to eat a piece of חלב, fat tissue forbidden on pain of the <i>Karet</i> penalty, that you are certain is such in spite of the Supreme Court’s decision to the contrary. The following is how Nachmanides elaborates on the words of <i>Rashi.</i>
      It was necessary for Moses to spell this out, seeing that the Torah was given to the people as a written document, and it is common knowledge that not a single letter in that document will ever be changed or tampered with. If it were possible to do that, we would soon have numerous such books, each claiming to be the original Torah. This is why in that same written Torah we needed to have a verse explaining the absolute authority of the leading scholars of the nation to interpret the Torah according to approved guidelines. It is not necessary for these Torah scholars to have received that particular piece of legislation, or interpretation, from Moses directly. Basically, Moses teaches that the Torah that will be taught to us after his death, will be taught to us on the basis of how these scholars understood and interpreted it. It is irrelevant if minor scholars, or learned individuals are convinced that the Supreme Court had erred in a specific ruling.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ואמרת אשימה עלי מלך, “and you will say: “I will appoint a king as ruler over myself;” Nachmanides writes that according to the opinion of our sages (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 20<i>)</i> what sounds here as optional, depending on <i>vox populi,</i> is in fact one of the basic 613 commandments. It is one of the three commandments that would not become operational until after the people were firmly established in the land. In that respect it is similar to the legislation about making a railing on top of the roof of your house, (Deut. 22,80) a commandment that can also not be fulfilled until the conditions are ripe. The reason why Moses prefaces this commandment with the words: ואמרת, “when you will say,” is that the request to appoint a king must originate with the people, and they in turn have to submit it to the ruling authority at that time, the High Court. Nachmanides sees in this verse an allusion to future developments, when the people came to the prophet Samuel and requested that he appoint a king over them. (Samuel I chapter 8) 
      [The fact that such a request for central government did not surface for well over 400 years after Joshua’s conquest of the land, says something about the traditional disinclination of the Jewish people to be governed. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   אשר יבחר ה' אלוקיך בו, “whom the Lord your G’d will choose.” According to numerous commentators the meaning is that G’d will indicate His choice of whom He favours as king, through one of His prophets, or, in the absence of such, through the response received by the High Priest when enquiring from <i>Hashem</i> through the <i>urim vetumim</i> in his breastplate.
      Nachmanides questions this approach, asking that if it were correct, why did Moses specifically warn against the appointment of a gentile as king, when clearly, such an appointment would be thwarted by Divine interference? He answers that our sages discovered in this verse also a hidden clause. The words שום תשים עליך מלך, “you shall surely set a king over yourself,” imply that it is within your power, politically speaking, to make that choice without external interference. When such conditions exist G’d needs to approve the appointment of such a king before he begins his reign. Such a king must have been born as a Jew. The word יבחר is an allusion to the people whom G’d has “chosen,” as opposed to the people whom G’d “hates.” [The word “hates,” used by Nachmanides must be understood in the same sense as Leah used it when she described herself as “hated” by her husband Yaakov. (Genesis 29,33) Ed.] Under no circumstances, however, must you appoint a gentile as king over you.
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, seeing that any king ruling over any nation does so only as long as I, <i>Hashem,</i> approve, you may appoint a king over yourselves as this is part of the fate of the Jewish people as it has been decreed by heaven. [If I understand correctly, the inference is from the indirect אשר יבחר, “that He will choose,” instead of the direct speech אשר תבחר, “that you will choose.” Ed.] Even when we think we do the choosing, in the final analysis, G’d has done the choosing in His capacity as “King of Kings.” However, there is also included here a warning not to crown gentile king, ever.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   רק לא ירבה לו סוסים, “only he shall not acquire for himself too many horses, etc.” The meaning of the restrictive word רק is inserted to teach that although by adopting the monarchy as your mode of government, something which makes you more like the nations of the world, and I have given My approval, there are certain tools used by monarchs the world over to reinforce their power that such a Jewish king must not use. They are: 1) not to amass too many horses. It is a boast of gentile kings to view their military strength in the number of horses and chariots they own.
      Nachmanides questions this rationale, basing himself on the Jerusalem Talmud (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 10,9) in which possible return by Jews to Egypt is discussed and the prevailing view is that whereas it is forbidden for Jews to settle in Egypt, if they visit there as part of their business dealings this is quite in order. Therefore, if the king sends a delegation to Egypt to acquire horses, this is viewed as a commercial activity, and is permitted. He adds further, it is possible to explain our verse as a warning for the king not to amass too many horses even if they have been born and bred in the land of Israel. The definition of the words דרך סחורה, “a commercial transaction,” in Nachmanides’ view, means that the king must not acquire these horses because he considers himself armed superbly by owning a cavalry, but that the purpose in acquiring them is not for war but for peaceful commercial pursuits. The king’s actions must reflect that he places his trust in <i>Hashem</i>, not in man-made defensive or offensive weaponry. Moses follows the warning about the amassing of horses by the king, by a warning not to lead his people back to Egypt (already mentioned in Exodus 14,13), i.e. he is not to employ Egyptian servants at his court, in his army. The thrust of the whole paragraph is that Jews, who when first in Egypt were discouraged by Joseph to serve as officers in Pharaoh’s army, should retain their primary vocations, just as then they had been cattle-herders, now they would become farmers on their own land.
  
     למען הרבות סוס, “in order to amass quantities of horses.” In Kings I 9,19 the prophet Jeremiah already records that even a wise king such as Solomon ignored this warning of the Torah. He had Egyptian trainers living in the cities specially built for training cavalry horses and did not draft Jews for the military, although he employed them as “forced labour” to work in the quarries in Lebanon to hew and transport the stones needed for building the Temple.
  
     וה' אמר לכם, “seeing that <i>Hashem</i> has already told you., etc.,” the word אמר, though written in the past tense here, must be understood as if it had been written in the present tense. Until permission had been given by G’d to appoint a king, the Israelites could not possibly have been led back to Egypt by such a king.
      Another way of understanding our verse is that Moses now reveals what G’d had already told him a long time ago, but seeing that it had not been relevant, Moses had not yet told the people about that.
      According to our sages (Jerusalem Talmud, <i>Sukkah</i> 5,1) the reason for this prohibition is that both the Egyptians and the Canaanites were extremely anti G’d the Creator, in their whole religious mores, as well as in their sexually perverted values. (Compare Leviticus 18,2) There was little fear that the Israelites would copy the Canaanites, seeing they were about to wipe out those tribes. This left the Egyptians as a potentially very bad cultural influence. G’d therefore prohibited close relations between our two nations, something that would be bound to develop if Jews were allowed to settle there.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   והיתה עמו, “It shall be with him, constantly;” the subject is the Torah scroll just mentioned.”
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   לבלתי רום לבבו, “so that his heart does not become haughty;” here the Torah zeroes in on the negative virtue called pride, arrogance, haughtiness. By warning the King not to fall victim to such feelings, we commoners must surely learn that we are included in that warning, as we have far less to tempt us to display or harbour such feelings of superiority.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ונחלה לא יהיה לו, “He shall not have an inheritance.” <i>Rashi,</i> taking his cue from the <i>Sifri,</i> commenting on Exodus 13,5 where only the names of five Canaanite tribes are mentioned, says that all seven tribes were meant.
      Nachmanides writes that in that verse the reason that only five Canaanite tribes were mentioned is that the territory of those five fell under the heading of “a land flowing with milk and honey,” whereas the territory of the <i>P’rizi</i> and <i>Girgashi</i>, omitted on that occasion, was less fruitful. This is the reason why produce grown on land that used to belong to those two tribes was not subject to the <i>bikkurim</i> legislation, i.e. that the farmer in those lands did not have to bring the first ripe fruit to Jerusalem. If the basic legislation that the priests and Levites had no ancestral share in the land of Israel is repeated here, it was in order to make the point that these Levites also did not have an ancestral share in the lands formerly owned by the <i>P’rizi</i> and <i>Girgashi.</i>
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   וזה יהיה משפט הכהנים, “and this shall be the allotted share of the priests;” Nachmanides writes that this is a commandment which does not again appear in the Torah. In <i>Parshat Korach</i> (Numbers 18,8-20) where the allotments to the priests are enumerated; what follows now has not been mentioned, as in the desert every animal that had been slaughtered had first been consecrated as an offering. Only after בשר תאוה, meat of a secular character, will be permissible, after settlement in the land of Israel, will gifts from such animals be mandatory even though the animal from which they were taken had never been consecrated. This is the reason that the Torah describes the owners of such non-consecrated animals as זובחי הזבח, “the ones who perform a slaughter.” In other words, whenever Israelites have occasion to slaughter one of their animals, the parts described in this chapter are to be given to one of the priests. In chapter 18 of Numbers the gifts to the priests revolve around the concept of חרם, matters segregated from the community at large on pain of various penalties. This is also why the topic of גזל הגר, restitution of property stolen from a convert who died before he could have left behind natural heirs, is not included in Numbers chapter 18. There is an <i>aggadah</i> in <i>Chulin</i> 134 in which the origin of these gifts is traced to the valiant deed of Pinchas, son of the High Priest Eleazar, and symbolic meaning is attached to each of these animal parts listed here. According to Maimonides the jaw given to the priests symbolizes a portion of the head of the animal’s body, whereas the front leg symbolizes the first limb that is partially detached from the rump. Gifts to the priests always symbolize the “first” or “best” of something.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   לא תלמד לעשות כתועבות הגוים האלה, “you must not learn to copy the abominations performed by these nations. According to Nachmanides, seeing that in Leviticus 18, we already have been warned not to practice any of the abominations of the Canaanites or Egyptians, Moses now illustrates examples of some of the abominations the Torah had in mind. There are divergent opinions as to the meaning of מעביר בנו או בתו באש. Some authorities believe that this is the same as the infamous <i>moloch</i> cult, whereas others believe it was some sort of magic designed to ward off negative vibes by powerful forces. The expression מכשף is an umbrella term for any number of different sorcerers’ tricks. Expressions such as חובר חבר, שואל אוב וידעוני, are examples of such sorcery. They are different forms of necromancy. קוסם קסמים, are people trying to divine future events, such as palm readings, tea leaf readings, etc. So-called prophets such as Bileam used such tools as their stock-in-trade in order to impress their clients. These, as well as נחשים, are outlawed by the Torah for use by the Jewish people although they do not fall under the heading of abomination, תועבה. When Moses speaks of מעוננים, he refers to people who claim to be able to foretell the future by examining cloud patterns. מנחשים are people claiming to be able to get messages revealing some future events form the twittering of birds or by looking at their wings. The idea is derived from Kohelet 10,20 ובעל הכנפים יגיד דבר, “that winged matter may reveal something.”
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   כי תועבת ה' כל עושה אלה; “for anyone who has done such things has committed an abomination in the eyes of <i>Hashem.”</i> The word כל here is not to be understood literally as “everyone,” for the people guilty of מעוננן or מנחש, though they have transgressed have not committed a תועבה. The Torah does make allowance for the natural desire of a person to be able to know the future. The reason why G’d forbade us, the Jewish people, even to engage מעוננים and מנחשים to help us unravel the future is because we have been provided by <i>Hashem</i> with prophets who have had revealed to us as much of the future as G’d deems it for necessary to make known to us, so that it would reflect ingratitude to bypass these prophets and turn to other most unreliable sources to gain that kind of knowledge.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   תמים תהיה עם ה' אלוקיך, “You are to be wholehearted with the Lord your G’d.” Our hearts need to be trained exclusively on Him, and we must believe that He is the ultimate source of all that happens and that therefore reliable knowledge of future events can be obtained only from Him. If we have justified reason to try and obtain knowledge of some future events, especially as it relates to the people as a whole, the venue is through the prophet or the breastplate of the High Priest in which is contained the <i>urim vetumim,</i> a device that can be activated by the High Priest to get responses to his enquiries from heavenly sources. [During the period of the second Temple there no longer was such a device. Ed.] Astrology as a means to divine the future is strictly forbidden, and has been so since chapter 15 in Genesis when G’d showed Avram that he was mistaken in relying on that venue as to his fathering children.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   נביא מקרבך, “a prophet from your midst, etc.” According to Nachmanides the superfluous word מקרבך, “from your midst,” [seeing that the word מאחיך “from your brethren,” already tells us that he will be Jewish. Ed.] is a hint that prophets will only arise in the land of Israel. Similarly, the addition of the word
  
     מאחיך, that He will not endow gentiles with His holy spirit.
  
     כמוני, ”just like I;” <i>Rashi</i> understands the comparison Moses drew as not applying to the level of his prophetic insights but to the previous word מאחיך, i.e. “such a prophet will be of Jewish origin just as I am.”
      Ibn Ezra understands the word כמוני as Moses contrasting his prophecy, divinely inspired, with that of מעוננים and מנחשים that the Torah had just told us not to make use of.
      Nachmanides suggests that it is possible to explain the word מקרבך as meaning that such a prophet will be trustworthy, dependable, seeing that he is one of your own, just as you have learned to rely on what I have told you.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ככל אשר שאלת, “according to all that you have asked for.” Nachmanides writes that at this point Moses did not spell out in detail what it was that the Israelites had asked for. It could not refer to their request not to have to listen to the overwhelming voice of <i>Hashem</i> at the revelation, as no new prophet had been endowed by <i>Hashem</i> in response to that request. Only when the Torah reports later that the people spoke to Moses and authorised him to be their intermediary between them and <i>Hashem</i>, and they include a promise to carry out what Moses would tell them, did they express the wish that Moses here refers to as ככל אשר שאלת “in accordance with all that you asked for.” (Compare Deut. 5,24)
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   היטיבו אשר דברו, “they have done well in what they have said.” They did well to believe in the prophet, and therefore I will continue to relate to them by means of prophets in the future, also.
      It is possible to interpret that when the Israelites undertook to accept Moses as an intermediary and they promised obedience to what he would instruct them to do in the name of <i>Hashem,</i> that Moses here implies that he viewed this as a commitment which would remain in effect for their relationship with future prophets, also.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ואשר ידבר בשם אלוהים אחרים, “or who shall speak in the name of other deities, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> -searching for a reason why Moses needed to state the obvious,- writes that even if the false prophet tells the people only matters which conform to traditional <i>halachah,</i> he is still subject to the death penalty. (Based on <i>Sifri</i>)
      Nachmanides explains that what is meant (by the <i>Sifri</i>) is not that the “prophet” announces that in his dream the deity Pe-or had appeared to him and had told him that it was important to observe the commandment of the four species, as anyone who does not do so is guilty of the death penalty. There is no death penalty for such a statement by such a “would-be prophet.” What is meant is that the “would-be prophet” announces: “I have seen in my dream, <i>Pe-or,</i> who is the deity, and he commanded not to eat pig’s meat; or that such an impostor announces that he had been foretold in his dream certain events, such an impostor is guilty of the death penalty because he had made a point of describing the source of his information as being a deity whom he recognizes as such.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   וכי תאמר בלבבך, “If you were to say in your heart, etc.” [Our author quotes Nachmanides although he does not say so. Ed.] Our sages (<i>Sifri</i>) do not view the word וכי in our verse as a conditional “if,” but as a prediction by Moses of what will happen in the future, a prediction that has been documented as having occurred in Jeremiah chapter 28. (About the false prophet Chananyah, and how Jeremiah dealt with him.) What prompted the sages to interpret the word וכי in this manner is that Moses did not say “ואם,” which would have clearly been something conditional. If you were to ask: “since when does the Torah make it a practice to allude to events in the future?” The reason the Torah does so at this stage is to remind future readers of the Torah that when such a man as Chananyah appears, the people, remembering what they had read here, should ask for verification of the prophet’s legitimacy. 
      [Unbelievably, in Jeremiahs time, when true to his prediction the holy vessels of the Temple had already been plundered by Nevuchadnezzar, the people did not question the rosy predictions of Chananyah, but tended to disbelieve the established and proven prophet Jeremiah, presumably because they were thirsty for “good” prophecies rather than becoming penitents and to regain favour in the eyes of <i>Hashem.</i> Ed.]
      Why did the Torah not also portray the people as asking: “how do we know that the word that comes out of the mouth of the prophet is that which <i>Hashem</i> had told him to convey to us?” Seeing that it is the Torah’s principal purpose here to instruct us to execute false prophets, there was no need to spell this out, seeing that the predictions of a true prophet come true. When they do, the prophet enjoys such a high degree of trust by the people that even when he orders violation of a Torah commandment on a temporary basis, he does not become disqualified. A prominent example is Elijah rebuilding an altar that had long been in disuse and disrepair and forbidden as a “private altar” once the Temple had been erected. The word כמוך in verse 18 already contained the authority for the people to remain loyal to an established prophet, even if he commanded something that appears to conflict with the Torah’s law, provided he does not try to abrogate this law but demands temporarily ignoring such a law due to an emergency. When the prophet does predict a future event, after specifying the when and where, and it comes true, this legitimizes him, just as it legitimized Moses in the eyes of Pharaoh when the Nile turned into blood, and the frogs swarmed all over the country, all at the time predicted.
      <i>Rashi</i> felt that our verse was not needed to spell out the penalty for a false prophet as the Torah had already done so in 13,2 where the Torah legislated the death penalty even though the prediction of that “prophet” had come true, because the man in question had tried to get his listeners to violate Torah law. He felt that regardless of the stature of the “prophet,” he has to legitimize himself not only by his piety but also by a miracle that comes true. If, after both these conditions have been met, he once asks you to violate or tolerate violation of Torah law, such as Elijah did at Mount Carmel, this is no reason for you to disown that prophet. We do no less when we convict someone to death on the strength of the testimony of two witnesses whose lifestyle entitles them to be considered trustworthy as Torah observant. Maimonides considers the latter argument as a גזרת הכתוב, Divine decree, not capable of being upheld by human reasoning. Such matters all belong to what Moses described in Deut. 29,28 as הנסתרות לה' אלוקינו, “matters which are concealed form our eyes, are revealed to <i>Hashem,”</i> (Who will take care of them in His own way.)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   כי יכרית, “When He will cut down, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the basic legislation (Exodus 21,13) following had already been made public, Moses now elaborates on it.
  
     וישבת בעריהם, “and you will settle in their cities;” establishment of cities of refuge does not become obligatory until after the people have settled on the land. There are additional <i>midrashim</i> based on the wording of this paragraph.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ואם ירחיב ה' אלוקיך את גבולך, “and if the Lord your G’d will expand your boundaries, etc.;” (condensed version of Nachmanides) At the beginning of the paragraph Moses spoke of the nations that G’d would dispossess, i.e. the seven well known Canaanite nations, and he commanded that after these cities had been resettled with Israelites, three cities of refuge in addition to the ones Moses himself had already set aside as such on the east bank of the Jordan were to be designated as such. (Compare Deut. 4,41) With the addition of the cities mentioned here the commandment of setting aside such cities would have been fulfilled in its entirety. All the commandments that were legislated with a view to being observed after conquest of the land are understood to become effective after the people had received their share of the land and had settled thereon.
      It is interesting that at this point, though Moses is apparently speaking about a law already formulated when the people had just received the Ten Commandments, that he does not add the words כאשר דבר לך, “as He (<i>Hashem</i>) had said to you” [40 years ago. Moses had used this formula no fewer than 5 times when elaborating on laws in the first 4 Books of the Torah. Ed.] The reason may be that what Moses refers to as the “broadening of the borders of the land of Israel” is the inclusion of the land of the three tribes promised at the covenant between the pieces to Avraham, but soft-pedaled since that time. (Compare Genesis, 15,19-21). This may be the reason why he adds the words כאשר נשבע לאבותיך, “as He has sworn to your patriarchs,” and again in verse 9 אשר דבר לתת לאבותיך, “which He has spoken about to give to your forefathers.” This is in sharp contrast to when he informed the people that after they would settle in the land, meat that has not been consecrated first would be allowed in their respective dwellings. On that occasion, although a broadening of the borders is clearly spelled out, (Deut. 12,20) Moses failed to mention that this had anything to do with promises <i>Hashem</i> had made to the patriarchs. He offered as a rationale for this new law only the fact that the journey to the Temple each time might be tedious.
      It is fairly obvious, that just as tenure in the land is dependent on the observance of the Torah’s command-ments, so <i>Hashem’s</i> fulfilling the unfulfilled portion of His promise to Avraham would have to await the time when the people‘s claim to the part of the land they had already inherited would prove to be deserved by their loyalty to the Torah. We may conjecture that it had always been <i>Hashem’s</i> intention to let the people inherit the lands of the seven tribes during the lifetime of Moses and Joshua, and that in order to qualify for the balance He gave them all the commandments in the Torah to test them if they were worthy of the remainder of the lands promised to the first of the patriarchs, Avraham.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   כי תשמור את כל המצוה וגו'...לאהבה את ה' וללכת בדרכיו, “When you observe this entire commandment….to love the Lord your G’d and to walk in His ways, etc.” This means that the people collectively observe the laws of the Torah in all its aspects. According to Ibn Ezra the word מצוה in the singular mode does not refer to a specific commandment other than the three cities of refuge to the existing ones no additional legislation could be expected in the future.
  
