Parasha: Acharei Mot · Aliyah: Fifth (Hod)

ואליהם תאמר, "And to them you are to say, etc." According to Rabbi Yishmael in Zevachim 107 we are dealing here with an example of a phenomenon known as ערוב פרשיות, i.e. that the Torah writes a verse in a paragraph dealing with one subject whereas that verse really had its place in a different paragraph dealing with another subject matter. In our case our verse teaches that whereas so far the prohibition against שחוטי חוץ was presumed to apply only to the act of slaughtering outside and not to burning up the remains of the animals outside the sacred precincts, our verse comes to include also the burning up of the remains of such animals in all instances where these animals had been slated to be burned up on the altar. According to the first Mishnah in Zevachim chapter 13 if one slaughtered the sacrificial animal within the sacred precincts but burned the remains outside those precincts one is just as guilty as if one had slaughtered the animal outside the permitted perimeter. This prohibition applies even if the remains of that animal had not been meant to be burned up on the altar at all. Compare Rashi on the Mishnah.

מבית ישראל, from the house of Israel, etc. The Torah had to write the words "from the house of Israel" and could not content itself with writing the pronoun ואליהם at the beginning of this verse which would have created the impression that it referred to the matters discussed earlier in the paragraph. The word איש איש would have referred to two people who commit a sin jointly such as slaughtering an animal intended for the altar outside the sacred perimeter as we have already discussed. The Torah was afraid that an exegete would use the repetition of the word איש to include Gentiles. The Talmud in Menachot 73 when explaining the word איש איש in Leviticus 22,18 uses the repetition to mean that free-willed offerings by Gentiles are acceptable for the altar of the Temple. In order to prevent us from interpreting the additional word איש in our context in a similar manner the Torah had to add the words מבית ישראל. Burnt-offerings and peace-offerings are acceptable only from Israelites. This in turns leads us to interpret the other meanings we have attributed to the extra word איש in our chapter. Once the Torah was worried about our misinterpreting the word איש איש, so that it had to add the words מבית ישראל, the Torah next had to worry that the words מבית ישראל would lead us to interpret that even proselytes could not offer burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. This is why the Torah had to add the words: "and from amongst the proselyte who lives amongst you."

At this point there was a need to write all these words of an inclusive nature. Were it not for these additional examples of inclusive letters, etc. we would be tempted to interpret that the Torah did not include anything which was not spelled out specifically. This is true even according to Rabbi Yossi who holds that the Torah used the ordinary human syntax. Perhaps Rabbi Yossi Haglili holds that the principle of the Torah using ordinary human syntax applies only when there is some evidence that the Torah does not want us to use a specific extraneous word exegetically. [The Talmud in Baba Metzia 31 deals with numerous phenomena of the Torah repeating a word, such as :,שלח תשלח, הוכח תוכיח, הקם תקים, עזוב תעזוב and others. In all these instances the extra word is used exegetically, no one claiming that the Torah uses ordinary human syntax. Ed.] Although the Talmud queries the right of Rabbi Yossi Haglili who fails to use the extra word איש exegetically in one context to use it exegetically in other contexts, this would hold true were it not for the fact that the Talmud found an alternate expression to arrive at the same הלכה by using the word דם שפך exegetically instead of the extra word איש. Whenever the result of interpreting the extra word איש is not in conflict with known הלכות, we do not resort to the principle that "the Torah merely used ordinary human syntax." Tossaphot on Baba Metzia 31 point out that it is unreasonable to suppose that the rabbis were unable to find some exegetical use for the repetition of the word איש in every case where it appears, or for that matter, for any of the many examples where the Torah repeats a word, albeit in a slightly modified form. While it is true that Tossaphot there address the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the same applies to the opinion expressed by Rabbi Yossi Haglili. The main thrust of the argument of those who hold that the Torah uses ordinary human syntax is that we fall back on that principle only where exegetical use of the word would bring us into conflict with accepted הלכות. It can be demonstrated that even Rabbi Shimon frequently accepts that principle although he does use repetitions exegetically.