     כי תשמור...כל הימים, “when you will observe for all times etc.” Nachmanides raises the question that seeing that no one (human being) knows the future, how is anyone to know when this time is ripe? He rejects Ibn Ezra (without saying why) who understands the words כל הימים to mean “without interruption,” i.e. that there will not be intervals during which not all the people keep all the commandments. Instead, Nachmanides understands the whole verse as an outline of a historical development of the Jewish people who will culminate in all of them observing all of the commandments from a feeling of love for <i>Hashem.</i> When this idyllic state will have been reached so that there is no longer any fear that the people will backslide from the lofty spiritual <i>niveau,</i> the setting aside of the additional three cities of refuge will become operative because then the territories of the last three Canaanite tribes mentioned in the prophecy to Avraham in Genesis chapter 15 will become part of the Jewish state. Only <i>Hashem</i> knows when that stage of development of the Jewish people will be reached, so that He will be able to fulfill that stage of expanding the boundaries of the Jewish state.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   לא תחוס עינך, “Your eye shall not pity him.” <i>Rashi</i>, (basing himself on <i>Sifri</i>) understands the psychology of such “pity” as the argument that it suffices that one person has been killed, how can the situation be improved by killing another person?
      Nachmanides writes that the correct interpretation here is that the principal message of the verse is the positive commandment to eliminate perpetrators of evil (compare Nachmanides’ comments on rule 14 of Maimonides’ tractate ספר המצוות, describing why he included what in his list of 613 commandments.) A secondary consideration, added to reinforce the urgency with which observance of the positive commandment is to be pursued, is this negative commandment to refrain from finding excuses for the killer. Moses already offered a similar consideration when he warned the people not to have pity on people who try to seduce others to worship idols. [A crime committed in the privacy of one’s home. Ed] (Deut. 13,9) When the Torah, in Exodus 22,17 legislates bluntly, without further ado, מכשפה לא תחיה, “you must not allow a sorceress to live,” apparently addressing the commandment only to the female gender, this is misleading. Seeing that women are more involved than men when it comes to sorcery, the wording of the commandment reflects the fact that the lawgiver is aware of this. Men sorcerers are equally liable to execution. (Compare Ezekiel 22,5 and Nachum 3,4) [One tends to have more pity with women, even if they committed crimes, trying to excuse their crimes because of valid motives that might have prompted them. By singling out the women as the standard perpetrators of certain crimes, the Torah tries to counter such tendencies. 
      Another example, even more easily understandable, is found in Deut. 25, 11-12 where the wife who came to the assistance of her husband who was in a life and death struggle with another man, is subject to a severe penalty for the manner in which she intervened. Most people would have sided with the wife, whose motive was simply to save the life of her husband. [The Torah teaches that <i>Hashem’s</i> psychology operates on a different wavelength. Ed.] Humans tend to overlook wrongs done when the wronged party did not suffer tangible loss, money, loss of property, loss of limb, etc., but if “only” pride, dignity, embarrassment were at stake there is a tendency to go easy on the guilty party. “Witnesses” who claim to have witnessed a crime who have been found as having lied before their intended victim has suffered retribution for the supposed crime he had committed, are convicted of precisely the harm they meant to inflict on their victim. Once the damage had been done, and their chicanery did not come to light until it was too late to save their victim, their crime is left to <i>Hashem</i> to deal with, seeing that He is the ultimate arbiter of what is just and what is not
  
     וטוב לך, “and it shall be good for you.” The removal of sources of spilling the blood of innocents is a great <i>mitzvah</i> and in turn will prove to be of great benefit to you, as it will save your own lives, as wasting one’s mercy and pity on murderers will only spawn more deaths by violence not only by the murderers whose lives have been spared, but by others who will be encouraged to achieve their ends by violent means
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   לא תסיג גבול רעך אשר גבלו הראשונים, “You must not move the boundary of your fellow which earlier ones have marked as such.” The “earlier ones” referred to are the generation of Israelites entering the land with Joshua. 
      Nachmanides writes that the reason behind this commandment, is that later generations, observing that though they have a large family they only have a small piece of land, whereas their neighbours who have only one or two children have a much larger piece of land, will claim that the original clerks doing the measuring had erred at that time. Some people may even challenge the whole system of distributing the land by lottery that had been the basis of the distribution in the time of Joshua. Changing borders is not only forbidden when done at night without anyone seeing it, but also when done in daylight in plain view of everyone. The message Moses leaves the people is that if they wish to live in peace with one another they will never challenge the method of the original parceling out of the land during the years Joshua was their leader. The phrasing of the verse is in the present tense, as only present borders are easily recognizable, not any changes that might or might not have occurred before the problem surfaces. Present boundaries are sacrosanct.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   על פי שני עדים, “on the basis of testimony of to witnesses, etc.” The Torah here uses the number “two” in the construct mode, שני עדים, whereas the last time we had a similar verse the Torah wrote the word שנים עדים. This serves our sages as a hint that sometimes (monetary disputes) even a lone witness is not altogether ineffective but can evoke the need for the accused to swear an oath that he is not guilty of the charge brought by the litigant who only backs it up with a single acceptable witness. (<i>Sifri</i>)
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   והנה עד שקר העד, “and behold, the testimony was false testimony!” Nachmanides draws our attention to the fact that the Torah did not mention anything concerning how the court knew that the testimony of these witnesses was false. Even when two witnesses contradict a group of twenty, this is not proof that the two have been lying. Unless the person supposedly killed would appear before us alive, we have no definitive proof that the testimony was false. Clearly, when the Torah speaks about the investigations the judges have to carry out, it does not have in mind such incontrovertible evidence to the contrary as the “dead” appearing in front of us alive. This is why we have a reliable tradition which tells us that the nature of the “false” testimony in our verse does not relate to the substance of the testimony but to the alibi of the witnesses, who, though they claim to have been at one location at a certain time, are confronted by other witnesses claiming they had seen them elsewhere at that time. Seeing that the testimony of the second set of witnesses relates to the actual bodies of the first set of witnesses it is relevant. They do not contradict the substance of the first witnesses’ testimony, but to their ability to testify to something they could not have seen at that time. The first set of witnesses, by wanting to deny the claim of the second set of witnesses are not qualified to testify concerning their own selves. Ergo, unless they can produce independent testimony that had been at the location they had claimed to be in the first place, they are declared as “false” witnesses, and will be dealt with accordingly, provided that their testimony has not yet resulted in the judicial murder they had had in mind.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   כאשר זמם. “as he has conspired.” Our sages emphasise (<i>Makkot</i> 5) that the Torah decrees this retribution by a human court only if the false witnesses’ testimony had not achieved its purpose. Nachmanides writes that the reason is that the whole subject of עדים זוממים, scheming witnesses, is in the nature of גזרת הכתוב, heavenly decree, intervention in the judicial process by super-human forces. After all, the judges are faced with two diametrically opposed statements concerning location and time, and it is beyond our ability to be certain who is telling the truth. We look at this in the following manner. If two witnesses accuse Reuven of having committed murder, and Reuven had been an upstanding citizen up until then, nothing negative having been known about him, and out of the blue two other witnesses appear throwing serious doubt on the believability of the first two witnesses, we are inclined to think that if Reuven were not innocent of this accusation G’d would not have gone out of His way to send the second set of witnesses to save him from the death penalty. Based on such a consideration we can understand the tendency of the sages to believe the second set of witnesses, and to leave the accused to G’d’s judgment if they erred and he was indeed guilty. If the second set of witnesses appears too late to save the accused, we again assume that G’d would not have allowed the accused to be executed unless he had been guilty of death on account of another crime that he committed, where there had not been any witnesses either.
      [On the one hand, in spite of the <i>urim vetumim,</i> which the priest could invoke in order to ask <i>Hashem</i> if the accused is guilty, the Torah does not encourage our using supernatural channels except where we are expressly bidden to do so, such as in obtaining G’d’s sanction for expansionary wars. Ed.] Nachmanides also adds that if the accused had been judicially murdered by the testimony of a set of witnesses the family of the innocent victim will move heaven and earth to see that he is exonerated posthumously.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   כי תצא למלחמה, ”When you engage in an expansionary war, etc.” Nachmanides writes that Moses reveals something totally new to the people in this paragraph, because the Israelites were approaching the day when they would have to engage in warfare.. 
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   אל תיראו, “do not be afraid” in your heart;
  
     ואל תחפזו, “and do not panic;” causing you to flee. 
  
     ואל תערצו, do not display your fear.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   כי ה' אלוקיכם ההולך עמכם, “for the Lord your G’d is the One going with you.” The details about who is subject to the draft are meant to remind us that in spite of our feeling physically superior to our enemies, success in war, as in other enterprises that are facing opposition, depends on G’d’s being on our side. If He is, we will win, if not, our numerical superiority or our superior weaponry will not secure us victory either.
  
     להושיע אתכם, “to save you.” Moses adds these words even though he had already told the people that G’d would participate as a Warrior on their side. The reason is that even victory in war does not mean that the winning side does not sustain casualties, sometimes very heavy casualties. Moses assures the people that in justified wars G’d would ensure that they would not sustain such casualties.
      A priest, who is a servant of <i>Hashem</i>, warns the assembled soldiers to be G’d-fearing, and to be confident of His help. The שוטרים, the enforcers of the law, are concerned with the more mundane aspects of warfare, the fact that people worry about their lives when exposed to abnormal dangers. He concentrates on three major concerns of such young soldiers, the betrothed, the ones engaged in building a house, and the ones who just began to establish an economic base for themselves, by planting a vineyard, but not having tasted any of its fruit. These three groups of young men are sent home before the battle is joined.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ולא חללו, “and he has not yet redeemed it.” Nachmanides writes that this means that the fourth year of that vineyard has not yet reached harvest time. The word חלל is derived here from מחולות, dancing. When the harvest of the fourth year is completed, the people owning the vineyard are happy and express their gratitude to G’d by dancing, although that year’s harvest is still קודש הלולים, “sanctified to laud” (Leviticus 19,24) It is not secular yet, that is why it has to be consumed in Jerusalem. It is also possible to interpret the word לא חללו, to mean that the owner had not yet redeemed that crop so that it was not yet חולין, secular produce.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   מי האיש הירא, “who is the man who is fearful;” he does not trust the assurance by the priest.”
  
     ורך הלבב, “and he is of faint heart;” he is constitutionally unable to face swords and blood.
      Nachmanides writes that according to the approach by Rabbi Yossi Hag’lili who interprets the word הירא as not applying to physical fear but to fear of retribution for the sins he is aware of having committed, the words פן ימות must be understood that he is afraid of dying as punishment for his sins. He may therefore plan to desert his comrades, rationalizing his action by the priest having promised his compatriots that they will remain unharmed, i.e. his absence does not weaken the army. They, his compatriots, will not be at risk on account of his sins.
      According to Rabbi Akiva, who interprets the words in our verse as one reads them, at face value, simply says that if someone even after being reassured by the priest, G’d’s interpreter, still feels afraid that G’d would not perform a miracle on his account and save him, he is sent home so that he does not undermine the morale of his fellow soldiers.
      The Jerusalem Talmud <i>Sotah</i> 8,9 quotes a view according to which all those claiming release from the army must furnish proof of their “excuses,” and that according to the view of Rabbi Yossi Hag’lili the person afraid of retribution for his sins must furnish proof that he is indeed guilty of such a sin, except the person who claims to be afraid and all can see from his demeanour that he is a coward.
  
     ולא ימס את לבב אחיו , “so he will not melt the heart of his buddies.” According to the author of <i>halachot gedolot</i> (Rabbi Yehudah ben Rabbi Shemuel of the ancient academy in Sura) the above words are a negative commandment, applicable to the שוטרים not to deny that “coward’s” application to go home.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ופקדו שרי צבאות בראש העם, “the leaders of the people shall take command at the head of the people.” Nachmanides writes that the Torah’s instructions here run parallel to what the nations of the world are doing in similar circumstances. G’d’s intervention on behalf of the Jewish soldiers is in the nature of “hidden miracles,” the types that resulted in the collapse of Haman and the rise to power of Mordechai. [People are saved or killed by being in the right place, or the wrong place at the right time or at the wrong time, as required in order for His will to be done. Ed.] G’d does not interfere with natural law overtly unless unavoidable in order to achieve His ends without depriving man of his free will in the process.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   כי תקרב אל עיר, <i>Rashi</i> understands this paragraph as speaking of a מלחמת רשות, a war sanctioned by <i>Hashem,</i> but not conducted for reasons of self defense. Nachmanides, elaborating on this, adds that <i>Rashi</i> was forced to offer this interpretation on account of what is written a few verses later, i.e. that if in spite of peaceful overtures the inhabitants of the city described insist of conducting a war against the Israelites, then the males are to be killed, whereas the women and even the male children are to be kept alive, which is different from the rules of the Torah when the seven Canaanite nations will be attacked. There, all the inhabitants of such cities are to be killed regardless of sex or age. What is noteworthy is that even when confronting cities of the seven Canaanite nations about to be driven out from their country or to be killed, the Torah commands the people to offer surrender first. These Canaanites, if willing, will even be accepted as converts and thus escape death or forced exile. This is what Moses had done with the people under the rule of Sichon, King of the Emorite, one of the seven Canaanite nations. 
      [This editor does not see evidence that any of Sichon’s subjects had converted to Judaism, although Rachav, who had hidden the two spies in Jericho, was saved and not enslaved or exiled, although judging from her own words she may have been close to conversion to Judaism long before Joshua crossed the Jordan. Ed.]
      It appears that there was a difference between the offer of peace to the cities of the seven nations on the one hand, and those in more distant countries, not Canaanites. The latter were informed that if they wanted to survive they could accept subservient status to the Israelites, work for them, etc, but lose their independence, whereas a similar offer to the Canaanite cities contained an additional rider, namely that they had to abandon idolatry and accept the seven Noachide laws. This had to be a minimum as the Torah had expressly forbidden sparing the lives of any idolatrous population in what was going to be the land of Israel. Once they would have become enslaved to the Jewish people, they would find out that their idols and any remnants of their religious symbols would be destroyed, in accordance with Torah law, which does not tolerate the existence of such relics of idolatry in the Holy Land.
      <i>Rashi</i>, on the other hand, states that no compromise of any kind was permitted with the seven Canaanite nations and they either were killed or had to emigrate to escape such a fate. According to his view, even total conversion to Judaism was not an option for them. Nachmanides does not concur, as he interprets the warning by the Torah in verse 18 that the presence of these people in the Holy Land represents a danger that they will influence the Israelites culturally and morally, as clearly demanding that these people must leave or be killed. The Jerusalem Talmud states that Joshua offered to such people that they become labourers for the Israel performing menial tasks, such as hewing wood and carrying water. Exodus 23,33 makes it plain that these people are considered as a cultural hazard “if they continue to practice their religion.” In Nachmanides’ view this means that if they abandon idolatry they may live in the land of Israel, but as slaves or serfs. We are familiar with the story of Gibeonites, who pretended to have come from outside the land of Canaan in order to qualify for conversion of sorts. When Joshua found out too late (after having made a solemn deal with them) that he had become the victim of a fraud, he did not kill these people but made labourers of them, a status that continued down to the time of Solomon over 400 years later. (Joshua chapter 9) If these Gibeonites had not first misrepresented themselves causing the Israelites to make a pact with them reinforced by an oath, Joshua would not have punished them by denying them all the rights that normal converts are entitled to. Under the unusual circumstances at that time Joshua saw himself forced to apply what is written in 
      Some commentators interpret the line והיה אם שלום תענך, as applying only at the time when the offer is first made. If the offer is not accepted immediately, there is no second opportunity to save one’s life by means of converting to Judaism, so that Joshua would have acted illegally by granting them a second opportunity, and he should not have accepted them. [The fact is that there were bloody repercussions later on both in the time of King Sha-ul and King David. (Compare <i>Bamidbar Rabbah, 8</i>)
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   למען אשר לא ילמדו אתכם לעשות, וגו', “so that they will not teach you to act, etc.” so that they will not teach you how to worship <i>Hashem</i> by burning your children in His honour, as they do to their respective deities. Actually, the Torah had already warned the people not to allow these former inhabitants of the land of Canaan to remain in their land, as <i>Hashem</i> was afraid they would lead the Israelites to sin by adopting part of the religious mores that had prevailed in that land. (Exodus 23,33) This was part of the prohibition not to enter into any pact or alliance with those people, because, if they felt secure, they would remain behind in large numbers. Moses reinforces that original command by adding that the Israelites must not allow any of those former inhabitants of the land of Canaan to survive, without ifs or buts. Even individuals allowed to survive pose a spiritual danger to his environment. Observing such a person performing his cult arouses curiosity among the onlookers.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   כי האדם עץ השדה, “is then the tree of the field a man?” Ibn Ezra claiming that there is no need to add additional letters to make this verse intelligible, writes that the life of man can be compared to that of a tree in the field, therefore you must not destroy the fruit-bearing trees. The words: ואותו לא תכרותו, “you shall not cut it down,” belong together with the words לבא מפניך במצור, “that it should enter the siege before you.” Phrased differently, “seeing that the fruit-bearing tree is a lifeline for man how could you consider destroying it?”
      Nachmanides writes that according to the approach of our sages (<i>Baba Kamma</i> 91) it is permissible to destroy such trees during the siege and to use the timber to erect structures to enable the troops to bring the war to a speedy end. As to the meaning of the subsequent line that only trees that are not fruit-bearing may be cut down, the meaning is that if you have the choice to cut down fruit-bearing trees, or others that you know not to be of the fruit-baring variety, you must first cut down the trees that cannot furnish fruit. Fruit bearing trees are not to be cut down when such cutting down is not performed in order to fulfill a commandment of the Torah. The reason for this entire legislation, and specifically for its being mentioned at this point, is, that in war soldiers are in the habit of wreaking havoc all over, without regard to the ecological damage they cause by doing so. The Torah, therefore, goes on record that even in war, one must be concerned with what will be needed after the war has ended. The Jewish soldier, fighting a just war, must have confidence in G’d’s help so that he does not have to resort to wholesale destruction.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   אותו תשחית וכרת, “it you may destroy by cutting it down.” You are free to cut down such a tree without restriction whether in order to build platforms to shoot arrows from, or for whatever reasons, such as to build a fire at night to keep warm.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  אל נחל איתן, “to a harsh valley.” Our translation is based on <i>Rashi,</i> who translates the word איתן as קשה, hard, tough, unyielding.
      Nachmanides writes that our sages say that the word signifies that this piece of earth may henceforth never be sown or ploughed to grow anything thereon. If so, the Torah here reveals a new negative commandment that a person using such earth agriculturally would have transgressed by doing so. (<i>Sotah 46</i>)
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ונגשו הכהנים, “The priests will draw near, etc.” they do so in order to intone the prayer asking for atonement, written down in verse 8. The meaning of the whole verse is as follows: the priests, and all the elders of the nation, as well as all the people residing within a narrow radius from where this murder had occurred, will wash their hands and intone the prescribed formula, i.e. some of the assembled will wash the hands of the others.
      Concerning the procedure of killing that heifer, Ibn Ezra writes that G’d imposed the duty to perform these rites on the city closest to where the murdered person had been found, for if people in that city had been free from all other sins as well, G’d would not have embarrassed them by a murder having been committed in their vicinity.
      Maimonides writes in his <i>Moreh Nevuchim 3,40</i> that the reason for the procedure is to assist in apprehending the killer, who most likely resides in that vicinity. The publicity that the killing of the heifer in such circumstances attracts, as well as the fact that the reputation of the city near which it occurs suffers a decline of its good image, is hoped to involve more people in the active search for the perpetrator of this crime. Anyone who can make a contribution to finding out who the guilty party was will be liable to do so. Once the guilty party has been found out and located and convicted of whatever penalty is appropriate, exile or death, this will serve as a deterrent to others who had planned to commit a similar crime. The event will long be remembered as the piece of earth on which the heifer has been killed is no longer allowed to be farmed and people will want to know the reason why this is so.
      Nachmanides writes that while it is true that the procedure prescribed by the Torah will help to find this murderer and will possibly frighten off future murderers, but what did it do to reconcile G’d with the fact that innocent blood was spilled in the Holy Land? In order to achieve maximum effect this procedure should have been performed on a field that is under cultivation, not one that had never been under cultivation, and therefore is not often visited by people. Nachmanides therefore feels that this procedure has more in common with that of the scapegoat and the burning of the red heifer for the sake of getting its ash, which when mixed with spring water, purifies people who had become ritually impure through contact with a dead body or being under the same roof with such a body. These three procedures have one thing in common; neither one of them is performed on sacred ground. They therefore fall under the heading of חוק, decree, legislation the reason for which G’d has not seen fit to share with us.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   אשר פדית, “whom You have redeemed.” This is a reference to the Exodus from Egypt. The reminder of this event may be in place, Moses reassuring the people that just as G’d had redeemed them from Egypt, although they had been burdened with many sins, so He will, in His loving kindness, forgive them for any negligence on their part which might have facilitated this foul deed by a person unknown.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ואתה תבער הדם הנקי, “You are to remove innocent blood;” Ibn Ezra adds the word עונש, “guilt,” which Moses did nor spell out here. Such guilt existed as in the Holy Land, especially, innocent blood is not to be shed, G’d does not tolerate this for long. By participating in the procedure of <i>eglah arufah</i> one fulfils a positive commandment wiping out the guilt of murder.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   כי תצא למלחמה, “When you will go out to war;” according to the plain meaning of the text, Moses advises the people that instead of waiting till the enemy invades their land that they should pre-empt him and meet him beyond their borders to avoid part of their land becoming destroyed.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   אשת יפת תואר, “a woman of beautiful form;” the Torah mentions an example that is likely, but an ugly woman is subject to the same legislation.
      Ibn Ezra understands the term יפת תואר as a subjective term, i.e. she looks attractive in that particular soldier’s eyes. The term יפת תואר, accordingly, refers to וראית i.e. what this particular soldier saw.
  
     וחשקת בה, “and you desire her;” the reason why the Torah adds these words is that the Torah’s concession for this soldier to marry such a woman is premised on the fact that he is unable to withstand the urge to marry her. If he only wants to indulge his libido and does not want to marry her, the following rules do not apply, and he must control himself.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   וגלחה את ראשה, “he shall shave her head.” This may cool his ardor if he had been especially attracted by her hair. Other commentators consider this a ritual similar to the purification rites performed by someone purifying himself from the <i>tzoraat</i> disease when all body hair must be removed as part of the process. (Leviticus 14,8)
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ובכתה, “she shall weep, etc.;” all this is designed to cool her suitor’s ardor and make her look physically unattractive.     Nachmanides writes that all the regulations listed in our paragraph stem from the fact that she undergoes a reluctant conversion on her part. It is quite possible that the local religious authorities forced her to undergo ritual immersion, and that the period of thirty days before the marriage and true conversion can be performed give her time to become reconciled to her new situation.     Ibn Ezra writes that the Torah granted her all this time to mourn properly for her parents, who may be presumed to have died during the war. Alternatively, she weeps in mourning for her parents who because they did not convert are no longer considered her kin.     Maimonides writes in his <i>Moreh Nevuchim</i> section 3, chapter 41 that the Torah decrees the weeping as an emotional outlet for her enforced situation. It is a psychologically recognized fact that an extended period of weeping brings about a catharsis enabling her to come to terms with unwelcome new facts of life. During that month she is not required to address the duties that her marriage now imposes on her <i>vis a vis</i> her husband.     Personally, (Nachmanides writing) the weeping has nothing to do with the Torah expressing compassion for this woman, but it provides a period during which she shall be weaned form the idolatrous practices and convictions that she grew up with. She must learn to refrain from using the names of her deities in her daily conversation, etc., as our sages have said in connection with <i>mamzerim,</i> bastards, as it is most unseemly for even a “husband” to engage in sexual relations with his wife when she is forced to submit to this, or when she is in a state of mourning That time is set aside for her to come to terms with the loss she has experienced. This period of thirty days enables her to make the emotional transition, to adjust to her new husband, who has presumably saved her life by taking her under his protection during that war that preceded these various rites. This is why the Torah describes what follows as her new husband sleeping with her as an act of marrying her, and bringing her into his house. If she wanted to convert sooner and dissociate herself from her past completely, she is at liberty to do so. 
     ואחר כן תבא אליה ובעלתה, “and after this period has elapsed you may come to her and sleep with her.” Nachmanides writes that the plain meaning of this verse is that her “husband, captor,” had been forbidden to have marital relations with her until all the procedures listed have been completed. Although with natural born Jewish women a binding marriage ceremony can be by means of a written contract or by the woman excepting some money or equivalent, according to <i>Sifri</i> these methods do not apply in the case of a prisoner of war of pagan background. Even sexual intercourse for a purpose other than to seal a marriage contract would not achieve this, as she was a gentile, and there is no such thing as marriage to gentiles, seeing the wedding includes a sacred, holy element, something that as long as she is not Jewish, this woman could not be capable of. The Torah had consented to the soldier sleeping with a prisoner with whom he was infatuated, but that does not make her his wife, not even to the exclusion of other suitors. Once she has converted, however, she is subject to Jewish law in all respects, and marital infidelity, for instance would be punishable by strangulation. 
  
  Verse 14
  
   ושלחתה לנפשה, “you will send her away on her own, etc.” Nachmanides views this instruction as indicating that the husband does not have to give that woman a formal decree of divorce. This is why the Torah has to warn him not to sell her as a slave, nor treat her as one treats a maidservant. As long as she is his wife she enjoys all the privileges a wife is entitled to. If he has started to hate her, he must release her to fend on her own as if he had raped her, [the victim of a rape cannot be forced to live with her rapist unless she consents as his wife, who is then protected by her husband not being allowed to divorce her, ever. Deut. 22. 28-29 Ed.]
      It is possible that the message of this verse is that if, when this captor sleeps with this woman as an expression of his wanting to marry her, all well and good. However, if he sleeps with her without commitment and she is no longer desirable for him, he must release her unconditionally. Her future relationship to her captor depends entirely on the nature of his sleeping with her once this had been permitted according to Torah law. If the relationship turns sour after she had become his wife, she is entitled to a decree of divorce just like any married woman.
  
     לא תתעמר בה, “you must not enslave her;” Nachmanides writes, referring to Onkelos on 24,7 where he understands the letter ו in the word ומכרו as ”and,” not ”or,” that the term תתעמר does not mean that the former husband now keeps her in his household as a slave, but that he sells her in the slave market for money, treats her as chattel.
      Our sages (<i>Sifri</i> on 24<i>,7</i>) state that selling is not culpable until the new owner has made personal use of the newly acquired slave. They see in the word התעמר a reference to ingathering of a harvest, for instance, converting a potential into an actual.
      Nachmanides, personally, feels that the word corres-ponds to its plain meaning, as if it had been written with the letter א instead of ע, as it appears in Psalms 94,4 where it portrays arrogant, haughty conduct that characterizes those that not only sin but boast about it. Nachmanides quotes instances when the letters א and ע are used interchangeably.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   כי תהיין לאיש שתי נשים, האחת אהובה, “When a man has two wives, one of whom he loves, etc.” This does not mean that he actually hates one of his wives, but it is inevitable that when one has two wives that one must love one better that the other, and the other is described as the one that “he hates.” Each of the two wives (in any marriage) employs devious means including sorcery to become her husband’s favourite.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   לא יוכל לבכר, “he is not legally able to declare as firstborn, etc.” if the father of the preferred wife declares her son as the firstborn with the privileges the Torah accords the firstborn, although he is in fact not the firstborn, then he has also violated a negative commandment.
  
     על פני בן השנואה, הבכור, “ahead of the son of the hated one, the firstborn, etc.” Nachmanides, paying attention to minute grammatical nuances in our verse, concludes from the apparently superfluous words על פני in “the presence of,” that if the true firstborn has already died before his father, i.e. before the question of distributing an estate even became imminent, the father’s dispositions are legally effective, in spite of the general rule that a firstborn is entitled to his share of the inheritance even if he died before his father, if he left behind natural heirs. In every instance where the expression על פני occurs as referring to people, it means “during the lifetime of, etc.” (Compare Genesis 11,28, Numbers 3,4)
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   סורר ומורה, “wayward and rebellious;” Nachmanides points out that there are two culpable deeds here for which punishment is called for. !) Treating one’s parents with disdain, disrespect. 2) He drinks alcohol to excess and he is a glutton, something forbidden to Jews who have been commanded to be a holy nation, not one guilty of debauchery. Even so, neither one of these sins is one that carries a death penalty. This penalty can be justified only because it heads off the likelihood that the son in question when fully adult will become guilty of the death penalty after committing sins which may cost other people’s lives before he is brought to justice.
      Naturally, many people ask how someone can be convicted of the death penalty, or of any penalty for that matter, at a time when is not guilty of an indictable offence. We have a rule that no one is convicted except on the basis of the sins he has carried out, not for the ones he contemplated committing in the future. (Compare <i>Sanhedrin</i> 72) This rule was based on the words באשר הוא שם, which the Torah writes in connection with Ishmael who was about to perish from thirst just out of earshot of his mother Hagar, (Genesis 21,16-21). Ishmael’s survival at the time does not necessarily contradict the principle we quoted, as we do not know of any crime committed by Ishmael afterwards that would have made him guilty of the death penalty. [Who knows if his miraculous survival did not inspire him to observe a lifestyle more in accordance with what he had seen in his father Avraham’s house. Ed.] Although we have a rule that all is under the control of heaven except whether man will be G’d-fearing and observe a lifestyle which reflects this, i.e. he is not interfered with in his decisions by G’d, the wayward son raised under ideal circumstances by parents who both were models of piety, is judged by the Torah, by superhuman psychology, as growing up to be thoroughly depraved. The Torah, [i.e. also his parents who bring him to court, Ed.] are therefore doing him a favour by enabling the court which decrees his execution to preserve such a son’s share in the hereafter for him through his execution at this stage of his life
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   וכל ישראל ישמעו וייראו, “and the whole people of Israel will hear about this execution, and they will become more G’d-fearing.” According to Nachmanides this is the Torah’s way of making clear to the people that G’d’s objective with this legislation is even more aimed at the people on the whole than at the victim, as it is hoped to make the carrying out of this legislation totally unnecessary in the future. Execution of the recalcitrant Torah scholar, זקן ממרא, who may even have been objectively correct in his interpretation of Torah law, is also based on the fact that the authority of legally appointed judges must be respected, even if until the final handing down of the judgment there is freedom to argue the merits of the verdict. Public interest as interpreted by the lawgiver, the Torah, sometimes overrides what we in our limited vision consider the infringement of the right of the individual. Stamping out the roots of religious disputes by nipping such dissent involving civil disobedience in the bud, prevents the forming of schisms and different groups ultimately each upholding a version of the Torah of their own. [Some of the wording is my own, though not the thrust of the message. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   כי קללת אלוקים תלוי. ”for a hanging person is a curse of G’d.” Some sages learn from this verse that all people who were executed by stoning are to have their bodies hung publicly during the balance of the day of their execution. The expression קללת אלוקים does not refer to the act of hanging and displaying the body of the sinner in question, but it refers only to the person who was executed for blaspheming. In practice, this hanging is applied only to the body of the blasphemer who, more than anyone else, had cheapened the whole concept of a human being, whom G’d had created in His image, and he had the unforgivable nerve to curse his Creator. His body, by his own admission then, is not worth treating with the dignity accorded to other dead bodies.
      Nachmanides writes that when viewing the text at its face value, the meaning is that whenever a person commits a sin deserving of the death penalty by public hanging, his corpse will not be hung from a tree as there is no greater curse that can be applied to a human being than to publicly hang him. It is therefore not appropriate that such a stain on human dignity, akin to ritual contamination, should ever be seen in the Holy Land.
      Our sages interpret the words קללת אלוקים as referring to the person executed, saying that the message is that although this person deserves the debasement of being hung, but that seeing that this would reflect negatively on his Creator, the Torah spared him this indignity. They also say that we learn from the words קללת אלוקים that anyone hanging a dead corpse thereby inflicting an indignity on that body, is guilty of transgressing a negative commandment (compare <i>Sanhedrin</i> 15) 
  
     ולא תטמא את אדמתך, “so that you do not contaminate your land.” Nachmanides writes that this cannot be the only consideration for having to bring the corpse of the judicially executed sinner to burial before nightfall, as if it were, it would be permissible to let such a corpse remain unburied overnight in the Diaspora. The true interpretation is that it is forbidden to leave a corpse unburied [or untended Ed.] overnight, whereas when this happens in the Holy Land one transgresses an additional commandment by doing so.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   לא תראה את שור אחיך, “You shall not see (without helping) the ox of your brother, etc.” Nachmanides writes that this verse is necessary, seeing that elsewhere the Torah had written that: “you must restore the ox or donkey of your enemy when it is lost, you must restore it to him.” (Exodus 23,4) Moses now adds the expression נדחים, a different kind of dilemma that these animals find themselves in. You could have thought by reading Exodus 23,4 that all you have to do is point the erring animal in the right direction towards its owner. Here Moses goes beyond this, demanding that you ensure that the animal gets back safely to its master. This may, on occasion, involve far more time and effort on your part.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ואם לא קרוב אחיך אליך, “And if your brother is not near you, etc.” you are to keep his belongings safe by bringing them to your own house.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   וכן תעשה לחמורו, ...לשמלתו...ולכל אבדת אחיך, “you are to deal in a similar manner with an ass, a garment, or any other object your brother has apparently lost.” The Torah lists different categories of possessions, some that need feeding, others that are relatively inexpensive and do not represent a great loss if the loser does not recover them. Our sages also derive from the words עד דרוש אחיך, “until your brother request said object,” that in order to claim such “lost” property the claimant must furnish proof that these objects are really his.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   לא תראה את חמור אחיך או שורו נופלים בדרך, “You must not idly look on while the donkey or ox of your brother collapse under their load;” Nachmanides writes that here Moses adds an additional dimension to what the Torah had already written in Exodus 23,5 where the animal was described as רובץ תחת משאו, ”lying down (impotently) under its load” (overload). Whereas in Exodus only a donkey, an animal that is used to carry heavy loads is mentioned, and the owner is your enemy, so that the Torah’s concern appears to be only the suffering of the beast, here Moses speaks about אחיך, “your brother,” to show that another consideration for offering assistance must be the desire to keep alive the concept that all Jews are to relate to fellow Jews as if they were brothers. The hate relationship must be set aside when even only an animal’s suffering is involved.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   לא תקח האם על הבנים, “do not take the mother bird with the young birds.” Nachmanides writes that the rationale behind this commandment is the same as the one behind the prohibition to slaughter both a calf and its mother on the same day. The purpose of the legislation in both instances is to ensure that our hearts will not become insensitive to animal’s feelings, as once they have become such, the next step is insensitivity to our fellow humans’ feelings.
      Alternately, the legislation is a reminder by the Torah that we must not do something, which, if duplicated many times would lead to the extinction of the species in question.
      Maimonides in his <i>Moreh Nevuchim</i> section 3,48 writes that the reason for both the above-mentioned pieces of legislation is to avoid a mother animal watch its young being slaughtered before its own eyes, as the sensitivity to such a happening is as great among animals as it is among humans. Nachmanides, questioning Maimonides’ approach, writes that if it were correct the legislation of לא תשחטו אותו ואת בנו, “do not slaughter mother animal and its young,” should apply only when the younger animal is slaughtered first. Once the mother animal has been slaughtered there is no reason not to proceed with the slaughter of its young. <i>Halachah</i> forbids the slaughtering of both generations on the same day regardless of the order in which these animals are slaughtered. [Compare Maimonides’ own ruling in chapter 12 of <i>hilchot shechitah</i>, that if someone first slaughters the cow, and then two of her calves on the same day, he has committed 2 transgressions and is punished separately for each. Ed.] It is therefore more likely that the point of these two items of legislation in the Torah is to prevent Jews from becoming cruel.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   לא תזרע כרמך כלאים, “Do not sow your field (vineyard) with a mixture of grapes and other plants.” The Torah had already written a similar verse where instead of כרמך, the word שדך, “your field,” a more inclusive term had been used. (Leviticus 19,19) Basically, what is new and additional here is what follows, i.e.
  
     פן תקדש, “lest it become forbidden (like sacred products, to non priests). It would not only be forbidden to eat, but also for any secondary form of enjoyment, selling it, using its wood to make fires, etc. The expression פן, just as in other instances whenever it appears, is a word “forbidding something on pain of.” 
      It is also possible that the meaning is as in פן ינכרו צרימו, in Deut. 32,27 where it means lest its oppressor misunderstand, i.e. In our verse the meaning is: “lest not only the one crop but also the second crop would be forbidden at different stages of their respective growth processes and you would err in knowing when the product becomes forbidden.” [This interpretation presumes that the farmer, keeping in mind that the grapes will mature much later than the other crop of, say barley, thinks that there is really no mingling going on at all. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   לא תלבש שעטנז, “you must not dress in a mixture of wool and linen threads.” Moses explains in this verse that this prohibition applies only to mixing wool and linen fibers. He mentions the word לבש to wear, to indicate that only when such mixtures are worn as a single garment is this probation applicable. Wearing a linen shirt and a woolen suit is perfectly in order. Also, even if such a mixture is used, say protectively, but not in the manner one wears clothing, one has not transgressed this commandment.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  כי יקח איש אשה, “When a man marries a wife, etc.” According to Nachmanides the expression כי יקח here does not refer to the final stage of the wedding, but the initial stage, the betrothal, such a when the man hands the woman a piece of jewelry or other trinket and she accepts it as a promise of marriage. Consummation of the marriage was usually delayed by 12 months. When that has occurred, the groom claims that she had not been a virgin at that point. He intends to cause her loss of her life as he claims that at the time of her betrothal she had still been a virgin, becomes guilty of death by stoning, for if she had lost her virginity prior to becoming betrothed she would not be culpable at all. The Torah here hints strongly how it disapproves of a girl losing her virginity voluntarily before her betrothal by writing (verse 21) כי עשתה נבלה בישראל לזנות בית אביה “that (at any rate, even if completely unattached) it would be an outrage if she demeaned herself while still in the home of her parents.” In Biblical usage, a girl, woman who was unattached at the time when she engaged in sexual intercourse is not considered a זונה, harlot. 
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ולקח אבי הנערה ואמה, “then the father and the mother of the girl will take (proof).” Nachmanides points out that at this stage both her father and her mother are mentioned as standing up publicly in defense of their daughter, although only her father speaks up in her defense. When submitting their evidence to the elders, father and mother are both involved. The reason why only the father voices his opinions in the forum of the elders is that seeing the indemnification for having slandered his daughter is payable to him, it is he who must submit the claim. On the other hand, all matters connected to שמלה, in this instance a simile for bedclothes, are a woman’s business, a mother’s concern. They are the experts capable of judging what colour blood originates in which part of the body. Normally, the sensitivity of the matter would have required that only the mother concern herself with this, but, seeing that the father had stated that he, as a father, had given this daughter to the man who now has slandered her reputation, and by inference the father’s inability to have brought up his daughter properly, he is invited by the Torah to be present throughout the proceedings.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ופרשו השמלה, ”they will spread out the sheet, etc.” This verse needs to be understood as a simile, i.e. just as a sheet bears clear testimony to what went on while people slept on it, so the facts of the case are made crystal clear by the presentation of the accused girl’s parents. Nachmanides adds that this interpretation is appropriate according to the sages who claim that the slanderer will be found guilty even though he had not even had marital relations with his bride. According to the sage who holds that the slanderer cannot be convicted unless both parties agree that the marriage had been consummated, the verse has to be understood at its face value, i.e. that the שמלה our verse speaks of is the sheet on which the young couple consummated their marriage.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  וענשו אותו מאה כסף, “they will fine him one hundred pieces of silver;” Nachmanides writes that since it had been the accepted custom to pay a dowry of 50 pieces of silver when marrying a virgin to the father of the bride, or to her if she was of age, and this “groom” wanted to cheat the father out of that amount, the Torah imposes the kind of penalty that reflects the one paid by a thief, i.e. double the amount stolen.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ומתו גם שניהם, and they will both die. <i>Rashi</i> explains that the apparently superfluous word גם, “also,” refers to unborn children that these people could have looked forward to having had they remained alive.
      Nachmanides writes that he does not understand <i>Rashi’s</i> comment [As his comments appear to be based on an erroneous text in a <i>Rashi</i> manuscript, and resolving it is lengthy, I’ll skip this. Ed.]
      According to the plain meaning of the text, the word גם is not superfluous, but it refers to two separate instances of grossly sinful behaviour, 1) the slanderer in verses 14-20 as well as 2) the seducer in our verse here. According to <i>Sifri</i> the additional dimension derived here is based on the superfluous words האיש השוכב and והאשה, indicating that sometimes only one of the participating parties are executed, such as when one of the parties was a minor. Even though the minor may have been the one that initiated the sin, only the adult pays the penalty. 
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   על דבר שלא צעקה בעיר, “because she did not even cry out in the city;” Nachmanides writes that the example quoted here by the Torah is the scenario that usually occurs. Normally, when the girl about to be raped cries out, there will be someone in the city that responds to her outcry. Failure to cry out may therefore be interpreted as consent by her. Similarly, seeing that there is only a remote chance that one’s outcry is heard in the field, her failure to cry for help does not incriminate her. If it can be proven that there were people passing by in the field while all this was taking place, she is considered as having consented because she had not tried to attract attention. If the woman did not know how to attract attention by crying out, but she is found weeping bitterly, this is also considered a behaviour that exonerates her from being labeled a harlot. Alternately, any attempt on her part to escape her attacker by struggling with him in silence also is interpreted as conduct that exonerates her.
  
     על דבר אשר ענה את אשת רעהו, “for his having raped the wife of his fellow;” Nachmanides writes that although, generally, the expression עינוי, affliction, is used only when actual rape takes place, as in Genesis 34,2 with Dinah daughter of Yaakov, whereas here the woman in question was a willing partner in the act, why else would the Torah declare her guilty? However the situation described here is one where the man in question has been seen taking hold of her, and was lying down with her and she made no attempt to be rescued or to rescue herself; she is guilty while the man, at the same time, is considered as having raped her, since he initiated the crime without her consent being expressed, and he had made no attempt to seduce her, i.e. to secure her freely given consent.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ממזר, “bastard,” according to Nachmanides the term is derived from מוזר, something or somebody strange, not fitting into an accepted mould and therefore excluded, rejected. When a man fathers the child of his father’s wife, he is so ashamed that he will not acknowledge the child, will shun it, ostracise it; he will try to minimize his own shame by not being associated with the product of his unbridled lust. Similarly, the mother of such a child will try and rid herself of it in the dark of the night. The child will wind up being a “foundling.”
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם, “on account of their not having greeted you, etc.;” the last few words refer to the nation Ammon.
  
     ואשר שכר עליך וגו., “and because it hired against you, etc.” a reference to the people of Moav who hired Bileam to curse the Israelites. On the other hand, the Moabites, as distinct from their cousins the Ammonites, did offer food and drink to the Israelites as we know from Moses’ own testimony in Deut. 2,28 אכל בכסף תשבירני כאשר עשו בני עשו ..והמואבים, “sell me food against payment in cash, as the Edomites and the Moabites have done for me.” I have explained this whole scenario on Deut.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   לא תדרוש שלומם, “do not seek their peace, etc.” The choice of the word דורש in above verse, is understood by <i>Sifri</i> as based on Deut. 20,10 where prior to attacking a city the Israelite commander in chief makes peaceful overtures in order to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. On the face of it, I might have thought that what is written in our verse refers also to the nations of Ammon and Moav; the Torah therefore adds, that we must not actively promote those nations’ welfare though we are forbidden to provoke war with them or to harass them. What then is the message of our verse? If, per chance, Israel has occasion to go to war against a city that had been conquered by the Ammonites or Moabites, who themselves had no business to expand their borders, the presence of the Ammonites and Moabites does not need to deter us from invading such a town forthwith, without peaceful overtures beforehand. Not only that; if either of these nations conducts war against us by invading the land of Israel, we are at liberty not only to drive them out, but to pursue them and annihilate their armies on foreign soil. We may even conquer lands that they have occupied for long periods. Basically, this is what Yiftach did in Judges, chapter 11. It is permitted in such situations to kill also the women and children of the invading enemy even if it is Ammon or Moav.
      Looking at it from the plain meaning of the text when read without looking for deeper meanings, Moses stresses that although both the Moabites and the Ammonites, being descendants of Lot, Avraham’s nephew, are “family” in a manner of speaking, we are not to promote their welfare as they have forfeited any special claims upon us, not having acted as blood relations should. They have long ago severed the bond with Avraham’s heirs and have broken faith with Avraham who had been responsible for their survival more than once.
      In fact, <i>Hashem</i> had treated them with especial concern because they were related to Avraham, and the latter had even risked his life for Lot, rescuing him from the four mightiest kings on earth at that time. He did this in recognition that at one time, Lot, by joining Avraham in emigrating to a strange country, Canaan, had behaved properly and had even not revealed to Pharaoh that Sarah was in fact Avraham’s wife and not his sister. Nonetheless, they had long spent the reward that they had received for that. Similarly, there had been a time when the Egyptians had welcomed Yaakov and his family and had treated them very generously. Nonetheless, the merit they had acquired at that time, at no real cost to themselves seeing that Joseph had saved them from the famine, they had long ago frittered away when they turned on the Israelites with unmatched cruelty only because the Israelites had dared to have large families. This is why, if Egyptians wanted to convert to Judaism and join our nation, three generations had to pass before they could become fully equal members of the Jewish people. Similar restrictions apply to descendants from Esau/Edom. In spite of all our suffering at the hands of these people and their hatred for us, the Torah does not permit us to reject them and to treat them as an abomination. [After all, their descendants did not harm us, they were not even born at that time. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ונשמרת מכל דבר רע, “you shall be on guard against anything evil.” <i>Rashi</i> understands this line as a warning that Satan works “overtime” whenever the Israelites find themselves in danger, so that even minor misdemeanours will be exploited by him as the perennial prosecutor of the Jews at the throne of <i>Hashem</i>.
      Nachmanides writes that in his eyes the true explanation of this line at this particular juncture is that when at war due to the difficult conditions, one tends to become less stringent in one’s ritual observances. Moses therefore warns the people that at that time more than at any other, because one’s life is in danger and one depends on <i>Hashem’s</i> special protection, one must be careful not to become lax in one’s Torah observance.
      From the vantage point of the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, Moses warns someone who experienced a seminal emission to leave the boundaries of the camp (the subject discussed in the verses following), the reason being that seeing G’d is present in the camp, it is not befitting that someone who is ritually contaminated share that domain with the presence of G’d until he has purified himself. Consciousness of His presence in order to ensure our success in war, will also make the soldier concerned reflect that in the last analysis it is not his prowess as a soldier that ensures success but the help we receive from above. Similar considerations also made our sages decree that a synagogue, or even a private place where prayers are offered must be at least 4 cubits (2.5 meters) removed from a toilet or other place where garbage is dumped. The reason why the Torah decrees that excrement must be covered, although it is not ritually contaminating, is that if visible to the person offering up prayers to his Creator, it will distract from his concentration. Seeing that prayer, unless offered when the heart is “in gear,” is not only ineffective but almost insulting to <i>Hashem,</i> we must take steps to remove from our vision anything that will detract from our concentration. 
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   לא תסגיר עבד לאדוניו, “Do not turn over a slave (who has escaped from his master) to his owner.” According to Nachmanides the reason why this verse is appropriately written at this point, is that that during the confusion which reigns during a siege or battle, many slaves use the opportunity to escape from their masters. A soldier who leaves his own camp in order to relieve himself, is liable to encounter such fleeing slaves in the no-man’s land where he answers a call of a nature. The Torah, especially has in mind, that the soldier in question not turn over the escaping slave by collecting a fee for this from his master, and thereby engage in slave-trading.
  
     עמך ישב במקום אשר יבחר, “he shall dwell with you in a location of his choice;” it is a positive commandment that this slave live as a free human being. The reason why this law has been given, and especially has been mentioned at this point, is that the former slave is to be encouraged to join us Jews in serving <i>Hashem,</i> instead of our turning him over to his former master and thereby increasing the number of pagans serving idols. Furthermore, by turning him over to his former master, there is a chance that this slave has become privy to information that might help the enemy to invade our country or to infiltrate the encampment of the Israelite army. History is full of stories of such “slaves” having been used as spies by their masters.
      Our sages interpret this verse as applying primarily to a Canaanite slave who has fled his master seeking refuge within Israel. Even though, basically, the Torah decreed that we must kill these people, here where the initiative comes from the Canaanite who is aware that he will likely be treated far more humanely by Jews, the Torah encourages us to bring him closer to <i>Hashem</i> by allowing him to embrace Judaism.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   לא תהיה קדשה מבני ישראל, “There shall not be a promiscuous woman among the daughters of Israel.” <i>Rashi</i> interprets the reason for Moses choosing the word קדשה, related to קדוש, holy, for such a woman as being that among the Israelites there must not be people who dedicate, “sanctify” their lives by practicing promiscuity. 
  