ואיש איש מבית ישראל אשר יאכל, "And any person from the house of Israel who will eat, etc." Torat Kohanim explains the repetition of the word איש in these words: "The word ישראל refers to the Israelites; the word גר refers to a proselyte; the letter ה before the word גר refers to the wife of the proselyte; the word בתוכם refers to women and slaves. In view of this, why did the Torah have to repeat the word איש? Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Shimon answers that it is meant to include a baby of a Jewish mother fathered by a stranger or a slave." We need to know why the Torah had to write so many words to include all these details just as the Baraitha in Sukkah 28 asked concerning the word האזרח including the wives, etc. In that instance we find the following discussion [concerning who has to observe the commandment of fasting on the Day of Atonement, (Leviticus 23,27) a positive commandment applicable only at a certain time, something not normally applicable to women, Ed.]. "Rabbi Yehudah said in the name of Rav that the Torah compared men and women as being equal when it comes to the penalties for violations of Torah laws. As a result, the question arises why the Torah had to write words such as האזרח to restrict the law to adult males, or the words איש או אשה in Numbers 5,6 where clearly we speak of violation of a negative commandment, something that applies to women even if the Torah did not write the word אשה?" The answer given there is that the Torah included the application of the law even to the additional time before nightfall. Without the extra word I might have assumed that seeing neither men nor women are culpable for failure to observe that part of the fast, women would not even be obligated to observe it; therefore the Torah had to write a word indicating that observance is obligatory for women also. Using the approach underlying the discussion in the Talmud, we are entitled to ask here also why the Torah needed to write anything to include women? Who would have thought that women are relieved of the prohibition to eat blood? It is a negative commandment and it goes without saying that women are culpable if they violate it! Besides, why would we have made a difference between a baby born by a proselyte and one born by a natural-born Jewess that the Torah had to write something special to include such a woman? Furthermore, whom did the author of Torat Kohanim refer to when he spoke about a baby fathered by a proselyte so that the Torah had to specifically include such a child in its legislation by writing איש איש? If such a child reverts to paganism when he grows up, clearly the legislation does not apply to him. If, on the other hand, he grows up as a Jew, why would we need a word in the Torah in order to let us know that this legislation applies to him? In view of the fact that Torat Kohanim describes the child as an Israelite, it is clear that the assumption is that the child remained Jewish willingly. There is no reason why he should be inferior to a proselyte who was not even born as a Jew!

The author of Korban Aharon writes that the correct wording in the Baraitha quoting Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Shimon should be: מן הגוי ומן העבד. The lesson would be that although the father of such a child is or was a pagan or a slave who had not been forbidden to eat blood, the child is forbidden to eat blood as he is considered part of the people his mother belongs to. The child of any union between a male Gentile and female Jewess is considered Jewish as we know from Yevamot 23, where the Talmud bases this on Deut. 7,3-4 the word בנך referring to a grandchild whose father was a Gentile. Thus far Korban Aharon. I find it difficult to accept a distinction between the son of such a mixed union who has decided to opt out of Judaism and one who has not. Once the Torah designated such a son as Jewish he is Jewish in the full sense of the word. If the Torah spoke of a son who did not want to remain Jewish, he has thrown off all of Torah! The Torah certainly does not address such a person! If we are able to impose Torah law on such a youngster we are obligated to do so just as we do with any natural-born Israelite who defies Torah law. If he is not under our control, what point is there in the Torah writing laws concerning such a person?

I believe that in order to understand what motivated the comments of Torat Kohanim and Korban Aharon it would help if we first examined the reason underlying the prohibition to eat blood which is the subject of our paragraph. Our sages have enlightened us in describing the souls of all Israelites as of a quality which is unmatched, when they interpreted Deut. 32,9 כי חלק ה׳ עמו, to mean that "His people are part of G'd Himself." They also added that although we live our lives in the "lower" world, physically distant from the "higher" celestial regions, we nonetheless retain a חוט של חסד, an umbilical cord of love which ties us to the celestial regions as demonstrated by the words יעקב חבל נחלתו, that "Jacob is the "rope" of His inheritance" (ibid.). The "soul" of an animal, on the other hand, is rooted in the "lower" world. It is related only to the spiritual forces of the lowest order, the קליפת נוגה. Whenever man -knowing it is forbidden-consumes the life-blood of an animal i.e. blood whose loss would result in the death of that animal (as opposed to blood of the capillaries), such eating is punishable by כרת, the premature death and/or extinction of the Jew eating such blood. The reason is very simple. By eating such blood and absorbing a lower category of animal soul thus diluting the "higher" soul G'd has equipped him with, one demonstrates his contempt for higher spiritual values, denying his דבקות, attachment, to one's celestial origin. The Torah writes: "I will set My face against the person (soul) who eats the blood and will cut him off from amongst his people." The Torah refers to what we have called the חוט החסד, the "thread (or rope) of love" which connects the Jewish soul to its celestial origin. All Jewish souls have a common celestial origin near the throne of G'd; this is why the Torah spoke of מקרב עמה, "from the midst of his people."