     ולא יהיה קדש, “neither shall their be a male dedicating his life to promiscuity, making sexuality his aim in life.” This is a warning against practicing homosexuality. Nachmanides writes that if that were so, i.e. forbidding public promiscuity as a negative commandment were meant to apply only to married women who had sinned by indulging in illicit sex, not to devote their lives to harlotry, one would conclude that an unmarried woman indulging in such activity in the privacy of her home had not transgressed the commandment legislated in verse 18. One would arrive at a similar conclusion concerning the males of whom the Torah speaks in verse 19. He cannot understand what made <i>Rashi</i> use the expression מזומן, dedicated to, oriented in that direction, seeing that even an occasional indulgence in homosexual relations is punishable by the harsh penalty <i>karet</i> or execution, as we know from Leviticus Furthermore, turning to the text itself, why does the Torah (Moses) not write: “there shall not be amongst you, etc.,” and writes instead בבנות ישראל, “among the daughters of Israel.”
      Nachmanides continues writing that in view of the points he raised he believes that the entire legislation in these two verses is addressed to the court dealing with such offenders. The courts must not allow any Jewish woman/girl to publicly offer her services as a prostitute, or for such a person to rent or own a dwelling devoted to the pursuit of such activities. The court is similarly warned to enforce parallel legislation making it difficult for males to do something similar.
      Looking at the plain meaning of the text, the Torah appears to prohibit even normal sexual relations between a man and a woman married to one another if such activity takes place in a house that is known to serve as a brothel. The court must see to it that women offering their services as sex objects are apprehended and prevented from doing so in public.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   לא תביא אתנן זונה ...בית ה', “You must not bring to the Temple the proceeds from your activity as a harlot.” Nachmanides writes that these harlots would use some of the gifts they received from their customers to make donations and offer sacrifices in the Temple, to expiate for the wrongs they had done. The Torah legislates, while it cannot prevent such harlots to use some of their ill gotten gains to give charity with such money, that such proceeds from sinful activities cannot be accepted as something sacred. [In our parlance, this would be an early example of money laundering. Ed.] Instead of cleansing themselves from sin, they would sink deeper into the moral morass that they were already in.
      The Torah legislates something similar concerning the proceeds from selling a dog. The Torah singles out dogs seeing that people who hunt by using dogs, or people training dogs to attack potential intruders, contribute to many innocent people being harmed by such dogs. Nachmanides also quotes instances from his own experience in which people hang the images of dogs near the idols that they worship, so that a dog, in many cultures, is identified with something idolatrous. The proceeds from the sale of such dogs are equally unwelcome in the Temple.
  
     גם שניהם, “both of them.” Seeing that the first example, the price paid for a harlot’s services, or the animal paid is a greater abomination than the proceeds of the sale of the dog, Moses wants to make sure that we do not consider the latter as in a completely different class, i.e. as a far less offensive sin. Alternatively, seeing that up until now the Torah had disqualified potential use of certain animals as sacrificial offerings forbidden only if the animal had certain physical blemishes, here we hear for the first time that the animal may have a moral blemish due to the lifestyle of its owner. In the case of animals having a physical blemish the Torah had introduced the legislation with the words: לא תזבח לה' אלוקיך שור או שה..אשר יהיה בו מום וגו', “you shall not slaughter for the Lord your G’d an ox or lamb that has a blemish, etc.” (Deut 17,1) The reason given is that such a blemish is considered an abomination. Here too, the reason given for the legislation is that it would be considered an abomination to offer an animal to <i>Hashem</i> that was acquired in payment for committing a sin.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   לא תשיך, ”do not let the lender, your brother, take interest.” We have been taught already (Leviticus 25,36-37) that we must not lend money at interest to fellow Jews, but here Moses warns the borrower not to allow his brother, the Jew to become guilty by accepting such interest from him. This is a dimension not found in other aspects dealing with laws involving money, etc. The Torah, ordinarily, does not use preventive legislation to stop people from causing themselves financial harm. Seeing, however, that the incidence of paying and accepting interest on loans is so widespread, the Torah made an exception in this instance. It went further in the definition of what is interest, writing:
  
     נשך כסף, נשך אוכל, וגו', “regardless of whether such interest consists of actual money, or its equivalent such as food, etc.” The Torah is at pains to warn us that the concept of “interest” is not limited to the payment of cash, but includes any consideration that normally would not have been shown by the borrower to the lender had he not been in a position of owing money to the lender. Charging interest is not by itself something reprehensible, as one receives a compensation for services rendered. However, charging interest to a fellow Jew is denying that he is family, is one’s brother, and that is why the Torah keeps stressing the element אחיך, “who is your brother.” The Torah stresses that charging or paying interest when dealing with a gentile is in order, to tell us that this is a normal commercial transaction. It is not even remotely related to stealing or robbing, as it is freely given.
  
     כל דבר אשר ישך, “anything that he may take as interest.” This includes any kinds of vessels, and other items that most people would never consider as representing interest when someone gives it to them. The Torah added these words to make sure we would not think that unless paid in hard cash it does not fall under the heading of “interest.” Cash, after all, is only a means to acquiring items that we need or want to possess. Hence it is not the actual cash that is the interest, but what this cash enables you to do with it.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   למען יברכך ה' אלוקיך, “in order that the Lord your G’d will bless you;” by doing a deed of loving kindness with one’s brother, such as helping him with an interest-free loan, one acquires the merit that qualifies one to receive a special blessing by <i>Hashem.</i> It is considered צדקה, i.e. the same as if one had actually handed over money as alms, as a contribution to a charitable institution. Foregoing repayment of overdue loans at the end of the last year of the <i>sh’mittah</i> cycle is also an act of charity a requirement that only applies to one’s fellow Jew, because he is to be treated as one’s brother. This is why Moses follows this legislation up with the specific permission, or even commandment, according to many authorities, to charge interest on loans to gentiles, and, of course, permission to pay interest if we need to get a loan from gentiles. It is interesting that the Torah promises special blessings from <i>Hashem</i> only in connection with abstaining from charging interest, not when refraining from stealing, robbing, or overcharging unwary customers.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   וכי תחדל לנדור, “And when you refrain from making gifts in the form of a vow,” you would, in the first place, only phrase a gift you want to make (mostly to the Temple treasury) in the form of a vow, as the vow reminds you not to tarry with discharging the duties you imposed upon yourself. Seeing that your intention in making such a vow was honourable, laudatory, if you are prevented by circumstances beyond your control to keep to the terms of your vow, the Torah tells you that this will not be held against you. 
      However, if you simply refrain from honouring a vow made, without the excuse that circumstances beyond your control had prevented you from honouring it, or honouring it on time, then you have violated the law that whatever you undertake, be it in the form of a vow or a simple statement, you are obligated by the Torah to keep such undertakings. The Torah views such commitments as not only undertakings to your fellow, but as undertakings toward <i>Hashem.</i> In light of all that has been said, the Torah counsels that you would be better off if you were not to make a vow at all.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   אחרי אשר הוטמאה, “seeing she had already become defiled;” <i>Rashi</i> understands this verse as also applying to the <i>Sotah,</i> the wife suspected by her husband of marital infidelity. He means a woman whose infidelity had not been proven, but whose conduct by secluding herself with a man other than her husband, had led to such suspicions. As long as her infidelity had not been proven she would not be forbidden to her husband. The critical word here is הוטמאה, that her infidelity had been proven.
      Nachmanides writes that when looking at the text without seeking hidden meanings, what the verse tells us is that the original husband cannot remarry her, as she had become defiled (not legally) in his eyes, he being aware that she had in the interval been sleeping with another man.
      The rationale behind this legislation is to prevent legalized sleeping around by husbands, each divorcing their wives in order to enable “wife swapping” to become a legalized habit. The divorce would be written in the evening and in the morning the original husband would remarry his erstwhile wife, assuming that she had meanwhile been divorced by her latest “husband.” This is the meaning of the additional words ולא תחטיא את הארץ, “so that you do not bring sin upon the Land.” In the <i>Sifri,</i> these words are understood as having been addressed by Moses to the courts, which are warned not to tolerate such practices if they develop in parts of the society.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ולא יעבור עליו לכל דבר, “nor shall he be obligated to anything.” Ibn Ezra understands the letter ל in the word לכל as extraneous. Nachmanides reads together the line לא יצא בצבא ולא יעבור עליו, as meaning that “not only will he not be recruited for duty on the battlefield, but during that year he will not be drafted for auxiliary duties,” such as bringing up the supplies. During that year, the newly wed husband is to devote himself exclusively to making his bride happy.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   לא יחבול רחים ורכב, “he must not take an upper or lower millstone as a pledge;” the Torah abbreviated, failing to tell us who the subject is. He is the creditor, who after the loan is overdue, wants to secure his loan with some collateral.
      If one wants to view this from an <i>aggadic</i> standpoint, the words as they are fit in with the Torah’s directive for the newly wed husband to devote himself to entertaining his bride; a warning to the groom when performing his marital duties not to behave to his wife as if he were grinding mustard seeds.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   גונב גפש מאחיו, “kidnapping a person from among his brethren;” The reason why the Torah added the words מבני ישראל, is that Esau, and his descendants are also “brethren,” and would have been included in this legislation unless specifically excluded.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   זכור את אשר עשה ה' אלוקיך למרים, “keep remembering what the Lord your G’d had done to Miriam, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> understands this as a veiled warning that if we do not want to be struck with the affliction of <i>tzoraat,</i> we must remember how Miriam was punished for badmouthing her brother Moses.
      Nachmanides writes that in his opinion this verse is a positive commandment ranking parallel to the fourth Commandment in the Ten Commandments זכור את יום השבת לקדשו, “keep remembering the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.” There are other such verses, such as to remember the day we left Egypt as a free nation, (Exodus 13,3) or, at the end of this portion, ”remember what Amalek did to you, etc.” (Deut. 25,17) This is the Torah’s way of underlining the grave sin of badmouthing people by adding a positive commandment to the negative commandment. The positive commandment is to constantly remember how even the illustrious Miriam, Moses’ lifesaver in a certain manner, was punished for saying a few words criticizing him unjustly. She had not done so publicly, and yet all her numerous merits did not protect her against being punished, and that punishment being very public, the whole nation having to wait a whole week before they could move on. It is not enough to remember what happened to Miriam only in one’s heart, but we are required to read the relevant verses with our lips to impress the importance of the problem of badmouthing people. In the last verse the Torah warned us to be extremely careful in matters of the affliction called <i>tzoraat,</i> i.e. in that verse we were warned to remember what that affliction is for in our hearts and minds. Now the Torah reinforces this commandment by ordering us to voice the fact that we have committed this lesson to memory. Seeing that in the eyes of our sages the sin of לשון הרע, badmouthing people is equated with the spilling of innocent blood, (compare <i>Erchin</i> 15) it is not surprising therefore that the Torah reinforces it. It is quite inconceivable that such a grievous sin should not have been spelled out in the Torah. We therefore regard what is written in verse 8 and verse 9 as a severe warning not to become guilty of such a sin either in public or even in private. The sin is not lessened if the intent of the criticism was not to harm the good reputation of the party discussed. [Miriam’s criticism was in defense of her sister-in-law Tzipporah whom Moses had divorced for no good cause, as she had thought. Ed.] לשון הרע is part of the roster of the 613 commandments, no less so than not to violate the Sabbath.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ואם איש עני הוא, “but if he is a poor man, etc.” Moses calls that man poor, as he has no substitute for the item he had to give the creditor as security. If he had possessed two of the same kind of vessel, he would exchange them for the first one regardless of being poor or wealthy.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   לא תעשוק שכר עני ואביון, “You must not oppress a poor or destitute hired hand by withholding his wages unduly;” the legislation, of course, also applies to labourers who are comfortably off, but the Torah chooses as its examples the ones most likely as being the victims of such practices. Poor men and proselytes are the ones most likely hiring themselves out. <i>Rashi</i> explains that when advantage is taken of a poor man, then the employer has transgressed two prohibitions, hence the words עני as well as אביון, different degrees of poverty and need.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ביומו תתן שכרו, “you are to pay his wages on the day that he performed the labour.” Nachmanides explains that the wording suggests that a labourer who has worked at night must be paid during the following day, whereas a day labourer must be paid before the night is over.
      The plain meaning of the verse is that the wages of a labourer must not remain with the employer overnight, seeing that the Torah usually chooses the most common examples, and most labourers are hired to work by day. The thrust of the verse is to tell the employer to pay the laborer when he goes home in the evening to eat his supper, and not to require him to come back once more in order to collect his wages. If he were a poor man, what would he use to pay for his supper if he had not yet been paid?
  
     כי עני הוא, “for he is poor;” most people hiring themselves out for a day at a time are poor, and depend on every penny they have earned with their labour on that day. By trusting that particular employer to pay them on time, they are, metaphorically speaking, entrusting the employer with their lives, as they depend on that prompt payment to satisfy their most basic requirements. He might die from hunger during that night if he had not been paid and become able to buy food with that money.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   כי יהיה ריב בין אנשים, “if an argument between two men results in their taking their case to the court;” Nachmanides writes, basing himself on a long standing tradition, that the penalty of 39 lashes is administered for deliberate transgressions of negative commandments when no specific penalty has been decreed by the Torah. Why would the Torah expand on this penalty when speaking about a fight between two people, when the same penalty is applied for people who eat meat that has not been slaughtered, or who indulge in a number of other forbidden activities? Furthermore, what law did these two people break when they engaged in a fight? The whole structure of our verse, which speaks about exonerating someone after judgment had been given and labeling the second party as “wicked” is problematic. Why do we need a verse telling us that the person found “justified” be so declared as such by the judges?
      Such considerations prompted our sages to understand the whole paragraph as dealing with a scenario involving a second set of witnesses appearing after initial judgment having been given. This second set of witnesses challenges the witnesses on the basis of whose testimony the guilty party has been convicted by claiming that those witnesses had been with them in a different location at the time the fight was supposed to have occurred, so that they could not have witnessed that fight at all. 
      Normally, in such a case the first set of witnesses would be given the penalty that they had intended to be applied to their victim. (Deut. 19,19) When this is impossible, such as when they claimed that seeing the accused party was the son of a legally forbidden union and could not partake of certain privileges reserved for children of legitimate unions, then the court will impose the penalty of 39 lashes, as it is impossible to change those witnesses’ legal status in the community. The judges, when reversing the conviction, will have to make a public statement that the party originally convicted of the crime in question had in fact been righteous and had remained righteous throughout. According to a homiletic approach the reason why the number of lashes is described as being “40,” (excluding the 40th), is that the guilty party had violated a commandment that Moses had been given during the 40 days he had been on Mt Sinai without food and drink. Moreover, by sinning, the guilty party had condemned himself to death as it takes 40 days in the womb of its mother for the embryo to begin to evolve into a living human being. The 40 lashes are intended to absolve the sinner from further guilt. 
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   והיה הבכור אשר תלד יקום על שם אחיו, “and the firstborn male child whom she will give birth to will replace his deceased brother (the widow’s new husband).” Nachmanides writes that this verse cannot be taken at face value, as there is no requirement to give the newly born the same name as that of his deceased uncle.
      The reason the verse was written in this manner is that <i>Hashem</i> gives His assurance that if the levirate marriage is performed according to law and the lawgiver’s intention, the newly born will become a replacement on earth for his father’s deceased brother.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   לא יהיה בכיסך אבן ואבן, “You must not have in your pocket two stones purporting to weigh the same but designed to deceive the customer.” Ibn Ezra explains that the word בכיסך is a reference to the pouch in which weights are kept. The word is derived from כסס, and is used in the sense of uniform weights in Proverbs 1,14 כיס אחד יהיה לכולנו, “let us all have a common purse.” It also appears in a slightly different form in Exodus 12,4 where it refers to the number of people arranging to receive equal shares of a Paschal lamb.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק, “keep on remembering what Amalek has done to you.”
      Nachmanides writes, quoting our sages (<i>Sifri</i>) on our verse that the word זכור is to be understood as remembering by mouth, i.e. reading the appropriate verses in the Torah, whereas the words לא תשכח, at the end of the paragraph refer to remembering in one’s heart. 
      Nachmanides continues that he does not understand what <i>Sifri</i> has in mind when he says that זכור refers to “remembering” by mouth. If it referred to the reading of the paragraphs in the Torah dealing with Amalek’s attack in a public reading, this is a long established custom on the Sabbath before <i>Purim</i>, (as well as the reading of the actual report in <i>Beshalach</i> which is read on the morning of <i>Purim.</i>)
      He therefore concludes that what is meant is that we (subsequent generations) must not forget what Amalek has done to us until the time comes when the memory of his erstwhile existence has been expunged from history. While Anmalek or his descendants still exist on earth, we must make sure that in educating our children we impress upon them who he was and what he hoped to accomplish, namely the extinction of the Jewish people by any means possible. The same holds true for what happened to Miriam. In spite of the fact that we normally gloss over shortcomings of our righteous forbears, in this case the moral ethical advantage to be derived from remembering that episode outweighs the danger of thereby detracting from Miriam’s many merits. The sin of badmouthing people is such that we must be on our guard against it at all times, and demonstrate by the example of Miriam that even the greatest people are liable to trip up. We, who cannot measure up to such people must therefore be especially on guard against becoming guilty of that sin.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   והיה כי תבא אל הארץ וגו'...ולקחת מראשית כל פרי האדמה אשר תביא מארצך , “It will be when you enter the Land …..and you will take from the first of every fruit of the ground that you bring in, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that seeing that the last paragraph had concluded with the statement that the commandment to wipe out Amalek would not become operative until we were no longer surrounded by and threatened by enemies, the Torah now had to stress that there are commandments which become operative as soon as we had established ourselves on our ancestral heritage in the Land of Israel, formerly the Land of Canaan. Such laws include the bringing of the first ripe fruit to the Temple, observing the laws of tithing, and a host of others.
      Nachmanides explains that the wording of the commandment here indicates that the first ripe fruit is designated as such while still in the field or on the tree it grew on, and that it becomes sacred in accordance with such a designation. The owner then places the fruit in an appropriate container takes it home and keeps it until he makes the next pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
  
     והלכת אל המקום, “you will go to the place, etc.” Nachmanides writes that taking the verse at face value, the meaning is that once the Temple has been built we are not to take the <i>bikkurim</i> to any city of our liking. Just as the Torah has legislated in connection with the permission to eat non consecrated meat once the people were settled on their land, that any consecrated animal could be offered up only at a central location, i.e. in the Temple in Jerusalem, [once that city had been captured. Ed.], similarly, the consecrated <i>bikkurim</i> have to be brought to that same central location. [During the first 390 years, that location proved to be <i>Shiloh</i> during most of those years. Ed.]
      In the <i>Sifri</i> we are told that what is meant is <i>Shiloh</i> and the permanent Temple, which may lead one to believe that neither <i>Nov</i> nor<i> Giveon</i> ever served as a place where <i>bikkurim</i> were offered up. In other words, those two towns, though the Tabernacle stood there for a number of years, had not been chosen by G’d especially for that purpose, but were considered <i>ad hoc</i> solutions to the problems of “altars,” במות. Nachmanides does not think that this would be the correct interpretation, but thinks that the words: אשר יבחר וגו', were intended only to prohibit the offering of <i>bikkurim</i> on private altars. On the other hand, the words תביא בית ה' אלוקיך is meant to exclude offering these gifts in a temporary, collapsible, portable structure, such as the Tabernacle. 
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   אל הכהן אשר יהיה בימים ההם, “to the priest who is on duty during the years in question.” <i>Rashi</i> explains the verse as a reminder that only the officially ordained religious authority in each generation is authorized to hand down rulings, -on the basis of Torah laws, of course- and that one must not rely on rulings made at different times in different circumstances. (Compare <i>Rosh Hashanah</i> 25.)
      Nachmanides questions that if the Torah had written that “you shall come to the elder who is the wisest in his time,” this would be easy to understand, as the message would be that seeing that not every generation produces brilliant men, there is no choice but to turn to the relatively most learned man, instead of relying on decisions by sages who had lived in different countries, in different conditions. But, when it comes to performing duties in the Temple, why would the Torah have to mention that the first ripe fruit have to be brought to the priest performing his duties at that time, surely the fruit could not be presented to priests who had already died? If the Torah were speaking of חוקים, statutes, not given to interpretation, a reminder that one must go to the priest of one’s own generation would also make sense, the Torah agreeing that we must abide by the present authority’s decision even if these priests, sages, are known to be less learned than their predecessors. So what is the true meaning of what Moses has said here? It means that they have to be given to the roster of priests on duty at the time when the farmer arrives with his gifts, he cannot wait to hand it over until the roster changes in the week following. Neither is the farmer allowed to bring a local priest from his neighborhood with him to Jerusalem in order to ensure that that particular priest is the recipient of his gifts.
      According to <i>Kiddushin</i> 66, the meaning is that even if it turns out in retrospect that the presiding priest at the time was disqualified from receiving these gifts, as he was the son of a forbidden marriage, the ritual is not declared invalid retroactively.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ארמי אובד אבי, “An Aramean tried to destroy my father;” the reference is to Lavan who chased after Yaakov and his family intending to kill them all.
      Ibn Ezra writes that the ארמי described here was Yaakov himself, so that the meaning of the verse would be: “when my forefather Yaakov arrived in Aram he was penniless, on the brink of death.” The word אובד only appears in an intransitive mode, so that it cannot mean that Lavan tries to kill him. Furthermore, the word appears in the context of someone being close to death Proverbs 31,6: תנו שכר לאובד ויין למרי נפש, “give liquor to the one who is about to perish or wine to the embittered.” Verse 7 in that same chapter of Proverbs is proof of that meaning, as Solomon continues with: ישתה וישכח רישו ועמלו לא יזכר עוד, “so that he may forget his poverty, and will no longer remember his suffering.” The meaning of the whole recital by the farmer is: “I did not inherit my wealth from my father who was extremely poor when he came to Aram, and subsequently my forbears were strangers and slaves in Egypt, few in numbers; afterwards my fortunes improved when <i>Hashem</i> redeemed us from slavery and brought us to this wonderful land from the produce of which I bring the first ripe fruit as a symbol of my gratitude.” Do not try to argue that an Israelite cannot be called a “Aramean;” we know both from Samuel II 17,25, and Chronicles I 2,17 that Avraham, Ishmael, who were refugees from Aram at one time are still referred to as Arameans on occasion.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   לא אכלתי באוני ממנו, “I have not eaten from it while in a state of intense pre-mourning;” Nachmanides comments on this that although the confession applies to all the different kinds of tithes, some of which are secular in terms of religious law, here the words apply only to the kinds of gifts that have a sacred character. Produce that has been labeled מעשר שני or נטע רבעי, the second tithe, or the grapes grown in the fourth year after the vineyard has been planted, do possess such a degree of sanctity, and may not be consumed while in a state of impurity or intense mourning, immediately before the burial of the next of kin.
  
     ולא נתתי ממנו למת, “neither did I give from any of it to the dead.” <i>Rashi</i> explains the letter<i> ל</i> in the word למת, as meaning “for,” i.e. to be used to purchase either a coffin or the garments the dead are buried in.
      Nachmanides questions this, as produce having a sacred character such as the ones mentioned, may not be traded to purchase coffins or ordinary clothing for use by the living either. The second tithe may not be redeemed to become secular outside the city of Jerusalem, for instance, except for coin of the realm. The proceeds must be used to purchase food and drink and other items but these are to be consumed inside Jerusalem by the owner and his family.
      Maimonides (<i>Sefer hamitzvot</i> 152) understands the term למת as a simile for something of no benefit to a living human being, the farmer stating that he has spent the proceeds only for items of benefit to the living.
      Some commentators interpret this “confessional” to mean that the farmer has not used the proceeds even to fulfill a commandment such as burying and providing the wherewithal to a dead person who had no family that would assume the burden of burying him in a dignified manner.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   אשר נתת לנו כאשר נשבעת לאבותינו, “that You have given to us as You had sworn to our forefathers.” <i>Rashi</i> understands this as if the Torah had written: “as You have sworn to our forefathers to give to us, and you thus kept Your promise.” It also includes the acknowledgment that the land in question does indeed flow with milk and honey.
      Nachmanides writes that if we were to accept <i>Rashi’s</i> interpretation, the words ואת האדמה אשר נתתה לנו ארץ זבת חלב ודבש וקיימת, would mean: “that the land that You have given us is a land flowing with milk and honey, and You kept Your promise.” [<i>Rashi</i> wanted to avoid the impression that the promise of giving us the land was the substance of G’d’s blessing for which the farmer prays in this verse. Ed.]
      Ibn Ezra writes that the thrust of the farmer’s prayer is that G’d should bless the land to continue to give its generous yield also in the future, just as it had done up until that year. There is no need for all of these explanations as G’d’s oath included the realization of it, i.e. the giving of the land to the generation G’d had selected for this. He had promised to Moses in Exodus 3,8 that the land of the Canaanites, which would be given to the Jewish people, was at that time a land flowing with milk and honey. [It could hardly have been less, as the Torah had described it in Genesis 13,10 already as comparable to “the garden-like nature of the land of Egypt.” Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   היום הזה, “on this day, etc.” Nachmanides writes that this verse completes the review of the Torah by Moses and the revealing by him to the people of commandments not revealed to them thus far. This is why he concludes the verse with the exhortation to the people to observe all the commandments.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   את ה' האמרת, “You have exalted <i>Hashem,”</i> by accepting the entire Torah in all its details you have exalted <i>Hashem</i> this day; <i>y</i>ou have adopted Him as your exclusive G’d, eschewing all others.
  
     וללכת בדרכיו, “and to walk in His ways.” To not only perform His commandments to the letter, but also to model yourself according to what He has revealed about Himself, i.e. to go beyond the letter of the law and to honour the spirit upon which the law has been based.
  
     ולשמוע בקולו, “and to hearken to His voice.” Any other matters He will command you through me, even if they are not part of the basic 613 commandments.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   וה' האמירך היום, “and <i>Hashem</i> on His part has distinguished you today, etc.” Moses tells the new generation that this day on which he concludes the review of the Torah for them is for them as if they themselves had participated in the revelation at Mt Sinai almost 40 years previously. G’d granted them an opportunity to consider themselves as having been present at that time when their parents had become <i>Hashem’s</i> “special” people.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ולתתך עליון וגו', “and to make you supreme, etc.;” to set you up as an example that all the other nations praise and wish to emulate. They do so because they realize that you evoke immediate responses when you call upon <i>Hashem</i>. 
  
     ולשם, “and for renown,” to enhance your reputation all over the world.
  
     ולתפארת, “and for splendour;” you will be able to boast that whatever enterprise you are embarking on will be crowned with success.
  
     ולהיותך עם קדוש, “and for you to be a holy nation.” You will have attained the דבקות, close attachment, a state of relationship with your G’d which is the ultimate level of closeness to <i>Hashem</i> that man is capable of attaining. Rabbi Yehudah the Spaniard explains that the word האמרת in verse 17 is derived from the word ויאמר, “he said,” and its meaning in that verse is that you have done what is good in His eyes to such a degree that it is said about you or of you that He is surely your G’d, and He in turn will do for you in accordance with what you say (request) so that you can truly say that you will be His special people.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויצו משה וזקני ישראל, “Moses and the elders commanded the Israelites, etc.;” After Moses had concluded his review of the Torah he commanded the elders to also address the people and to caution them to observe all the commandments of the Torah, because he knew that such a warning would be effective as all the people willingly obeyed their respective elders.
  
     שמור את כל המצוה, “Observe the entire commandment, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra the “commandment” referred to here is the one to erect the huge stones upon which, after these stones had been properly whitewashed, a copy of the Torah would be engraved.
      Nachmanides writes that this is not correct, but that Moses referred to the entire Torah as a single “מצוה” at this point.
  
     אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם, “which I am commanding you.” Moses did not say: “which we are commanding you,” seeing that basically G’d had addressed Moses, and the function of the elders was to raise their voices so that the whole people could hear what G’d had commanded Moses. Not only that, but the elders by being placed strategically among the people, could secure the people’s attention. A little while later (verse 9) the Torah writes that Moses, as well as the priests and the Levites, addressed the whole of Israel, calling upon them to pay attention, and to make a note of the fact that on that day they had truly become a nation.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   וכתבת עליהן את כל דברי התורה הזאת, “you shall inscribe upon them all the words of this Torah. Ibn Ezra writes, quoting Rav Saadyah gaon, that the list of the commandments was inscribed on these stones in a manner similar to the well known work <i>halachot g’dolot</i> where these commandments are recorded in the form of warnings of what to do and what not to do. (Babylon, by Rabbi Yehudai ben Sh’muel gaon, 9th century) The words באר היטב, normally understood as in clearly comprehensible language, mean in “clearly legible script”, and do not refer to interpretation.
      Our sages claim that the entire text of the Torah was inscribed on these stones with careful attention given to the crowns on all the letters, and in addition the text was translated and inscribed in 70 languages. (Compare <i>Rashi)</i> Either the stones were exceedingly large, or there was a miracle that enabled the scribes to accomplish this.
  
     למען אשר תבא אל הארץ, “so that you may enter the land, etc.” Ibn Ezra understands these words to mean that the publication of the Torah on these stones will help the Israelites to acquire the merit to enter (and take possession of) the land of Canaan, as they have already fulfilled the first commandment tied to living in that land.
      Nachmanides adds, that according to the opinion of Ibn Ezra there is a hint in this commandment to constantly keep in front of our mental eye all the commandments, which in turn ensures that we will keep them and be worthy to keep the land that <i>Hashem</i> is giving us as an inheritance.
      Ibn Ezra further points out that the sons of Yaakov’s major wives stood on Mount Gerizim when the blessings were proclaimed, whereas the tribes descended from the minor wives stood on Mount Eyval, but seeing that there were not enough of them, two of Leah’s sons, the eldest, Reuven, and the youngest Zevulun, joined the sons of the minor wives on Mount Eyval.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   כי גלה כנף אביו, “for he has uncovered the robe of his father.” Nachmanides writes that the reason the Torah did not write ערות אביו (as it usually does) in such verses is out of respect for the father’s dignity. Earlier (Leviticus 20,12) when the Torah wrote ערות אביו the sin committed carried a heavy penalty, administered in many instances by a human court of law. The wording therefore had to reflect the severity of the sin in order to serve as a deterrent. The offending party in our verse is guilty of a lesser sin. Similar considerations prompted the Torah to use the term גלה כנף in 23,1 where the prohibition to marry a woman who had been raped by one’s father, or is one’s stepmother is revealed, the sin is of a lower order than sleeping with one’s mother, who is also the wife of one’s father. 
      Nachmanides writes that the reason why Moses selected the people guilty of the above mentioned eleven sins as deserving public censure, i.e. the people mouthing a curse on anyone guilty of them, is that it is the norm for those sins to be committed in the privacy of one’s home, when there are no witnesses to the deed. The guilty party therefore cannot be convicted of his sin, as there had not been any witnesses. The curse pronounced here is to act as a deterrent not commit crimes when only G’d is the witness. The Torah begins the list with a sin committed <i>vis a vis</i> the Creator, i.e. idolatry, and switches to a sin committed <i>vis a vis</i> one’s parents, i.e. degrading them. Parents represent G’d the Creator, as He had a share in the child’s coming into this world. Bestiality is mentioned in the list, as opposed to rape performed on humans, the animals cannot protest what is being done to them, giving the sinner a distinct advantage.
      Similar considerations apply to proselytes, orphans, and widows, none of whom have easy access to someone who would defend them if they have been wronged.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   לוקח שוחד, “killing for pay.” Most people understand the verse metaphorically, i.e. a judge accepting a bribe to render a guilty verdict where it results in judicial murder. Our author understands it as addressed to the witnesses who perjure themselves for payment, causing the innocent party to be condemned to death by their testimony.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   אשר לא יקים את דברי התורה הזאת, “who will not uphold the words of this Torah;” <i>Rashi</i> understands the verse as Moses demanding from the people that they accept the entire Torah by calling down a curse upon themselves if they were to deliberately commit violations of it.
      Nachmanides writes that in his view the word קבלו “they accepted”, in <i>Rashi,</i> means that they mentally accepted, i.e. believed in the authenticity of all the Torah’s commandments as relayed to them by Moses. This includes the belief that people observing the laws of the Torah would, in due course, receive a reward from the Lawgiver, whereas those flouting the commandments deliberately, would receive their punishment from G’d. If a Jew disbelieved even a single one of these commandments, -even the ones one does not have a single opportunity in one’s life to be called upon to perform, such as the levirate marriage if one did not have a brother- he is still subject to the curse called down upon the sinners in this verse. However, if one transgressed one of the commandments, even knowingly, but because one’s evil urge was too strong, not because of a matter of principle, one is not subject to the curse pronounced here. 
      In the Jerusalem Talmud <i>Sotah 7,4</i> the verse is understood as being addressed primarily to the kings and the authorities within whose power it is to see to it that the common people, at least in public, live according to the laws of the Torah. This is derived from the word יקים in the causative mode, <i>hiphil,</i> as opposed to the active mode <i>kal</i> that would have been יקום, and would refer to oneself, intransitively. Anyone who is capable of promoting Torah observance by others and fails to use his talents in this direction is included in the curse pronounced in our verse.
      The Jerusalem Talmud also understands the verse as addressed to the reader of the Torah in public, who is called upon to show the scroll he has read from to the public at the end of the reading, and to invite the congregation to rise and give honour to the Torah. (<i>Sofrim</i> 14,14) The congregation is to respond with the line (Deut. 4,44) וזאת התורה אשר שם משה לפני בני ישראל (על פי ה' ביד משה).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   עליון על כל גויי הארץ, “supreme over all the nations of the earth.” This blessing includes that there will be no other nation that even matches you, equally.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ברוך פרי בטנך, “The fruit of your womb will be blessed.” Moses listed the fruit of your womb before any other blessings, such as “your fruit-basket, and your kneading bowl,” because the fruit of one’s womb, i.e. having healthy well turned out children, is the supreme blessing parents can enjoy. When listing the various curses Moses enumerates this curse last, as G’d first inflicts punishments to our belongings before, if we do no respond to those warnings, He smites what is nearest and dearest to us. Similarly, when speaking about how our enemies will be smitten as part of our blessings, this is listed before mentioning our economic success, i.e. our storehouses filled with produce, seeing that as long as we are exposed to invasions by enemies we could not securely enjoy our good harvests. Dwelling securely amongst the nations is the ultimate blessing in our international relations, and enjoying internal peace is the ultimate blessing in our relations with other members of our people. (Compare Leviticus 26,5-6)
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   הקמים עליך, “the ones that rise up against you.” Seeing that Moses had already blessed them by describing them as supreme among the nations, he now has to assure them that even if other nations should rear their heads trying to attack them, G’d will see to it that they are defeated in short order.
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   והותירך, “He will grant you an excess, etc.” even if there should be famine on the earth, you will not be severely affected by it, always having sufficient and even more than that.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   לראש ולא לזנב, “as a head and not as a tail.” As a head of all the nations, and not as a tail of a nation more distinguished than you. It was possible, theoretically to rank as number one overall among the nations, and at the same time to trail some nation in a specific matter. Alternately, Moses might have meant that in a best case scenario, when you deserve it, you will be the number one among all the nations, but in a worst case scenario, even when you have endured chastisements by G’d, you will never be the tail, i.e. the lowest ranking of all the other nations.
  
     רק למעלה, “only above;” a permanent state of affairs.
  
     ולא תהיה למטה, “and not below;” “not,” in the sense of “never.”
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ולא תסור מכל הדברים, “if only you do not turn away from any of the words, etc.” According to Nachmanides these words are a continuation of what is written in verse 13 that these blessings are premised on your hearkening to G’d’s commandments. If you were to look right or left, i.e. consider indulging in any form of idolatry, you would already be considered as having turned away from the path G’d prescribed for you. [A warning that not only idolatrous actions bring disaster, but even contemplating such actions is culpable. Ed.] Nachmanides does not agree with the author of <i>halachot gedolot,</i> who considers this verse as one of the negative commandments.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
   הצלצל, “the chirping locust.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  According to Nachmanides, after Moses had completed with the spelling out of the covenant between Israel and <i>Hashem</i>, he proclaimed the קריאת שמע, the declaration of the Jewish faith, once more. He reminded them of their visual experience of <i>Hashem</i> in action. They had not yet departed from that assembly. [We might have thought that the words ויקרא משה אל כל ישראל introduce a new assembly. Ed.]
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   לחם לא אכלתם ויין ושכר לא שתיתם, “you ate neither bread nor drank wine or other alcoholic drink;” Nachmanides writes that Moses meant that the people, during the last forty years, had not subsisted on the food relied on by ordinary human beings, but they had subsisted exclusively on the manna, the “bread” that came down from heaven. 
     למען תדעו כי אני ה' אלוקיכם, “in order to convince you beyond any doubt that I am the Lord your G’d.” Moses means that <i>Hashem</i> had kept them alive by miraculous means during all these years. The word לחם in this paragraph is not to be understood in the same way as when Moses told the people that during the forty days he spent on Mount Sinai he had neither eaten לחם nor drunk מים. Moses meant that he had not eaten or drunk anything during his stay on the Mountain, had led an “angel-like” existence. The people of Israel, even while in the desert, had tasted bread on occasion, such as when they had bought flour from some surrounding nation, but they had not needed it for their survival. Moses himself is on record as reminding the people that the Edomites had sold them food and drink. (Deut. 2,28-29)     Our sages (<i>Yuma</i> 75) have said that the merchants of the whole region were offering to sell food and drink to the Israelites in the desert. It is also possible that the period when the Israelites subsisted exclusively on a diet of manna began 30 days after the Exodus when the manna fell for the first time, and it continued into the fortieth year when the Edomites sold them food and drink, around the time when they made war against Sichon, after which they possessed normal lands, land on which crops were growing and on which cattle were grazing. At that time G’d had said to Moses: (Deut. 2,4) “command the people you are passing through the territory of your brethren the children of Esau you may buy food from them and you may dig for water in their soil, etc.” In that context the Torah had also written that G’d had blessed them during the forty years they traversed a fearsome desert, etc. From that point onwards the people had enjoyed access to normal food and drink, but presumably in very limited quantities. Whatever normal food they consumed, or the wealthy ones among them consumed, was in the nature of indulging themselves, not something they relied on for survival. Their basic food continued to be the manna until they crossed the river Jordan. 
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   אתם נצבים ....ראשיכם שבטיכם, “You are standing…. The heads of your tribes, etc.” <i>Rashi</i> understands this verse as referring to ”the heads of your tribes,” as if the Torah had written לשבטיכם.
      Nachmanides interprets the grammatical anomaly differently. The word כלכם, “all of you,” is to be understood as a headline, whereas with the words ראשיכם Moses begins to enumerate the different groups of people that are made up by the term כלכם, “all of you.” He understands the words: זקניכם ושוטריכם as meaning that the elders and the law-enforcers are the ones who constitute the people’s heads. Moses had first referred to as ראשיכם, “your heads.” An elderly, white-haired person is normally considered as the “head” of the community in which he resides, [when there was such a thing as a patriarchal society. Ed.] Moreover, anyone who has been endowed by the people with a degree of administrative power is considered part of the “heads of the people.” Moses adds that the entire people were present down to the youngest members, the טף, and even recent proselytes. The latter were the surviving members of the ערב רב, the mixed multitude that had climbed on the Jewish bandwagon at the Exodus. Moses also divides the people into social strata, that is why he points out that even the lowest social strata, the choppers of wood and the carriers of water, were present on the occasion mentioned. Everyone present was included in the covenant, and, as we shall hear shortly, even the as yet unborn. Quite possibly, Moses considered that the very presence of even the infants ensured that they too received credit for wanting to be included in this covenant, similar to the interpretation by our sages that the reason why the mothers brought their small children was in order to hear the king or the High Priest read the Torah publicly once in seven years on the second day of the S<i>ukkot</i> festival, the occasion known as <i>Hakhel</i>. Our sages, (<i>Tanchuma</i> among others) some of whom feel that there were isolated cases of Canaanites wanting to convert to Judaism even while the Israelites were still in the desert, say that these are the ones described here as hewers of wood and carriers of water. Although Moses did not make a treaty with them, he accepted them as slaves and they had undertaken to observe the seven commandments applicable to all of mankind. The difference between those and the Gibeonites in the days of Joshua, was that the latter deceived the Israelites by misrepresenting their origin. The former simply wanted to make peace with the Jews, as they would have had an opportunity to do prior to an attack on them.
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   לעברך בברית, “for you to enter the covenant;” Nachmanides writes that the word “covenant” here is another word for “oath.” 
      It is possible, however, (author speaking) that the people now entered a new reciprocal covenant. Such a covenant would have paralleled the one the Jewish people entered into at Mt Sinai. At that time the covenant was sealed by a total offering, sprinkling of its blood on the people, etc. There was no need to spell out these details here.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ואת אשר איננו פה עמנו היום, “as well as those who are not here with us this day.” All these as yet unborn generations of the Jews participating in this assembly are included in this oath/covenant to be undertaken at this time.
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   כי אתם וגו', “For you know, etc.” Moses reminds the people of the advantages of remaining true and loyal to <i>Hashem,</i> as in the event that some have a feeling of nostalgia for the abominations that they worshipped in Egypt, or the similar abominations that the Moabites and Ammonites worship, it would be appropriate that they recall how either of these attempts to backslide into idolatry ended, i.e. catastrophically for the participants.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   איש או אשה, “be it a man or a woman;” Moses does not wish to insult anyone; therefore he speaks of individuals possibly straying, something which might also result in peer-pressure by the other members of the family drawing in the ones who were not originally willing. He mentions the woman only after the man, precisely because women are more easily seduced by false philosophies. By suggesting that a man might be the first to fall into such a trap, Moses preserves the self-respect of the Jewish women.
  
     פן יש בכם...אשר לבבו פונה היום, “lest there be amongst you anyone whose heart will turn away this day, etc.;” this refers to someone whose faith and belief in <i>Hashem</i> has already been undermined, but who has not acted upon it; or, 
  
     פן יש בכם שורש פורה ראש ולענה, “lest there be amongst you a root flourishing with gall and wormwood.” This refers to a development in the more distant future, the party concerned not being alive yet and not having been seduced mentally, but belonging to the ones whom Moses described as “not being with us here this day.” When, or if, this occurs, it reflects on the “root”, i.e. forefather of such a person having carried within his seed some of his own spiritual weakness that he involuntarily transmitted to his offspring. He will, however, be under the obligations of this covenant and this curse applicable to non-compliance. [It is important to understand that seeing that membership of the Jewish nation brings with it a multiplicity of advantages, the small price to pay for this, even though this unborn Jew had not given his consent to membership of the Jewish people, still renders being born a Jew a “good deal” on the whole.” Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   למען ספות הרוה את הצמאה, “thereby adding the watered to the thirsty.” Nachmanides explains this turn of phrase as “adding that which is already satisfied to the list of the ones still unsatisfied,” i.e thirsty. The word רוה describes someone sated as in Jeremiah 31,11 והיתה נפשם כגן רוה, “their soul will be like a watered garden.” When applied to the soul, i.e. essence of a human being, it means that the human being is not aware of his lacking anything, desirous of something that has not been granted to him, hence not in need of G’d as the One Who could supply his non-existing needs. On the other hand, Moses describes any person who feels that some of his needs have not been fulfilled, as צמאה, “thirsting after something.” [Nachmanides qualifies the thirst as including a desire for something that, if granted, would prove harmful to him. Ed.] The person who had felt completely fulfilled is at a disadvantage compared to those who have learned to do without on occasion, as when such a person does feel the need for something, he is so eager to satisfy that need that he feels it a great imposition if the laws of the Torah impose restrictions on the manner in which he can satisfy his “need.” If, as a result of this supposed “need,” he forthwith proceeds to satisfy it without due regard to the Torah’s laws, he will henceforth experience more desires more frequently, in line with the psychological axiom of our sages that when one trains oneself to resist improper impulses one will experience ever fewer of them, whereas when one gives in to them easily, one will progressively experience such impulses becoming more and more powerful and frequent. Eventually, one will even experience a burning desire for things from which one had already weaned oneself. Moses describes this process as בשרירות לבי אלך, “I will follow the dictates of my heart.” The word למען in our context does not introduce a reason or purpose of what the “free-spirited” person is thinking, but means something similar to: “as a result of which such and such will occur.” [In this case a gradual but steady spiritual decline. Ed.]
      Rabbi Yehudah the Spaniard explains the word ספות, as the cutting off of something as in האף תספה, when Avraham asked G’d if He would also cut off the righteous in the process of punishing the Sodomites for their wickedness. (Compare Genesis 18,23) The sinner reasons to himself that he can get away with ignoring, and even make irrelevant the words of the righteous. The righteous, in the scenario painted by Rabbi Yehudah, is the רוה, “watered one”, in our verse. He is compared to the proverbial עץ שתול על מים, “tree planted alongside a steadily flowing well of water”, who, according to our sages is the symbol of the righteous that is unperturbed by the turbulence and poverty surrounding him, as he has the מים חיים, the waters of the living Torah to sustain him come rain or shine. (Compare the simile in Jeremiah 17,8) The wicked person is likened by the prophet to a tree that does not have sound roots and will be dried out by the slightest natural disaster, such as the first month of drought. Moses explains that such people will not experience any help from G’d in withstanding even temporary setbacks, as they have not only given in to the slightest temptation, but considered themselves as smart in riding on the coattails of the righteous expecting to participate in the reward G’d metes out to the vast majority who are Torah-observant.
      The grammarian Rabbi Yonah, also sees in the word ספות a reference to כריתה, being cut off; he attributes the sinner’s attitude to Torah to the fact that he observes in “real” life that both the righteous and the wicked die the same death of the essential life force, the נפש. He reasons that just as the body dies the same death as the animals, so does the spirit.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   יעשן אף ה', “<i>Hashem’s</i> anger will smoke, etc.” Ibn Ezra interprets this metaphor as meaning that G’d’s anger will become so hot that smoke will be observed. 
  
     באיש ההוא, “against that man;” the word איש does not literally mean “man,” but “person;” the Torah tells us that G’d will deliberately single out that sinner for His personal attention, regardless of whether he is male or female.
  
     ומחה ה' את שמו, “and <i>Hashem</i> will erase his name, etc.” This is a reference to the sinner’s family, seeing that all family members bear the same name.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   והבדילו ה' לרעה, “<i>Hashem</i> will single him out for evil;” a reference to the whole tribe.
  
     מכל שבטי ישראל, “from among all the tribes of Israel.” The remaining ones.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ואמר הדור האחרון וגו', “and the later generation will say, etc.” these words already refer to what follows, i.e. “why has <i>Hashem</i> dealt in such a fashion, etc.?”
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ואמרו כל הגויים, “and all the nations will say, etc.” their attention is drawn to the extraordinarily long time that the blight of that land will continue.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   אלוהים אשר לא ידעום, “a deity that had been unfamiliar to them.” Nachmanides explains that what is meant is that the people had not had any evidence that this so-called deity possessed and exercised powers that would be helpful for its worshippers.
  