Furthermore, it is a well known fact that though the Jewish people share a common root, they are different individually in their relative spiritual levels. This is the mystical dimension of Kohelet 5,7: כי גבוה מעל גבוה שומר וגבוהים עליהם, "for there is One higher than the high Who watches and there are high ones above them." Seeing this is so, one might reason that in view of the fact that this animal which is ritually fit to be eaten cannot therefore have a ritually impure "soul," (life-force) and that imbibing its soul could not be damaging to our souls. I would have reasoned that if consumption of blood is capable of contaminating Jewish souls at all, it can have such an effect only on the most superior of souls, i.e. that of the males. It would follow that the penalty decreed by the Torah is restricted to Jewish males. This is why the Torah had to write words which make it plain that women are no less culpable for infraction of this prohibition than are men. Once the Torah had to write words or letters to include people whom we would not normally have included in that legislation, it had to spell out all the ones included or I would have reasoned that the respective inclusion applied only to the particular "lower" category of person singled out by special reference. The Torah therefore had to demonstrate that though Jewish souls are not all of the same calibre, all are holy enough to jeopardise their holiness if the bodies they inhabit consume animal blood.

You may also choose to pursue a different approach to our problem. You may argue that consumption of animal blood, i.e. the "soul" of such an animal could prove damaging only to the lowest categories of Jewish souls, and that therefore only those kinds of Jews should be prohibited from eating animal blood. A superior soul would be able to resist the subversive influence of such an animal's "soul" although it might not be totally immune to it. Such potential damage would certainly not be sufficient to rate the harsh כרת penalty. The Torah therefore carefully phrased the legislation in such a way that we cannot arrive at such faulty conclusions. By writing a series of expressions each one designed to include more and more categories of people in this legislation the Torah makes it clear that it applies to both people equipped with superior souls and those whose souls are on a lower level.

Here is a list of different levels of sanctity. The highest level belongs to the Israelite males; the second highest level belongs to their wives seeing that a female soul is not on the same level of spirituality as is that of a male; the next lower level is the son of a union between a natural born Jewish father and a proselyte. Next in line of sanctity from birth is the son of a proselyte married to a natural-born Jewish woman. Next in line is the female proselyte, daughter of either of the two last mentioned unions. Below this is the son of a union between a male proselyte and a female proselyte. Next in line of sanctity from birth is the daughter born from a union between a male and a female proselyte. Finally, there is the level of the proselyte himself. All of the above-mentioned levels are alluded to in the Torah at some point or other. The first and highest category of sanctity from birth is spelled out in the Baraitha of Torat Kohanim when they interpret the word ישראל in our verse as a reference to a male, natural-born, Israelite. Proselytes are mentioned twice in that paragraph when the words הגר הגר are understood as referring to two separate types of proselytes. You will also find that in Sukkah 28 they interpret the letter ה of the word האזרח as including the wives of the proselytes. This teaches us that the letter ה in the word הגר is to be understood as a רבוי, an additional dimension of the word גר. This means that the words הגר הגר in our verse really include four different kinds of combinations of proselytes. You therefore have a total of 4 extra words or letters each including additional categories of proselytes. Perhaps the wording of the author of our paragraph in Torat Kohanim who wrote גר אלו גרים, instead of זה גר as we would have expected, reflects that what he had in mind are two different categories of proselytes as opposed to a multiplicity of proselytes all of the same category, whereas the letter ה in front of the first גר refers to the wives of the proselytes. When the author of Torat Kohanim went on to write that the word בתוכם refers to the wives and slaves, he meant natural-born Jewish wives and slaves whose status in Jewish halachah is the same as that of women. Do not query the need for these people to have been especially included in the legislation seeing we could have included them by applying a קל וחומר from the application of the legislation to proselytes, i.e. if even proselytes are included what possible reason could there be for not including natural-born Jewish women? After all, natural-born Jewish women possess souls that are intrinsically less holy than those of their husbands, and if so what need was there for the Torah to mention them as being included in the group of people to whom the כרת penalty applies if even their husbands are so vulnerable that they are liable to the כרת penalty if they eat blood? Remember that if it had not been for the inclusive word בתוכם which we used to include women in the prohibition to eat blood and the resultant penalty, we would not have used the letter ה in the word הגר to include two categories of proselytes as we have described. Altogether we are faced with six different "inclusive" words or letters. The Torah wrote איש איש i.e. 2 more "inclusive" words which the author of Torat Kohanim uses to include the child born of an Israelite woman from a union with either a proselyte of a slave i.e. a child containing Jewish seed albeit seed from a Jew who was not a natural-born Jew. This is why the Torah wrote the additional words מן הגר, "originating in a proselyte." The intention of the verse was to refer to a proselyte who had married a natural-born Jewess or vice versa. These last named two categories are derived from the words איש איש.