     ולא חלק להם, “and that <i>Hashem</i> had not assigned to Israel as a protective power.” This is a reminder that whereas the fates of nations of the world are guided by angels, assigned by <i>Hashem</i> to each nation, the Jewish people are under His direct supervision so that there is no protective angel assigned to them.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   הנסתרות לה' אלוקינו, “The hidden [sins] are for <i>Hashem</i> our G’d, etc.“ Nachmanides writes that all the commentators understand the verse to mean that sins committed in private, unobserved, will be taken care of by <i>Hashem</i>, instead of by a human tribunal, whereas sins committed in public and witnessed, must not be simply left to His discretion to deal with.
      He adds, that from the plain meaning of the text it would seem that the sins described as הנסתרות, are the ones concealed even from the sinner, i.e. he was not aware of having committed them. Our sages have composed prayers in which we constantly ask G’d to protect us against committing such sins inadvertently committed. (Compare Psalms 19,13) In appreciation of not being made responsible for such sins, Moses says that we will take care of knowingly committed sins, do penance, etc., and ask G’d’s forgiveness and undertake not to be negligent again. The curses Moses has called down on sinners do not apply to people who have sinned unintentionally.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ושבת עד ה' אלוקיך, “and you will return unto <i>Hashem</i> your G’d;” the meaning of the term “return” is that you will henceforth hearken to His commandments in accordance with what Moses commands the people on that day. It also means that you will commit both yourself and the people for whose education you are responsible, i.e. your children as long as they are minors, to walk in the path of Torah.
      Alternately, the word ובניך, “and your children” in our verse may mean the same as it means when the Torah speaks of לך ולבניך, ”for you and your children,” that when G’d dispenses His blessing this automatically includes your children. (Compare Deut. 12,40; 12,25; 12,28) [As if the Torah had written ולבניך instead of ובניך. Such grammatical anomalies occur sometimes. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ומל ה' אלוקיך את לבבך, “the Lord your G’d will circumcise your heart, etc.;” we have a principle that if someone takes the first step in the direction of purifying himself he will experience a Divine assist during his continuing efforts in that direction. Moses assures the repentant sinner that <i>Hashem</i> will assist by removing hindrances, metaphorically described as a foreskin that are strewn on the path to one’s rehabilitation.
      Nachmanides writes that from the wording of the text it would appear that starting with the creation of man, he was free to act as he saw fit; [in the sense of “without interference on the part of the Creator”. Ed.] As long as the Torah that we received at Mount Sinai will be in force, this situation will continue, the reason being that G’d wants to have a reason to reward us for having chosen freely to obey Him, as opposed to the angels who do not possess such a choice. However, in the days after the Messiah will have arrived it will become natural for man to make the right choices, the heart no longer pining away for things that are not appropriate for man. This is what Moses meant when he spoke about a “circumcision” of the heart occurring. The urge for things forbidden is considered as a ערלה, a foreskin. At the time of the Messiah man will recapture the innocence possessed by the first man, Adam, before he had eaten from the tree of knowledge. [By the way, Adam had been created without a foreskin, so that the foreskin with which most of his descendants are born are a reminder of some impediment to purity having becoming a “normal” condition in man. Ed.] Man will revert to being a “parve” being, in the sense that there is no greater tendency to do good than to do evil or vice versa. From that time and on, everything will depend on man’s will. He will only need to will himself to be good in order to succeed. There will be no Satan trying to block his way.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   כי המצוה הזאת אשר אנכי מצוך היום, “for this commandment that I command you on this day, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the proper interpretation of our verse is that Moses here does not refer to the entire Torah, as if he did he should have spoken about כל המצות or a similar expression. Moses refers to the commandment to repent of one’s sins that was the last commandment discussed. The reason why this commandment had not been couched as such, i.e. Moses using the imperative mode שוב instead of ושבת, for instance, is that he wants to assure the people by means of this allusion that repentance in the near or even distant future, will be a natural when it does finally occur, and it cannot be hastened by being draconically commanded. If it were, it would not be the real thing, would only be lip service.
      The reason that Moses uses exaggerations such asאם יהיה נדחך בקצה השמים, “if you were to find yourselves cast out at the edge of heaven, etc.,” seeing that actually you will find yourselves among other nations that are your unwilling hosts, is that he makes the point that however physically distant you may be from your homeland, and however mentally absurd you would consider the chances of regaining your former stature, repentance is welcome, and will be able to overcome otherwise insurmountable obstacles. This is also why Moses adds the words בפיך ובלבבך לעשותו, If you commence your repentance with your lips, and proceed to internalize it in your heart, you will be able to carry it out absolutely.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   העידותי בכם היום את השמים ואת הארץ, “I call upon heaven and earth this day to bear witness against you;” although Moses had called on heaven and earth as witnesses against the people already once before, here he adds “life” and “death” as an additional dimension to encourage the people to make the right choice when they have to make a decision. “Life” and “Death” are only different words for the concepts of “Blessing” and “Curse.” Moses urges the people to choose wisely, i.e. to choose Life.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וילך משה, “Moses went, etc.” According to Nachmanides, after the people had accepted the new covenant and had gone to their respective tents, Moses left the encampment of the Levites, where the assembly had taken place, and went to the encampment of the Israelites, to show them respect and to take his final leave of them as on that very day he was to die on Mount Nebo. It is good manners not to take one’s leave without asking his host for permission to absent oneself, and Moses adhered to this time-honoured custom. His parting words commenced with his telling the people that on that day he had attained the age of 120 years. He informed them of this in order to lessen their grief over his passing, suggesting that now that he had attained that age he would no longer be a suitable leader for them. Moreover, seeing that G’d had forbidden him to cross the river Jordan, even if he felt capable and so inclined, he could not continue to lead them.
      Our sages said that the fountains of wisdom from which Moses had drunk during the last forty years had already dried up for him, and he could no longer draw inspiration from them. (Compare <i>Sotah</i> 13) This was actually a miracle G’d performed for him so that he would not grieve over Joshua taking over from him at a time when he still felt perfectly competent to continue.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויכתוב משה את התורה הזאת, “Moses wrote down this whole Torah, etc.” The whole Torah from Genesis to the last word in <i>vezot hab’rachah</i>. This is so, in spite of the fact that when the Torah reports that he read it all out באזניהם, as G’d had commanded him, “before their ears,” this suggests that they heard him report about his death and about his funeral, etc. 
      [I do not know what verse the author refers to. I have not found a verse which states that Moses read out the entire Torah before the people. Verses 11-12, refer to <i>hakhel</i>, and about a location that G’d has chosen for that event, certainly not to the wilderness of Moav. According to verse 24 the priests placed this Torah scroll into the Holy Ark as soon as Moses had completed writing it. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ובניהם אשר לא ידעו ישמעו ולמדו ליראה, “and their children who do not know of this will learn and be in awe, etc.;” when they will hear about it and ask their parents who will instruct them in all aspects of Judaism and Jewish history. The word טף, frequently used to describes babies, in this case speaks of children that are already older and that can be taught. In the previous verse the Torah wrote:ילמדו ויראו, ”they will learn and be in awe,” instead of “they will learn to be in awe.” Our sages do not understand the word טף here as referring to children of school-going age, but to infants, and they explain that the reasons that the mothers were to bring them along was to receive a reward for their efforts.
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ואצונו, “and I shall instruct him.” <i>Rashi</i> under-stands the word as “I will urge him to act promptly.” Nachmanides writes that there is no need to change the meaning of the word from what it means ordinarily, seeing that when G’d told Joshua ”you will bring,“ this is by itself a commandment. (Numbers 27,19) If Joshua had been deliberately slow in carrying out that command he would have been guilty of a capital offence. It is possible that the word ואצונו means: “I will inaugurate him as the leader of the Jewish nation.” 
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויעמוד עמוד הענן על פתח האהל, “the pillar of cloud stood by the entrance to the Tent.” Nachmanides writes that the reason for this was that G’d wanted to speak to Moses in such a way that Joshua would be able to hear the voice of G’d. G’d wanted Joshua to hear, but He also wanted him to know that he had not attained the stature of Moses. Only Moses had ever been told (Exodus 25,22) ונועדתי לך שם ואדבר אתך מעל הכפורת, “I will set My meetings with you there, and I will speak with you from above the lid of the Holy Ark.” Joshua did not have permission to enter the Tabernacle. This is why the Torah writes that on this occasion, in order for Joshua to hear G’d’s voice, the pillar of cloud, signifying the cover within which G’d’s glory was situated, moved from the inner Sanctum where the Holy Ark was located, to the eastern entrance of the Tabernacle.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   אלוהי נכר הארץ, “after the gods of the strangers of the land.” According to <i>Rashi</i> these words are a reference to the local deities. Nachmanides writes, that of course, the Torah does not suggest that these gods have any legitimacy in any other country either, but the Torah stresses that in that land they have even less claim to legitimacy, seeing that only the G’d of Israel has any claim to that, especially in the Israelites’ land. These so-called gods are not even familiar with the customs and mores that govern human conduct in that land. (Compare Kings II 7,26)
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ואמר ביום ההוא הלא על כי אין אלוקי בקרבי, “the nation will say on that day: ‘is it not because my G’d is not in my midst, etc.?’” Nachmanides writes that this is an incomplete confession, as compared to Leviticus However, it is a partial awareness of remorse being called for. They have finally become aware that they must somehow be at fault.
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ואנכי הסתר אסתיר פני, “but I will increasingly hide My presence, etc.” G’d will hide His face once more, as He had done in verse 17. This is remarkable, as we would have thought that now that the people had attributed their misfortunes to G’d withdrawing from them, G’d should respond by showering them with His loving kindness seeing that they had at least acknowledged the impotence of any other deities. The Torah explains why this is not the next scenario by writing:
  
     על כל הרעה אשר עשה, ”on account of all the evil this people have committed.” By having put their faith in idols, G’d had withdrawn His face from them in the first place, as a result of which many misfortunes had befallen them. Now, He must still withdraw His face from them, but not as absolutely as He had done the first, time; this time the withdrawal is only to the extent that the redeemer does not yet come and they will return to their homeland. However, in the meantime, until they confess their guilt completely and show remorse, they will still continue their existence in the Diaspora, without, however, being hounded from one place to another and being exposed to all manner of demeaning insults and degradations. The redemption will not come until the repentance described in 30,2 has become reality.
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ועתה כתבו לכם את השירה הזאת, “and now write down for yourselves this song;” Nachmanides writes that the plain meaning is that G’d commanded this to Moses while Joshua heard G’d’s instructions, and read what Moses wrote down. This is the meaning of verse 22 where Moses is reported as writing all this down and teaching the people the contents of that ”song.” Joshua joined in teaching the people, as we know from The “song” that is referred to is the first section of <i>Parshat Haazinu</i>. The reason that this portion is called שירה, song, or poem, is that since time immemorial the Jewish people recite it as such.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   כי ידעתי את יצרו, “for I am familiar with its basic inclination;” even if I did not possess knowledge of future events, I could draw valid conclusions of how they would behave, based on the past performance of this people.
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויהי ככלות משה לכתוב, “When Moses had finished writing, etc.;” according to Nachmanides, Moses first wrote a Torah scroll which he handed to the priests as mentioned earlier, (verse 9) at which time he had not yet told them where to deposit that scroll. Following that, he had been commanded to commit the “song” to parchment, and he wrote it down and taught it to the Children of Israel on that very same day. He then added that section to the Torah scroll he had written previously. Having completed this, he issued the order to the priests to deposit the whole Torah scroll inside the Holy Ark next two the two Tablets with the Ten Commandments. From that moment on, neither the Tablets nor that Torah scroll were touched again, so as to preserve the text inviolate, no one being able to claim that anything had either been added or erased. This is why Ibn Ezra says that the last portion in our scrolls of the Torah, the portion known as וזאת הברכה, must have been written before the song portion in האזינו, immediately after the verse in our portion in which Moses announces that G’d had told him that the period of his leadership of the people was drawing to an end. When he took his leave from the people he also blessed them after announcing that he was about to die.
      Alternatively, it is possible that he went around to the people after he had completed writing the song in <i>haazinu</i> and took that opportunity to familiarize the people with it, each tribe separately. In that event, this song too would have been placed inside the Holy Ark, next to the original Torah scroll and the two Tablets. The “song” would serve as the witness that Moses had spoken about in This would correspond to 32,44 where Moses is reported as reading out the song before the assembled people, flanked by Joshua. The priests had assembled the people for that purpose. Immediately after that ceremony G’d told Moses (32,49) to ascend Mount Nebo in preparation for his departure from this world. Moses immediately complied with that order and began to dispense his final blessings to the various tribes. Having done so, he also committed these blessings to writing as an appendix to the Torah that he had already given to the priests in order for them to deposit it as a complete book next to the Tablets in the Holy Ark. If this had indeed been the procedure, it would correspond to the order in which matters are recorded in our version of the Torah.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   האזינו השמים ואדברה, ותשמע הארץ, “Give ear o heaven so that the earth will listen when I speak.” [You, the reader, will no doubt observe that the author inverted the headline, to already incorporate his interpretation of what is written here. Ed.]
      Some commentators feel that when Moses addressed “heaven,” he was in fact addressing the angels who reside in heaven. Similarly, when he called out to the “earth” to listen to his words, he meant the inhabitants of the earth.
      Other commentators feel that Moses addressed as witnesses the “rain” which comes from the sky, and the yield of the fields and vineyards that is provided by the earth’s input. He called upon both to be generous with their contributions when the people deserved it.
      I believe that the correct interpretation is that Moses addressed heaven and earth’s essence, as it is customary for verses in the Bible that describe someone as being called as witness to appoint enduring phenomena such as heaven and earth as witnesses, as one can be sure that when needed these witnesses will always be at hand. This is why we have שמעו הרים את ריב ה', the prophet Micah 6,2 calling as witness the mountains; when he relays G’d’s message to the people. Moses used the term האזנה when addressing the heavens, whereas he used the term שמע when addressing the earth. The prophet Isaiah, (Isaiah 1,2) in a similar appeal reversed what Moses did, using the term שמע when addressing the heavens, and the term האזנה when addressing the earth. The reason is that when the recipient of the sound of one’s voice is nearby, the term האזנה is appropriate, whereas for recipients further away the term שמע is appropriate. Moses was feeling closer to heaven than to earth at that time, hence he used the term appropriate for addressing someone nearby when speaking to heaven. Isaiah, not being on the same spiritual level as Moses reversed the procedure, as he was closer to earth than to heaven.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   יערף כמטר לקחי, “May my teaching descend like the rain, etc.” Ibn Ezra explains the term לקחי as meaning “teaching,” comparing it to Proverbs 4,2כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם תורתי אל תעזובו, “for I have given you good instruction, do not abandon My Torah.”
  
     תזל כטל אמרתי, “may my words flow like dew.” Moses repeats what he says, though in poetic form, in order to reinforce his words. When the prophets prayed they usually employed this mode of speech, repeating the same or almost the same thought in different words. [This may be the reason why, when offering a תפלה של רשות, a prayer that is not part of the prescribed prayers, one is allowed to do so only if one can add words of one’s own, a slight variation of the prescribed prayer. Ed.] Moses feels that words thus reinforced will not be sent back by the addressee without at least a partial response, acceptance by the listeners. The choice of simile suggests that Moses hopes that his words will act in the hearts of his listeners as the rain does when it hits the earth.
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   הצור תמים פעו, “The Rock, perfect is His work;” Ibn Ezra writes that the reason Moses commences with this praise of <i>Hashem,</i> is to make plain to the Israelites to begin with, that if they will experience disasters of whatever kind in the future, the cause must not be attributed to the Creator but they must search for it in their own shortcomings, seeing that there are no shortcomings in anything G’d has created.
  
     פעלו, “His work;” Ibn Ezra writes that whatever work or masterpiece is performed on earth by any of G’d’s creatures, is by definition deficient, as it was dependent on input by the Creator, whether direct or indirect, and it requires at least the passive tolerance of the Creator in order to function and not to collapse. This is the basic difference between His work and our work, even the most perfect.
  
     כי כל דרכיו משפט, “for all His ways are justice.” They are not subject to change, i.e. never need to “improve,” as they have always been correct and perfect. Seeing that His creatures experience different needs at different times, as opposed to their Creator, their works must change from time to time in order to meet changing requirements. G’d’s actions always correspond to His wisdom and glory, both of which are constants.
  
     א-ל אמונה, “a G’d of Faith,” He alone possesses the virtue of Truth in an absolute degree, able to keep faith, as opposed to His creatures, however well intentioned, as their power was on “loan” from a higher source, and they can be deprived of it at a moment’s notice.
  
     ואין עול, “without iniquity;” seeing that He is a G’d of perfect loyalty, keeping faith, how could there be any iniquity associated with Him?
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   שחת לו לא בניו מומם, ”Corruption is not His, the blemish is His children’s.” Nachmanides explains that the verse can best be understood if we read it as if it had been written in the sequence: מומם שחת אותם לו, ”His children’s blemishes have made them corrupt for Him, so much so that He no longer refers to them as His children.”
  
     דור עקש ופתלתול, “a perverse and twisted generation.” Moses explains the reason why none of this has a negative effect on the Creator as being that since He is perfect, He can –metaphorically speaking- be compared to a Rock that was constructed to be perfect forever. It will not develop weaknesses, faults, etc. However, the Israelites’ blemishes will expose themselves to their enemies with dire consequences.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   עם נבל ולא חכם, “a vile people, one devoid of wisdom.” <i>Rashi</i> explains this to refer to their having forgotten all the Good <i>Hashem</i> had done for them.
      Nachmanides, refers to Onkelos’ translation “a nation that had received the Torah and had not become wise by observing it but had treated it as if it tired them out, had exhausted them instead of uplifting them.” They failed to benefit from what was designed to ensure their enduring success. Ibn Ezra says that the word נבל refers to their deed, whereas the words ולא חכם refers to their heart.
      Personally, (Nachmanides continuing) I believe that when someone does good without expecting or wanting compensation by the recipient, he is described as נדיב, generous. If someone repays favours done to him with ingratitude, or worse, instead, he is described as נבל. This is the meaning of Isaiah 32,5 לא יקרא עוד לנבל נדיב , “no more shall the villain be called noble;” This is why it was said about נבל of Mount Carmel, [first husband of Avigail, a notoriously bombastic and tightfisted individual, compare Samuel I chapter 25. Ed.] ונבלה עמו, (Samuel I 25,25) that his name aptly expressed his vile character. David had protected his property at a time when he was hunted and had to survive as best he could. Instead of being grateful, Naval repaid him with animosity and disdain.
      Not only were the Israelites ingrates, they were also foolish by putting their trust instead of in <i>Hashem</i> in all kinds of impotent idols, the ones worshipped by the neighbouring peoples. Did they not even realise that by sinning they could not harm the G’d against Whom they sinned?
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   בהפרידו בני אדם, “when He separated the various children of man from one another.” Some commentators feel that Moses was speaking about the generation that built the Tower, and that dispersed after their languages had been confused.
  
     יצב גבולות עמים, “He established the boundaries of the seven Canaanite nations;” these corresponded in number roughly to the number of the Israelites.
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   וישמן ישורון ויבעט, “Yeshurun grew fat and kicked.” The name “Yeshurun” is a complimentary name for Israel who are considered (when at their best) to be a nation of ישרים, loyal upright self-confident and G’d-fearing people.
  
     וינבל צור ישועתו, “acting villainously against the Rock of its salvation.” Nachmanides refers to Ibn Ezra’s interpretation that the villainy of Israel consisted in that it accused <i>Hashem</i> as not continuing to be able to act as its Saviour, views the whole “kicking” as an act of blasphemy both in word and in deed. He disagrees with Ibn Ezra, The reason that he does so, is that Moses is still reciting the people’s sins and has not yet begun to speak about the punishment they would have to suffer on account of their sins. This part only commences with verse 20 when G’d is quoted as withdrawing His Presence from the people, אסתירה פני מהם.
      The correct interpretation, according to Nachmanides, is that Moses continues with the theme discussed by me earlier, that the most serious aspect of Israel’s sins is that they repay good with evil. They abandoned a G’d who not only had created them as a nation, but had redeemed them from slavery. He had saved them from the pursuit of Pharaoh and for forty years kept them alive in the desert in spite of being provoked by them. He kept His promise to Avraham to bring them to a land flowing with milk and honey. They had repaid all this by failing to serve this G’d, although He did not demand anything difficult from them. They blasphemed by mouth and deed, transferring their allegiance to useless idols.
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   מכעס בניו ובנותיו, “by the anger aroused in Him by His sons and daughters.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why we suddenly find the Jewish women mentioned separately, is that in the last generation, the one during which the destruction of the Temple would occur, the Jewish women would be exceptionally wicked in their deeds. Their deeds (misdeeds) would greatly inflame G’d’s anger. As a result of their devotion to cults, they would seduce their husbands, something documented in the Book of Jeremiah, chapter 44.
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויאמר אסתירה פני מהם, “so that He said: ‘I will hide My face from them.” Ibn Ezra refers to commentators who understand this line as being addressed by one attribute of <i>Hashem</i> to another attribute of His. Alternately, <i>Hashem</i> said this to the angels, adding: “let us see how they will fare in the end?” G’d meant that what He was going to do was in order that what He had foreseen as their eventual future could materialize. Ibn Ezra himself feels that the correct interpretation is to understand it at face value, i.e. “let us find out how they will react when they find themselves in serious trouble.”
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   מזי רעב, “bloating of famine;” Ibn Ezra understands the expression as “burned by the pangs of hunger,” as in Daniel 3,19 למזא לאתונה, “to heat up the kiln.”
  