Do not raise the objection that there was no need to write extra words or letters to include all these different levels of proselytes and the offspring of their unions seeing that even a total proselyte, i.e. one in whose veins not a drop of "Jewish" blood flows is subject to this legislation? If it had not been for the extra word איש which tells us that the proselytes mentioned in this verse were second generation proselytes, i.e. those whose father or mother or both had already been Jewish at the time they were conceived, I would not have known all this. Having written the extra word איש enabled the Torah to describe that there are different levels of proselytes, the most spiritually endowed being the ones in whose veins there flows some blood of a natural-born Jew. These are followed by the proselytes in which no such blood of natural-born Jews flows at all. You may ask whence do we know that a female child whose father was a proselyte and whose mother was a natural-born Jewess is subject to this legislation? Answer: if even a proselyte in whose veins no Jewish blood flows at all is included in the above legislation there was no need to add further רבויים, letters of an inclusive nature, to add such people to the groups of people covered by our verse.

בנפש האכלת, against the person (soul) eating, etc. Torat Kohanim understands the word בנפש in the singular as teaching that G'd does not punish a community who collectively consume blood with the כרת penalty, as the sin does not have the power to destroy the holiness of a group of people.

מקרב עמה, from amongst his people. According to Torat Kohanim the purpose is ועמה שלום, "and his people will be at peace." I am not sure what this is supposed to mean. If the people are guilty of that penalty because they are each responsible for the proper conduct of a fellow Jew, why should they not be punished? If, on the other hand, the Torah does not speak of people whose culpability originates in the הלכה of ערב, i.e. that each Jew is a sort of guarantor vis-a vis-G'd of a fellow Jew's behaviour, such as in instances when the sin was committed accidentally or unbeknown to the fellow Jew, why would the Torah have to even hint that such people are free from this penalty or any penalty at all? I believe that what Torat Kohanim had in mind was that when you cut off diseased branches from a tree you thereby improve what remains of the tree. The words מקרב עמה, from the midst of his people, mean that G'd decided to cut off this branch in order for the diseased branch not to infect the rest of the tree so that the tree itself remains healthy, שלם.

כי נפש הבשר בדם היא, for the life-force of all flesh is in its blood; why is the fact that the life-force is in the blood repeated twice in this verse? According to what I have written earlier this verse explains why the soul of the person eating blood is destroyed. The reason is that the blood contains the נפש, the essence of the animal it comes from. Consuming that life-force results in the soul- i.e. life-force of the person who consumed it becoming diluted with this spiritually inferior life-force. We still need to investigate why the Torah chose the expression נפש הבשר, "life-force of the flesh," instead of writing "the life-force is within the blood?" I believe G'd was anxious to answer a potential questioner that if the imbibing of the animal is so detrimental to the soul of a Jew, why did He not forbid the consumption of the flesh (meat) also? After all, the flesh too contained the life-force of the animal so that eating it would also cause irreparable harm to a Jewish soul? The Torah therefore repeats that it is only the blood in the flesh which contains the essence of the animal not the flesh itself. The essence of the animal is found in its blood, and not in the flesh. This is the meaning of נפש הבשר בדם היא. G'd did not make a human being in such a fashion. In the case of man, the life-force is not only in the blood but also in the flesh and the bones. Our sages refer to this life-force as הבלה, a certain moisture which survives in the bones of the righteous for many years after they have died. This is why they do not rot away. On the other hand, the wicked who are compared to animals are those who will not be resurrected when the time comes seeing that all their bones have dried out and have rotted away completely so that not an iota of their one-time life-force still exists.

ואני נתתיו לכם, "As for Me, I have given to you, etc." The Torah is telling us that the proof of the fact that the blood of the animal contains its "soul," its life-force, is that G'd allowed us to offer up the blood of the animal on the altar as a means to obtain atonement for our inadvertent trespasses. The process may be called נפש תחת נפש, G'd accepts one "soul" in lieu of another soul, i.e. the soul (life-force) of the sinner.

The verse also intends to warn us not to kill animals without an ulterior purpose. We are only allowed to take the life of an animal (the ones which are fit for consumption by Jews) to help us atone for our sins. The sequence of the words נתתיו לכם על המזבח are intended to demonstrate that the "gift" G'd has made us of the domesticated animals on earth carries with it some restrictions. We are not absolute owners of these animals to do with them whatever we please; rather they should serve to help us recapture our standing with the Almighty in the event that we became guilty of certain sins. We are taught in Sanhedrin 2 that if a domestic animal is guilty of an offence for which the Torah decreed that said animal has to die, such as initiating sexual intercourse with a human being, it is judged by a tribunal of no fewer than 23 judges, the same number required to judge a human being, someone who has killed a human being. It is not permitted to slaughter such an animal except when one wants to consume its meat. In Deut. 12,20 the Torah is on record as permitting man to indulge his craving for meat. In other words, the Torah had to write a special verse in order to permit us to eat meat which was not intended as sacrificial meat.

אשד יצוד ציד חיה או עוף, who hunts any beast or fowl, etc. We need to analyse why the Torah had to write this whole introduction instead of merely writing that if someone slaughters or otherwise kills a free-roaming animal or fowl he has to cover its blood with earth. Furthermore, if it is a decree without the Torah revealing its rationale, why does the Torah not merely write יכסהו, "he shall cover its blood with dust," instead of writing וכסהו, which implies that he had to fulfil another commandment prior to covering the blood of the creature in question.

I believe that by writing the words אשר יצוד the Torah intended to forbid the hunting of any species that are impure, i.e. whose meat is forbidden for Jews to eat although it may be used in another context. I have discussed this in my book פרי תואר item 117 in accordance with the view of Maimonides in his treatise Maachalot Assurot chapter 8 where he writes that permission to hunt is dependent on one's intention to hunt those free-roaming animals which we are allowed to eat. The fact that amongst the herd of animals one hunts there are some which do not qualify as food for Jews does not pose an halachic problem to the hunter in such an instance. This is the true meaning of the expression כי יצוד אשר יאכל, i.e. the activity of hunting is permissible only when its object is to provide you with permissible food. The Torah continues with וכסהו, [the emphasis being on the conjunctive letter ו Ed.] to draw our attention to the preceding מצוה, namely not to engage in hunting animals for sport but only for food. The Torah writes that the permission to eat, i.e. אשר יאכל, is contingent on the covering of the blood of such animal by earth once it has been spilled i.e. ושפך את דמו. In Deut. 12,24 the Torah warns that blood of free-roaming animals must not be consumed either. This teaches that already in our verse the Torah was concerned with our not eating the blood even of free-roaming animals or fowl by writing כי נפש כל בשד, that the life-force of all flesh, not only that of pure domestic animals, is situated in its blood. As a result of what we have just described you find three distinct commandments in our verse. 1) Not to hunt impure animals for one's pleasure; 2) Not to eat the blood of either חיה or עוף; 3) To cover the blood of such animals instead of pouring it down the sink, etc.

I believe we can also detect in the expression ושפך וכסהו an allusion to the need to cover only some of the blood with earth whereas the rest may be poured down the sink, compare Chulin 88.

דמו בנפשו, its blood is bound up with its essence. The meaning of this expression is that the blood is equivalent to its life-force [the life-force being something abstract. Ed.]. Here the Torah has provided us with the reason why we have to cover i.e. "bury" the blood of the above-named categories of animals. Seeing that the blood is its life-force, it is a matter of showing some respect for that life-force. The Torah also commanded that the remains of a human being be buried only as a demonstration of respect for the life (or life-force) of a human being.