     ולחומי רשף, “battling flaming demons.” A reference to a species of birds. We find them mentioned in Job 5,7 The correct interpretation (quoting Ibn Ezra) is that the Israelites will be subjected to four different kinds of judgments, penalties, In this verse famine and its impact is described by Moses. The others will follow.רשף, קטף מרירי, חיה רעה and חרב. רשף appears to be sickness caused by microbes in the air.קטב מרירי is a kind of pestilence brought on by polluted air.
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   אמרתי אפאיהם, “I had said: ‘I will disperse them;’” Nachmaides first quotes the grammarians who derive the word אפאיהם as a derivative of פאה , i.e. I will disperse them to the four corners of the globe.” He adds, that he personally, thinks that the word is a combination of two words, as suggested in the <i>Sifri,</i> i.e. אף אי הם, “I said in My anger that I would treat them as if they did not exist.” (אי הם?) “Where are they?” They would become so assimilated in such small groups that they would cease to exist as an identifiable remnant of the once great Jewish nation. This is an allusion to the exile of the ten tribes of the Northern Kingdom during the conquest of most of the land of Israel by the Assyrians [722 B.C.E.] when these tribes were relocated among other nations far to the north, most of them remaining lost to us except for remnants who joined Zerubavel when he returned under the protectorate of the Persian King Cyrus. In the legends transmitted by the sages these tribes were exiled to a mysterious region beyond the river Sambatyon, an unbridgeable and inaccessible region about which many tales have been spun. The essence of the verse is that G’d speaks (through Moses’ vision) of having wanted to destroy the exiles utterly so that history would forget their existence. [second half of our verse. Ed.] He would have done so if not:
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   לולי כעס אויב אגור, “If I had not had to fear that this would be misinterpreted by the Antisemites as their victory over My people, instead of My punishment of My people, etc.” Nachmanides writes that from this verse there is proof that in our present exile the merit of our illustrious forefathers has ceased to be a factor ameliorating our political/social position in the host countries. In this verse Moses describes a scenario in which our continued survival is not credited to G’d remembering the merits of our patriarchs, but is credited only to His concern about His own reputation among the nations of the world. It is not that G’d has a desire to display His power among the nations. There is no point to this, seeing that all these nations combined are completely impotent when compared to Him, so that there would be no contest in which one party would emerge as a victor. G’d’s concern is that seeing that He has created man to inhabit the “lower” regions of the universe, i.e. the earth, it is of importance to Him that these creatures called “man” recognise His existence, and the fact that they are His creatures and that His domain extends to the region of the earth and that man has to be obedient to Him, and that He deals with man on the basis of reward for good behaviour and retribution for rebellious behaviour. Seeing that all the other nations had denied His existence, or His right to interfere with their lifestyle and to make rules by which they have to abide, only the Jewish nation remained and had been wiling to accept His sovereignty on earth. In response G’d had demonstrated by supernatural miracles that He is the supreme authority in this universe, that His power far outranks that attributed to astrological constellations. If G’d were to allow the Jewish nation, the only one that had recognised Him, to perish, He would nullify all that He had meant to accomplish by putting a living human being on earth in the first place.
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   לו חכמו, “Had they only displayed some elementary wisdom, etc.” If the nation who hosted the Israelites and who did believe that the misfortunes of the Jewish people had been due to G’d, [either to His weakness or to His anger Ed.] had only possessed a minimum of common sense, they would have realized that what happened to G’d’s people had nothing to do with their power, but was due solely to the retribution G’d exacted from this people for their disloyalty to Him. They would have realized that at the time when one of them was able to put to flight a thousand times their number, this too had been possible only by the strength given to His people by their Creator and Protector. Now that they had abandoned His Torah, their G’d had reacted by abandoning them.
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
   אשר חלב זבחימו יאכלו, “the fat of whose offerings they would eat, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the reason that Moses employs the plural mode is that the nations of the world are numerous, so that when the Jews ate of the offerings presented to the various deities of the nations, they ate of a whole variety of such offerings. This made their sins even worse
  
  
  Verse 39
  
   ראו, “See!” Moses addresses the nations collectively, hence the plural mode.
  
     כי אני אני הוא, “that I, I am He;” I am unique, have no duplicate.
  
     ואין אלוהים עמדי, “and no deity is with Me.” I do not have nor need any helper. There is no one who can effectively oppose Me, and prevent Me from carrying out anything I have set My mind to do.
      Ibn Ezra says that the meaning of the repetition in the phrase אני אני הוא, is that G’d announces that He is constant and will not undergo any change. I am the G’d, Who, when the need arises brings death to Israel, and I am the same G’d, Who, when the situation warrants it, brings this people back to life. They will be saved, but from no other source than Myself. Many commentators say that the concept of a future world, one beyond death, is derived plainly from this verse. They prove this from G’d saying first: “I will kill,” and then “I will revive,” and not the reverse order according to which physical death is the end of the human existence. The same thought is expressed in the same sequence as מוריד שאול ויעל, ”He brings death and gives life.“ (Samuel I 2,6 Channah’s prayer of thanksgiving.)
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
   וכפר אדמתו עמו, “He will grant atonement to His land and for His people.” According to some commentators mentioned by Ibn Ezra, the word עמו should really have the letter ו in front of it, so that the meaning of the phrase would be: “He will provide atonement for its land and for its people.” An allegorical approach taken by the <i>Midrash</i> is that the land is seen as atoning of behalf of its people. [The idea is that the land, for many years neglected, serves as the scapegoat for the Jewish people who had neglected to observe the laws of <i>sh’mittah.</i> Ed.]
      Ibn Ezra personally, understands the phrase as a promise that in due course, the gentiles who had shed so much innocent Jewish blood on that land, will at that time atone for all this when the Jews will take their vengeance on them. The retribution for innocent blood spilled must be undertaken by the victimized party or their offspring, (their blood avengers), whose blood had been shed, so that in the war preceding the redemption, Jews will kill their adversaries, the ones who had contaminated the soil of the Holy Land in former years. Ibn Ezra quotes Job 14,19 and Ezekiel 43,20 as verses in which such concepts also appear.
      Yet another interpretation of our phrase understands the word as meaning the same as וטהר, “it will purify, cleanse.” Israel, when the time comes, will cleanse its soil from all kinds of contaminations it had been exposed to in the interval since its people went into exile.
  
  
  Verse 44
  
   הוא והושע בן נון, “he and Hoshea son of Nun.” Ibn Ezra explains the reason why Moses at this point calls Joshua by his original name Hoshea, to make sure that the Israelites would all know who he was speaking about, since some of the people may not have been aware that his name had been changed. Only the top echelon of the people had been aware of the name change. The allegorical explanation of our verse is familiar to all my readers. [For the readers of Ibn Ezra not familiar with the meaning of the name change from הושע to יהושע that we learned about in Numbers 13,16 the <i>Midrash</i> says that Moses added the letter י symbolizing G’d’s name so as to provide him with a spiritual assist when the time would come to take a stand against the other ten spies. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וזאת הברכה אשר ברך משה איש האלוקים, “And this is the blessing which Moses the man of G’d bestowed, etc.” His blessing endures until this day. The reason why the blessing is introduced with the word וזאת [the ו which suggests that it is a continuation, Ed.] is that Moses carried on where Yaakov’s blessings had left off.
      We are told in the <i>Midrash</i> that when Yaakov was on his deathbed he told his children that in due course there would arise another, similar to him, who would give his blessing to the tribes and who would continue where he, their father would leave off. This is why Moses made a point of recording that he viewed his own blessing as a continuation of the blessing bestowed upon them by the patriarch Yaakov.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ה' מסיני בא, “<i>Hashem</i> came from Sinai, etc. “ Nachmanides writes that this is in accordance with how our sages portrayed G’d as having offered the Torah to the various nations of the earth, and the nations refusing to accept it, each for reasons of their own. Moses refers specifically to the descendants of Avraham including the descendants of Esau, who had two of the patriarchs in common with the Jewish people. Seeing that they were not willing to accept the Torah, His glory descended onto Mount Sinai to offer it to the Jewish people.
      It is possible to explain the words מסיני בא, “He came from Sinai,” as simply meaning that this was not the last stop on G’d’s journey inviting other nations to accept the Torah, but His first stop-on earth, so to speak, -the first time that G’d allowed His Presence to reside on earth again permanently since Adam had sinned in the garden of Eden. G’d’s Presence remained in that region during all the time that Moses spent on the Mountain, on and off. Once Moses had received the second set of Tablets, this Presence of <i>Hashem</i>, the שכינה, resided temporarily over Moses’ own tent until the inauguration of the Tabernacle. Ever since that occasion, G’d’s communications with Moses all emanated from the Tabernacle, i.e. from the lid of the Holy Ark between the cherubs.
  
     וזרח משעיר למו, “after having shone forth from Seir in its direction.” After the people had started journeying from Mount Sinai in the direction of the land of Canaan, the cloud symbolizing His Presence hovered over the desert of Paran from where Moses dispatched the spies. After that debacle, the Presence of <i>Hashem</i> went into voluntary exile until in the fortieth year when the people had reached the borders with Edom it re-appeared as is indicated by Deut. 2,7 כי ה' אלוקיך ברכך בכל מעשה ידך וגו', “for the Lord your G’d has blessed you in all your undertakings, etc.” From that point on the <i>Shechinah</i> did not again depart from the encampment of the Jewish people. When G’d had appeared to them coming from Se-ir, He was as a shining light for them and the period of mourning that had commenced after the episode of the spies had come to an end. This being the case, the time had come when they could hope to defeat Sichon and Og in battle, though they were warned not to attack or harass the Moabites and Edomites.
  
     הופיע מהר פארן, “He had appeared from Mount Paran.” This was where G’d became the people’s guiding light once they entered the great and forbidding desert; G’d looked out for all their needs. The expression הופיע is analogous to Job 10,3 על עצת רשעים הופעת, “that You should shine on the counsel of the wicked?”
  
     ואתה מרבבות קודש מימינו אש דת למו, “He approached with some of His myriads of holy (angels) flanked on His right by His fiery Torah.” Although He was preceded when approaching them by tens of thousands of angels, when it came to presenting the Torah, He did so personally, with His right hand.
  
     אש דת למו, “the fiery Torah toward them.” <i>Hashem</i> displayed for the people heavenly fire and let them hear heavenly voices, similar to when Moses had described this spectacle in Deut. 4,36 ועל הארץ הראך את אשו הגדולה, “and, while you remained on earth, He showed you His great Fire.”
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   אף חובב עמים, “You were indeed fond of the various tribes;” Moses describes G’d’s fondness as extending to each tribe separately as if it ranked as a whole nation. We find another example of a tribe being treated or referred to as a whole nation in Judges 5,14: בנימין בעממיך, “Benjamin amongst Your peoples.”
  
     כל קרושיו בידך, “all its holy ones were in Your hand.” This is a reference to all the members of the tribe of Levi whom You G’d brought especially close to You, in allowing them to encamp around the Tabernacle and within easy range of the Holy Ark.
      Nachmanides writes that the word חובב is derived from the same root as חבי in Job 31,33 לטמון בחבי עוני, “to bury my guilt in a well hidden place.” The expression מחבא means a “hiding place.” The Holy Ark is the place on earth within which G’d’s Power is hidden. Allegorically speaking, Moses acknowledges that G’d also provided the Jewish nation with a hidden reservoir of spiritual fortitude. The entire Jewish nation is holy, and G’d “hides” them within His hand, as a gesture of His protection.
  
     והם תכו לרגליך, “for they had sat down at Your feet.” Ibn Ezra writes that there is no other instance in the Bible in which the word תכו or a derivative of it occurs [not in our editions of his commentary. Ed.]. According to him, some people consider the word as related to תוך, “within, in the midst of,” in which case the Israelites are perceived as walking within the protective umbrella of G’d’s feet. Others say that the letter ת in תכו instead of the letter ה, indicates that Moses refers to these people who have been the victims of every conceivable affliction during the forty years in the desert. They endured it all in order to follow G’d wherever He led them.
  
     ישא מרברותיך, “bearing Your utterances.” Israel has the words of Torah (i.e. G’d) constantly on its lips, similar to an ox that bears its yoke.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   מורשה קהלת יעקב, “the heritage of the congregation of Yaakov.” Our sages pointed out that Moses did not describe Israel here as “the descendants of Yaakov,” or as “the house of Yaakov,” but as “the congregation of Yaakov.” The implication is that when proselytes join the Jewish nation, i.e. they congregate around us, that they too will be so much part of our nation that Torah is their heritage as much as it is ours. Alternately, the reference is to “resident strangers,” who have not converted but who desire to live near us even if in a state of semi-servitude.
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויהי בישורון מלך, “He became King over Yeshurun;, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the word ישורון is an allusion to the holy name of <i>Hashem</i> Who was indeed King in Israel as long as the Jewish people were loyal to Him and His Torah. The verse is a continuation of the previous verse and describes when all the leaders of the people gathered themselves and the whole nation. The Israelites, when they accepted the Torah, meant that it was everyone’s Torah, not a Book aimed at the elite of the people only. As such it is aptly termed a “national heritage, מורשה.” It will never be exchanged, even in the sense of being “updated.” Acceptance of עול מלכות שמים, “the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, by definition means that it is forever, not subject to change. Moses has to reiterate all this, seeing that the people, at their own request, had received all the laws except for the first two of the Ten Commandments from Moses whom they had appointed to be their trusted intermediary.
      Some commentators say that the subject of ויהי בישורון מלך is not G’d, but Moses; He had been accepted and hailed as such at the assembly of all the people including the elders who had heard the Torah explained by Moses directly, having heard it from his own mouth. Moses had commanded that henceforth this Torah was to be considered as a national heritage of all the people forever more. Seeing that Moses was so outstanding and illustrious, it was appropriate that the Torah he had brought to the people should be embraced with the greatest respect.
      A third view holds that the words ויהי בישורון מלך refer to the Torah, i.e. that the Torah should rule over Israel like a king, enjoy the same respect and awe. “Yeshurun”, in all these interpretations, is a complimentary term for the people of Israel.
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   יחי ראובן, “May Reuven live, etc.” Nachmanides, quoting Ibn Ezra, writes that the reason that Moses commenced the blessings with Reuven was because he was Yaakov’s biological firstborn, and that the reason why Moses did not include Shimon in the list of tribes whom he blessed was because that tribe had been so guilty in the sin at Baal Peor. In fact, most of the people that sinned there were from the tribe of Shimon, something that can be proved by comparing the tremendous reduction in the number of men over 20 during the second census compared to that in the first census. The reason was that the sinners died during the plague before Pinchas had stabbed Zimri and Cosbi to death. Nachmanides adds that in his view this is not conclusive proof of anything, as even after deducting the 24000 men who had died during that plague, and assuming even that all of them had belonged to the tribe of Shimon there are still 13000 missing men from Shimon unaccounted for. (at the first census there had been 59,300 men of the required ages from the tribe of Shimon, whereas after the sin of Baal Pe’or there were only Moreover, we observe that there was substantial shrinkage in the number of men of recruiting age among some of the other tribes also, The tribe of Gad numbered 45,500 such men during the first count, whereas now it had only The number of men counted from the tribe of Ephrayim during the second count was also 5000 fewer than when they had been counted during the first census. Besides, when the Torah reports (Numbers 25,3) that Israel became attached to Baal Pe’or and that G’d told Moses “to take (gather) the leaders of the nation and hang them before <i>Hashem,</i> etc.,” it is clear from this verse that members of all tribes had been involved in sinning at Baal Pe’or. The fact that Zimri was the one whom Pinchas killed is no proof, as he was only the head of a בית אב, and not the prince of the tribe. The tribe of Shimon had a number of heads of families with that title. Moreover the rebels from the tribe of Reuven, Datan and Aviram, who went into the bowels of the earth with Korach were of higher rank in their tribe than Zimri was in his, and Moses did not deny the tribe of Reuven a blessing on that account. It is quite inconceivable that Moses would deny a whole tribe a blessing on account of a sin committed by one of their leading members. The Torah (Moses’ words) expressly stated that all the people who had not sinned on the occasion of the debacle of Baal Pe’or were included in the complimentואתם הדבקים בה' אלוקיכם חיים כולכם היום, “all of you who have cleaved to the Lord your G’d are alive as of this day.” In other words, Moses faced only righteous people at the time when he set out to bless the nation.
      The correct interpretation of why Moses did not bless the tribe of Shimon specifically has to do with the long-standing tradition that the Jewish people comprise no more than 12 tribes. At the time when Yaakov had blessed his children, he had given one blessing to Joseph, although part of the whole procedure had been the vision that both of Joseph’s sons would develop into two separate tribes. This left Moses with the problem of which tribe to delete from his blessings, seeing that including the “super” tribe Levi, there were now in effect 13 tribes. The division of the tribe of Joseph into two tribes did not occur as a mere wish of Yaakov, or as its interpretation by Moses on his own. At the inauguration of the Tabernacle and when establishing the groupings around the Tabernacle by the various tribes, Ephrayim and Menashe, by Divine decree, had clearly been treated as separate tribes. Furthermore, there was a need to mention Joshua who would be Moses’ successor and who would lead the people to the Divinely ordained heritage in the Land of Canaan, and he was a member of the tribe of Ephrayim. Seeing that Ephrayim was the junior of the two sons of Joseph, it would have been inconceivable for Moses to ignore the senior son (tribe) Menashe by not blessing that tribe separately. Moses, clearly, wanted to bless the tribe of Levi, the tribe whose members henceforth would dispense blessings to all of the people. The people’s various sacrificial offerings would have been meaningless unless the Priests, members of the tribe of Levi had blessed them. Moses could not avoid deleting one tribe from his blessing as the number 12 was not arbitrary but was symbolical of the 12 signs of the zodiac, the twelve months of the year, etc. According to the <i>Midrash</i> these twelve constellations in the sky known as the zodiacal constellations, are considered the arms of the universe, G’d’s instruments in supervising nature at work. When the people were blessed at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eyval, the tribe of Shimon most certainly took part in that procedure (Deut.) On that occasion the tribe of Levi was not mentioned, as its members did not share in the distribution of ancestral land. Yaakov, on his deathbed had indicated that he wished both the tribe of Shimon and that of Levi to be separated from one another in order to forestall the kind of violence plotted against the city of Shechem by these two brothers to ever occur again. (Compare Genesis 49,7)
      The entire portion of וזאת הברכה had, of course, been said by Moses while he was inspired with the Holy Spirit, and the reason why Reuven had been listed first was because he was the first of the tribes to receive his ancestral heritage (on the east bank of the Jordan). An additional reason was the fact that he was chronologically the most senior of the tribes, the founding father having been Yaakov’s oldest son, the firstborn. Moses prayed for the tribe’s continued well being, wishing that its name not be extinguished on account of the sin of their founding father involving an indiscretion with Bilhah, his father’s steady mate after the death of Rachel. To underscore this point, Moses referred to the fact that Reuven was the firstborn, something that everybody had been well aware of. He blessed Yehudah next, as this tribe would be the first tribe to receive its heritage in the land, and he would lead the nation in its war against the Canaanites. The blessing given by Moses to Yehudah was meant to include all of the Jewish people. Moses blessed the tribe of Levi next, as the Levites who largely lived in Jerusalem, would be territorial neighbours to Yehudah. They would ensure that the sacrificial offerings of the Jewish people, both communally and individually, would enjoy a welcome reception by <i>Hashem.</i> Binyamin was next in line for Moses’ blessing, as the holy Temple would stand on its territory. After having blessed Binyamin, Moses blessed the tribes named after Joseph’s two sons, as they were next in conquering and settling the land of Israel. Next Moses blessed the remaining tribes that had as their founding father sons of Yaakov principal wife Leah. He followed the pattern used by Yaakov when he had blessed those sons. This left the tribes whose founding fathers were the maidservants of Leah and Rachel, respectively. History shows that the lots allocating lands to the various tribes also confirmed the order in which Moses had blessed these tribes. Gad was mentioned first, as he with Reuven was the first to receive his share on the east bank of the Jordan. He was also part of the flag commanded by the army headed by Reuven.
  
     יחי ראובן ואל ימות, “May Reuven live and not die, etc.” Ibn Ezra understands this to mean that Reuven (the tribe) should live indefinitely, never die out. It had been possible that the lifetime of a tribe might be no different from the lifetime of an individual human being.
  
     ויהי מתיו מספר, “and may its numbers never shrink into insignificance.” Seeing that all things that are subject to count are also subject to a decline in number, Moses prayed that Reuven should not experience such a reduction in numbers.
      Nachmanides writes that in his view a better explanation of the above words is that of <i>Rashi,</i> i.e. that Moses prayed that Reuven should live on as a tribe of Israel in this world and not disappear as an entity in the world to come, either. The sin of his founding father should not be visited upon him and his descendants even in the hereafter. When reflecting on Yaakov’s comments on Reuven on his deathbed, Moses realized that it contained a great deal of anger that had been suppressed for a long time. Moses prays to protect the tribe against any fallout from this also in the future, beyond life on earth. The word מתיו, “his population,” is used to include all members of the tribe against such fallout. The word מספר “number,” is to be understood as if the Torah had written: במספר, ”in number,” a construction similar to בית אביה, ”her father’s house,” where what is meant is בבית אביה, “in her father’s house.” (Compare Genesis 38,11)
      It is also possible that the words מתיו מספר refer to the people of Israel who are to always look upon the tribe of Reuven as one looks on a firstborn son.
      Some commentators understand this blessing as being directed at the days of the conquest of the land of Canaan, Moses blessing the soldiers of the tribe of Reuven who would be in the vanguard with the members of the tribe of Gad, as agreed when they received their allocation of land on the east bank. Moses included the soldiers of the tribe of Gad in his prayer, asking <i>Hashem</i> not to let either of these two tribes sustain casualties during that campaign. Whereas this interpretation has much to commend it, the first interpretation is most likely the correct one.
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   וזאת ליהודה, “and this to Yehudah, etc.” Ibn Ezra translates the word וזאת, as “and similarly he said to Yehudah, etc.” i.e. he too should live on indefinitely and not be diminished in numbers, adding that <i>Hashem</i> should respond to the prayers of Yehudah. [Presumably, Ibn Ezra felt that Yehudah’s role in the sale of Joseph and the deception of his father Yaakov also needed forgiveness still.     Nachmanides disagrees with the interpretation of Ibn Ezra on this, seeing that Yehudah’s sin had not been of the type that the Torah would punish with the <i>karet</i> penalty [generally understood to include destruction of one’s soul, Ed.] if it had been committed deliberately and had not been repented properly. This is also, in his opinion, why Moses did not offer a special prayer on behalf of Yehudah, just as he did not do so on behalf of the other tribes whose founding fathers had been involved in the sale of Joseph and the deception of their father. He therefore understands the words וזאת ליהודה as the preamble to the blessing he would forthwith bestow on that tribe. He would receive the latter part of Reuven’s blessing also, as he, more than any other tribe needed G’d’s protection against suffering casualties, as this tribe was always leading in the wars Israel fought. He had a merit exceeding that of the other brothers, as it had been he who had saved Joseph from the brothers’ demand that he be killed immediately. 
     שמע ה' קול יהודה!, “Hearken O <i>Hashem</i> to the voice of Yehudah!” when he entreats you whenever he goes into battle, seeing he is at the head of the army.
  ואל עמו תביאנו,“and return him to his people;” to the encampment. This verse could also be understood as a general prayer to bring back all those who went out to battle in the enemy’s country, to return home safely, unharmed. 
     ידיו רב לו, “may his hands suffice to fight on his behalf;” may he not have to rely on outside assistance other than the help of <i>Hashem,</i> alone. Some commentators, seeing in the word רב an analogy to ריב, “quarrel, strife,” understand the verse to mean that Moses wishes that Yehudah’s hands alone should prove equal to any strife he will be involved in. Still other commentators see an analogy to Psalms 18,15 וברקים רב, where the word is used to describe “stunning” blows, by means of lightning.     Nachmanides writes that these words are an allusion to the first war against the Canaanites, and are an encouragement to Yehudah to not only worry about conquering his own allotted ancestral territory, but also that allotted to his brethren of the other tribes. In particular, it would be a hint to conquer land beyond that needed by himself, and to cede it to the members of the tribe of Shimon, who, as it turned out were going to be an enclave within the boundaries of the tribal lands of Yehudah. This is borne out by Joshua 19,9 where the members of the tribe of Shimon are described as receiving their share of the ancestral heritage as “within” that of the tribe of Yehudah. 
  
  Verse 8
  
   וללוי אמר, “and concerning Levi, Moses had said” <i>Rashi</i> understands the letter ו at the beginning of the word וללוי, as meaning על, i.e. “about.” Similar use of that letter in that sense is found in Genesis 26,7 וישאלו אנשי המקום לאשתו, “the people of that place enquired about his wife.” There are other examples of that kind of usage made of the letter ו in the Scriptures.     Nachmanides writes that seeing Moses had addressed Reuven and Yehudah in his blessings by name both in the introduction and as an integral part of the blessing, he hastens to face each tribe separately when blessing them, so that they do not feel slighted. In other words, each time we find the introductory letter ו before the tribe’s name, this means that at that moment Moses had taken up position directly in front of the members of that tribe. After positioning himself opposite the members of the tribe of Levi, he commenced with the words תומיך ואריך וגו'.  
     אשר נסיתו במסה, “whom You had tested at Massah.” According to Ibn Ezra the word במסה is not a reference to a location but to a test of faith when executing the fellow Israelites during the golden calf episode was not considered death without benefit of trial, i.e. murder, but an act of supreme faith, risking their lives on behalf of preserving the glory of the Holy Name of <i>Hashem.</i> The only sin the Levites were guilty of collectively also, was the one their leaders Moses and Aaron also became victims of, the confrontation after Miriam’s death when the people ganged up on Moses and Aaron demanding water to drink. (Numbers chapter 20); [note that whereas at the beginning of that chapter only העם, the common people, the mixed multitude according to some, is mentioned as being rebellious, near the end even the בני ישראל, the elite of the people, are described as having quarreled with Moses. Presumably, Ibn Ezra feels that the Levites were included, or the Torah would have credited them with being without guilt during that episode. Ed.]     Nachmanides, approaching the verse from the <i>peshat</i> point of view, writes that the correct interpretation is that the word במסה refers to a location, i.e. the place previously known as Refidim, which was renamed on account of the unruly behaviour of the Israelites there, as detailed in Exodus Moses credits the Levites with already at that time not being part of the people who ganged up on him and adopting a threatening posture. [Perhaps the Levites’ “cool” when the people had no water is especially commendable seeing that the Levites were not subject to slave labour in Egypt; they had been the ones to benefit least by the redemption, and therefore suffered most by deprivation in the desert. Ed.] Moses therefore blesses them with the blessing that its loyalty and steadfastness should remain a characteristic of theirs throughout the ages. This is the meaning of the reference to תמיך ואוריך. “May the qualities displayed then ensure that you will always be men of piety.” The people’s sin, even then had not been that they had clamoured for drinking water; far from it. Their sin had been that they had accused Moses for being responsible for the absence of the <i>Shechinah</i>, which most certainly would not have allowed a situation such they found themselves in to arise had not their leaders fallen out of favour with <i>Hashem</i> The thought that they themselves could have been at fault did not even occur to them.
   תריבהו, “you have quarreled with Him at the waters of Merivah.” Compare Psalms 35,1 ריבה ה' את יריבי, “O G’d strive with my adversaries” (David speaking). It sounds as if Moses is hinting that G’d ought to punish those who had been responsible for his losing his temper at מי מריבה. He hints that the people had provoked him to lose his composure so that he had shouted at them: (Numbers 20,10) “listen you rebellious people!” Moses had first addressed the priests, as he had said to Levi, asking them to be loyal to the High Priest, wearer of the <i>urim</i> and <i>tumim,</i> the breastplate that had the ineffable Name in its pouch, assuring the High Priest constant communication with G’d if the situation warranted this. Afterwards, he addressed the whole tribe of Levi who had participated in the general uproar on that occasion. 
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   יורו משפטיך ליעקב, “They shall teach Your social laws to Yaakov;” These words refer to the entire tribe of Levi. The priests, on their part will offer the incense on behalf of the entire nation.
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ברך ה' חילו, “Bless, O <i>Hashem</i> its resources, etc.” According to Nachmanides this is a plea by Moses to <i>Hashem</i> to grant the tribe of Levi plenty of human resources, seeing that in fulfilling their tasks they put their lives at risk if they make any of many possible mistakes which result in such people forfeiting their lives. Compare Numbers 4,18 “Do not let the tribe of the Kehatites be cut off from the rest of the tribe of Levi.”
      Onkelos translates חילו as “its material resources,” using Genesis 37,29 and Number 31,9 as his models. In both those verses the expression ואת כל חילם means: “all their physical possessions.” The verse is an appendix to ישימו קטורה באפך in the previous verse, which describes the material possession of man most closely related to a spiritual asset, i.e. the fragrance of the incense burned on the Altar.
  
     ופועל ידיו תרצה, “and may the work of his hands be received with goodwill.” A reference to the sacrificial offerings, generally, the incense being the most refined type.
  
     מחץ מתנים קמיו ומשנאיו מן יקומון, “smash the loins of his foes and his enemies so that they may not arise again.” Ibn Ezra understands the words מן יקומון as “preventing them from arising again.” 
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ידיד ה', “<i>Hashem’s</i> beloved;” Benjamin, G’d’s beloved, will dwell securely on his land.
  
     עליו, “over him;” guarding the habitat of <i>Hashem</i> in the Tabernacle or Temple. <i>Hashem’s</i> Presence, in turn will hover over him (Benjamin) in turn all of his days and allow His glory on his territory,
  
     ובין כתיפיו ישכון, “and he will feel at home between his shoulders.” An allusion to what our sages explained that during a competition as to who would be the first one into the Sea of Reeds, Binyamin did not wait for the argument to be settled but jumped in (<i>Sotah</i> 36) [first version of that argument. Folio 37 there has a different version. Ed.] Another allusion contained in this simile is that our verse contains references to all three Temples and the respective significance of each one. The statement about “dwelling securely,” would apply to the period of the first Temple, whereas the statement about “hovering all day long,” would refer to the period of the second Temple, a period during which the Jewish state was a vassal state, and many of the symbols of our close connection with the <i>Shechinah</i> were absent, the Tablets and the Holy Ark being some of these symbols. The description of “residing between its shoulders,” is an allusion to the third Temple, the one that will be built after the arrival of the Messiah.
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   וממגד ארץ ומלואה, “from the bounty of the land and its fullness;” this refers to the produce grown in the coastal plains, seeing that the produce growing on mountains and on hills has already been mentioned.
      Nachmanides explains the words as referring to blessings of the breast and womb respectively, corresponding to Yaakov’s blessing in Genesis He claims that every living creature is called מלואה inasmuch as they help fill the earth. He quotes as proof Chronicles I 16,32 ירעם הים ומלואו, “let the sea and all that is in it thunder.”
  
     ורצון שוכני סנה, “and by the favour of Him Who rested on the thorn bush.” This was when the <i>Shechinah</i> had his first encounter with Moses. This was also where he had spent many days (either receiving the Torah, or pleading for forgiveness for his people.) The thorn bush was at the bottom of Mount Sinai, or Mount Chorev as it is known also. Eventually, after the building of the Tabernacle, the <i>Shechinah</i> came to rest above the Holy Ark in that Tabernacle, i.e. over the encampment of the whole Jewish people.
  
     תבואתה, “may it be present, etc.;” a reference to this blessing.
  
     לראש יוסף, “upon Joseph’s head.” Moses expresses the wish that <i>Hashem</i> bestow this blessing on the tribe of Joseph. Alternately, the meaning is that “the goodwill of the One Whose residence is above the thorn bush should bestow His blessing on the tribe of Joseph.” The reason that Moses would be referring to G’d in the feminine mode (apparently, by saying תבוא instead of יבוא, is that this is the standard mode employed in Aramaic when referring to attributes of <i>Hashem.</i> [Compare<i> Targum</i> on Kohelet 5,7 where G’d is described in the feminine mode as רעותא ד'.]
      Some commentators say that when viewed from the perspective of the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, Moses means to say that although there is no need to express a special blessing for the parts of the land of Israel which is naturally bountiful, Moses wanted to bestow a similar blessing on the parts which normally do not yield nature’s bounty. The thorn bush represents such normally barren areas in any country.
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   בכור שורו הדר לו, “Like a firstling bull is his majesty;” Nachmanides, referring to the plain meaning of the verse, writes that seeing Moses had blessed the tribe of Joseph in terms of abundant crops, he had likened that tribe to an ox, the animal without whose work most crops would never see the light of day. He wishes that the firstborn of this tribe be majestic, an allusion to the position which Joshua, an illustrious member of the tribe of Joseph, would occupy among the people shortly, after Moses would die. He would henceforth be remembered as the most illustrious of Joseph’s descendants.
  
     וקרני ראם קרניו, “his glory will be like the horns of the <i>Re’em</i>.” Moses refers to the horns in the plural, parallel to the term רבבות אפרים, the tens of thousands of Ephrayim, on the one hand, and the אלפי מנשה, “the thousands from Menashe” on the other. Ephrayim’s blessing recalls that Yaakov, at the time, had insisted on placing his right hand on Ephrayim, and his left hand, i.e. אלפי, on Menashe. Israel has been described elsewhere as consisting of רבבות אלפי, “tens of thousands of thousands,” (Numbers 10,36)
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ברוך מרחיב גד, “Blessed, He, Who broadens the territory of Gad;” Ibn Ezra states that seeing that he had likened Gad to a lion, Moses pronounces a blessing on the One Who had equipped Gad with such an imposing stature; allegorically speaking, his territory is so wide, as no one dares hem him in, come too close to him.
      Nachmanides writes that the correct interpretation of our verse is that the word מרחיב refers to the territorial size of the ancestral heritage of Gad, which was larger than anyone else’s. The two and a half tribes who took their lands on the east bank of the Jordan had not been required to participate in the allocation by lot that took place under the supervision of Joshua. It is quite possible, that in light of the Gadites being natural born warriors, that they grabbed more land for themselves than did the members of the tribe of Reuven. Furthermore, the Gadites had been the very first to raise the subject of remaining on the east bank of the Jordan because the land was suited for grazing and they possessed such large herds after the war against Sichon. Large land allocation was therefore a factor high on the Gadites’ agenda.
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   כי שם חלקת מחוקק ספון, “for it is there that the lawgiver’s plot is hidden.” Ibn Ezra understands the three words חלקת, מחוקק, ספון as if the Torah had written חלק ומחוקק וספון, that Gad had three reasons for choosing the portion he chose, 1) the land was very desirable, 2) the lawgiver, Moses, would be buried on that land, 3) there the Emorites had fancy houses with paneled walls.. He quotes Chagai 1,4 speaking of בבתיכם ספונים, “in your houses with the paneled walls and ceilings,” as another example of the use of the word ספון in that sense.
  
     צדקת ה' עשה, “he exacted G’d’s righteous justice.” The <i>Midrash</i> states that the words וירא ראשית לו mean that Gad took the lands of Sichon and Og, which represented the beginning, ראשית, of the Israelites’ conquest of the Canaanite nations. By doing so he did a צדקה, a righteous deed for the whole of the people of Israel, who learned from that tribe to build fortified cities. All the elderly and sick people of Israel stayed in those fortified cities during the seven years that the conquest of the land lasted. 
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   יזנק מן הבשן, “leaping forth from the Bashan.” Ibn Ezra points out that the word יזנק, i.e. the root זנק, does not occur any place else in the Bible. It describes that the might of the lion to which Dan is compared here is that he appears to leap forth suddenly from a lair or hiding place one has not been aware of, has not suspected.
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   נפתלי שבע רצון, “Naftali is sated with favour;” <i>Rash</i> understands this phrase to mean that the territory allocated to Naftali would prove to be so well endowed that all its inhabitants would express their satisfaction with it.
      Nachmanides writes that the words שבע רצון, “well pleased,” refer to <i>Hashem</i> being well pleased with the lifestyle of this tribe and this would express itself visibly through the blessings He would shower upon that tribe.
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ברוך מבנים אשר, “Asher is more blessed than any of the other tribes;” Nachmanides writes that if the letter מ in front of the word בנים is meant to introduce a comparative, i.e. “more than,” similar to the expression תבורך מנשים in Judges 5,24 where it means that Yael was more blessed than other women, we have a problem, as Moses would then have portrayed all the other tribes as at a disadvantage when compared to the blessings received by Asher. Surely, Moses did not mean to arouse the other tribes’ jealousy? Furthermore, and even more to the point, if that had been what Moses meant, history did not bear out what Moses promised or predicted.     <i>Rashi</i> writes that he had seen a comment in the <i>Sifri</i>, according to which none of the other tribes had been blessed with children as abundantly as had the tribe of Asher. [It is strange that Nachmanides did apparently not know of that comment in the <i>Sifri.</i> Ed.] Nachmanides contents himself with considering that statement as unsupported by evidence of any kind.     Nachmanides writes that our sages understood these words to mean that whereas all the other tribes’ blessings referred in some manner to the blessed nature of the piece of land they would inherit, in the case of Asher Moses emphasized the quality of the children that the tribe of Asher would be blessed with. The versions of the <i>Sifri</i> that were in circulation at Nachmanides’ time did not have the line quoted by <i>Rashi.</i> There is no record of the prediction made by Moses here being fulfilled. Perhaps Chronicles I 7,40 which commences with the words כל אלה בני אשר, having given details of descendants of Asher to the ninth generation, is some hint that the tribe developed exceedingly well. [Compare relative tables in the דעת מקרא edition of Chronicles by <i>Mossad Harav</i> Kook, and edited by Yehudah Kil. Ed.] The 26000 officers of varying rank listed in Chronicles as Asher’s contribution to the army is not matched by any of the other tribes.     According to the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, Moses expresses a prayer that seeing that the land granted to the tribe of Asher is exceedingly productive, he hopes that the tribe will enjoy the blessing of G’d to ensure that they can benefit from this to the full extent possible, seeing that this land has a greater potential than that of the other tribes. The tribe should nonetheless be so well liked by the members of the other tribes, that instead of being jealous, they formulate a blessing when they bestow it, by using Asher as the model of someone being blessed by <i>Hashem</i>.     Onkelos translates the phrase above as אשר יהי רעוא לאחוהי, “may he be well liked by his brothers, etc.” As a result of Asher’s popularity, the other tribes would make a point of buying their olive oil from that tribe’s ample supplies. 
  
  Verse 25
  
   ברזל ונחושת מנעליך, “your borders (those of all the tribes having borders other that the sea) be sealed tightly by iron and copper fences.” May <i>Hashem</i> always protect your borders from attack.
  
     וכימיך דבאיך, “may your old age be similar to your prime.” Nachmanides understands the word דבאך as being similar in meaning to זובאך, claiming that the letter ד and ז are very often used interchangeably, quoting one or two examples. The meaning of the line would be: “may the oil flowing from your olive presses be so bountiful that you can dip your feet in it, כימיך, as long as you live.”
      It is true that what commentators have pointed out in connection with Deut. 28,65, that the word דאבון, which means “mental depression,” is the opposite of the optimism that one possesses in one’s prime. i.e. ימיך. Moses’ prayer is that the Jewish nation, when its members experience old age, should not feel depressed by it, but should enjoy it no less than their prime.
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   אין כא-ל ישורון, “There is none like G’d, Yeshurun;” The reason is that there is no other nation equal to the Jewish people, a people who are able to call upon G’d Who rides across heaven and earth to help them.
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   מעונה אלוקי קדם, “that (the שחקים at the end of the last verse) is the abode of G’d since days immemorial.” Some commentators understand this phrase as meaning: “Your abode is that of the Immemorial G’d.” 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויראהו ה' את כל הארץ, “<i>Hashem</i> showed him the whole country.” Nachmanides emphasizes that the words את כל הארץ, do not refer to the whole earth, but to the whole of the land of Israel on the west bank of the Jordan, whereas afterwards the Torah added that He showed him also in detail the territory of the two and a half tribes on the east bank of the Jordan.
  
     את הגלעד עד דן, “Gilead as far as Dan.” Moses was standing on part of the land owned by the tribe of Reuven, whose territory also included some parts of Gilead. Menashe had conquered the other half of Gilead. There was also a “Gilead” in the mountains of Lebanon, which was located on the west side of the Jordan in Israel proper. This is based on Jeremiah 22,6 גלעד אתה לי ראש הלבנון, “Gilead, you are for Me the head of Lebanon etc.;” The reason the Torah mentions the words עד דן, is because that is the northernmost boundary of the land of Israel. The land of Yehudah, basically describes the southern part of the country. Proof of this is Samuel II 24 where Beer Sheva is listed as the southernmost city in Yehudah at the time David commanded Yoav to count the men capable of bearing arms. The tribes of Menashe and Ephrayim are mentioned by name as they populated the others regions. So are Naftali and Dan. Naftali bordered Yehudah in the east. Issachar’s boundaries are not mentioned, as its territory bordered Ephrayim on one side and Menashe on the other. Shimon was an enclave within the territory of Yehudah, and also did not need to be mentioned separately. Binyamin is also not mentioned because its territory was wedged between Yehudah to the south and the tribes of Joseph in the north. The reason the boundary of the Mediterranean is mentioned is on account of Zevulun whose territory was adjacent to the shores of that ocean. There is a view that the territory of Zevulun was situated all the way to the Dead Sea, near Jericho, based on the Torah describing that tribe as dwelling between “seas” (plural). (Genesis 49,13) The valley of the Jordan near Jericho is mentioned especially, seeing that the area is 1200 meters below sea level and not easily visible from where Moses had been standing. G’d invoked a miracle to enable Moses to see all this with his physical eyes. It is clear that Moses was shown the entire land clearly as the Torah testifies that G’d said: “I have shown you the whole land that I have sworn to give to Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov.” (34,4) The principal reason G’d showed Moses the land was to impress him with its goodness. G’d was aware of the tremendous love Moses possessed both for his people and for the land of Israel. He knew that He gave Moses a great deal of joy by showing him what his people had to look forward to.
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   אשר ידעו ה' פנים אל פנים, “whom <i>Hashem</i> had known face to face.” <i>Rashi</i> explains this strange expression as Moses feeling so familiar with <i>Hashem</i> that he would speak to Him at any time, without special preparation.
      Nachmanides questions this, writing that if this were correct the Torah should have made Moses the subject in our verse, not <i>Hashem</i>¸ and should have written אשר ידע את ה' “who was familiar with <i>Hashem,</i> who knew<i> Hashem</i> so well, etc.” According to Nachmanides the meaning of the verse is based on the statement ואדעך בשם, (Exodus 33,17) where it means: “I have known you by name.” Knowing someone by name presumes knowing someone closely, relatively intimately. In the case of <i>Hashem</i>, who had told Moses that it is impossible for a living human being to see His essence or comprehend it, he was granted the next best thing described by the Torah repeatedly in the above terms. Knowing someone by name also implies a degree of mutuality.
      While it is true that the term פנים בפנים occurred also as a mode of speech employed by <i>Hashem vis</i> a <i>vis</i> the whole people, (Deut. 5,4) the difference is that on that occasion it was G’d speaking out of the fire and the people having had to prepare themselves for that spiritual experience for three days beforehand. Moses was always on a level when he was spiritually prepared. [Likely as not, the term פנים אל פנים is a way of describing the difference between believing something and knowing something, the latter being superior to the former. Ed.]
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   לכל האותות, “as evident by all the miracles, etc.” According to Nachmanides verses 10 and 11 have to be understood as sequential, i.e. there had never arisen another prophet who performed so many miracle, etc.”
      Alternately, the words לכל האותות refer back to the words אשר ידעו ה' פנים אל פנים, meaning that there had never been another prophet who performed so many miracles in the name of <i>Hashem</i> and that the people all heard about.
      The fact is that we know about many other prophets performing אותות and מופתים, different categories of miracles; to mention only the many miracles performed by the prophet Elijah. The main difference between the miracles performed by Moses and those performed by other prophets, has been defined by the <i>Midrash</i> as being that all the other prophets were not able to perform their miracles without first having prayed to <i>Hashem</i> to enable them to perform whatever miracle they wanted to perform. A case in point is the occasion when Joshua arrested the orbit of the moon and the sun in order to successfully complete the pursuit of the defeated Canaanites. (Joshua 10,12) The same was true of Elijah’s encounter with the woman from Tzorfat, his decreeing the absence of rainfall, or Elisha’s reviving the son of the Shunamit. Moses, on the other hand –according to that <i>Midrash</i>- performed the miracles ביד ה'. This wording is obscure.
      Maimonides (M<i>oreh Nevuchim</i> 2,35) explains that a major difference between Moses’ kind of prophecy, including his performing miracles to establish his authenticity as prophet, or G’d’s authenticity as the Creator and controller of nature, was, that whatever he did was designed to silence all those who had doubted his veracity, and to do so in full view of all the Israelites. Other prophets performed miracles for individuals, or in the case of Elijah at Mount Carmel before a select audience.
      Nachmanides rejects this definition by Maimonides, as how can one describe the arrest of rainfall over a period of three years, something Elijah had decreed, as a miracle performed for the benefit of individuals? (Compare Kings I 17,1) Besides, Joshua’s plea to arrest the sun’s orbit was made in front of the whole Jewish nation.
      [In his notes on his commentary on Nachmanides, Rabbi Chavell quotes a <i>Rit’va</i> who points out that Maimonides’ wording referred to the immediacy of Moses’ miracles coming true, whereas absence of rainfall to be interpreted as proof of something decreed by a prophet takes months or years to impress the parties concerned as due to the prophet who decreed it his holding the key to rainfall. Besides, both the miracle of the sun’s orbit being temporarily halted, and the rainfall being halted were not performed for an audience who disputed the prophet’s power or ability, as did the Egyptians to whom Moses had to prove himself and his G’d over and over again. Ed.] 
      According to tradition, the splitting of the sea was witnessed in the respective waterways throughout the world. 
      According to the plain meaning of the text, all these words describing Moses’ activities as a prophet and miracle worker are directly connected to what is written in verse 10, i.e. ולא קם נביא עוד בישראל וגו', that there never arose another prophet in Israel comparable to Moses. We must look at Moses’ career as a whole, including the revelation at Mount Sinai, his repeated lengthy stay on that Mountain without food or drink as we understand the term, and the period of 40 years during which he led the people without a visible sign of aging, etc. Not only that, but some of his miracles continued as such for the entire forty years, such as the manna, the heavenly bread, for instance. All of this made him incomparable throughout history up until now.
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ולכל היד החזקה, “and by all the strong hand, etc.;” according to Nachmanides this is a reference to the splitting of the Sea of Reeds at the time, as the Torah had testified then וירא ישראל את היד הגדולה, “the people saw with their own eyes the strong hand, etc.” (Exodus 14,31) 
     ולכל המורא הגדול, “and the awesome power, etc.” This is a reference to the revelation at Mount Sinai and all that this involved. Moses had been on record that the awesome spectacle had as a major purpose ובעבור תהיה יראתו על פניכם, וגו', “in order that the awe of Him shall be on your faces, etc.” (Exodus 20,17) This is why Moses mentions the words לעיני כל ישראל, “within view of the entire people of Israel,” as distinct from the miracles performed in the presence of Pharaoh which had not been designed to make the Israelites fear G’d, but to make him and his people recognize the existence and power of the attribute of <i>Hashem.</i>     According to <i>Sifri</i> the words ולכל היד החזקה, refer to the killing of all the Egyptians firstborn, as the Torah had predicted this יד החזקה as the catalyst that would set in motion the Exodus already when G’d appeared to Moses at the burning bush. (Exodus 3,19) The words ולכל המורא הגדול, are understood by the author of <i>Sifri,</i> to refer to the splitting of the Sea of Reeds. Yet another interpretation of the words ולכל המורא הגדול, is that they refer to the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai.
  אשר עשה משה, “that Moses had orchestrated;” Nachmanides understands the word עשה here as in Genesis 12,5 ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן, “and the persons whom they had converted in Charan to the service of the one and only G’d.” Seeing that one can hardly credit Moses with orchestrating the splitting of the sea, he only acted as G’d’s agent, Nachmanides understands Moses’ cardinal contribution as being that he made the people understand the concept of the Sabbath in all its dimensions, primarily as a symbol of G’d having created the universe, and of His having orchestrated the Exodus from Egypt in order to make this nation His special people. The word לעשות in the above sense is used in connection with the observance of the Sabbath in Deuteronomy 5,15.