The reason the Torah did not use the same syntax when it described the free-roaming animals as it did when it referred to the pure domesticated mammals where the Torah described the blood as דמו בנפשו, may be because the "pure" domesticated animal possesses a "soul," something which has been placed in its blood, whereas in the case of free-roaming animals or fowl the blood itself is in lieu of the "soul" G'd provided for the "pure" domesticated animals. This explains why such free-roaming animals and fowls are not suitable as sacrifices on the altar to achieve atonement for their owners with the exception of the pigeon and the turtle-dove. Even in the case of the latter, their blood is not sprinkled on the altar, seeing it does not represent the "soul" of the bird but its blood, i.e "soul" equivalent has been removed when the priest pinched the neck of the pigeon instead of slaughtering it.

כי נפש כל בשד דמו היא, for the life-force of all flesh is its blood. The Torah explains that the reason it forbade us to eat the blood of such animals is not that it is used to attain atonement for our own souls, i.e. the life we had forfeited by our sin, in which case there would have been a reason to distinguish between the blood of those animals which are fit as a sacrifice and those which are not. Rather, the reason is that we are not to consume the essence of such an animal.

כל אוכליו יכדת, anyone eating it will be cut off. I have explained already why this penalty is appropriate. The reason the Torah writes the word אוכליו in the plural whereas the penalty יכרת is in the singular is to alert us to the effect of the penalty. כרת means the withdrawal of the life-sustaining connection with the soul's celestial root. Seeing that all the Jewish souls have a common root, any reference to that root is in the singular. The reason the Torah describes the people consuming such blood as אוכליו, i.e. in the plural is, that there are many who derive some satisfaction of what a single person eats. The source of physical vitality attached to the celestial root contains a variety of preparatory steps to enable it to be absorbed successfully by bodies which have become fused with a soul. Although the body is essentially a material phenomenon G'd has created a force called נפש whose nature it is to develop liaison with material forces and which develops an urge to participate in the experiences a body finds pleasant. G'd created this force so that the soul would be able to function harmoniously within the body. The corresponding force, i.e. a somewhat diluted version of the purely spiritual soul, נשמה, is known as רוח, spirit; it is called thus because just as the wind is a phenomenon on earth but remains intangible, so this phenomenon we call רוח, spirit, performs both a physical and a spiritual function. When man eats, i.e. when the body eats, these other parts of the human personality also receive their sustenance from the food absorbed first by the body. This is why the Torah speaks about multiple אוכליו, "beings which eat of the blood." We may perceive of the following as all partaking of the nourishment a human being absorbs in ascending order. The body, the animalistic life-force נפש; the רוח, and finally the נשמה. As to the element subject to the כרת penalty, this is applied only to the חוט החסד, the "umbilical cord of love" connecting the נשמה to its celestial root. When this cord is severed from its root all other parts of the spiritual side of man will dry up and wither automatically..

We may also understand the verse on the basis of Torat Kohanim which explained on the word בנפש in verse 10 that the penalty applies to an individual eating and not to a community eating blood as the animalistic life-force contained in the blood is not powerful enough to destroy the fabric of the collective souls of such a community. This is alluded to here when the Torah refers to a number of people who eat but to the destruction of only a single soul.

I have tried to understand why G'd commanded that the blood of free-roaming animals or fowl has to be buried whereas the blood of pure domestic animals which have not been offered as a sacrifice does not need to be covered with earth. It is understandable that when the blood has been offered on the altar that no further procedure is needed; however, seeing that even when the Temple was standing most animals which were slaughtered were not offered as sacrifices, why did the blood of such animals not enjoy burial? Seeing we have explained that the "soul" of such a בהמה טהורה is superior to the life-force G'd supplied to free-roaming animals and fowl, why do we appear to discriminate against the בהמה טהורה by pouring away its life-blood instead of according it the honour of burial? Our question is reinforced by the fact that G'd rejected all free-roaming animals and almost all birds as unfit to serve as a sacrifice?

When we consider that I have explained that the blood of the free-roaming beast is itself its "soul" i.e. its life-force, as distinct from the pure domestic animal whose life-force is separate from its blood though carried by its blood, it emerges that G'd commanded only blood which is at the same time the essence of the vitality of the creature to be buried. Any blood which does not represent the essence of the creature does not need to be accorded such a symbolic funeral. Although the blood of the pure domestic animal contains its life-force, its "soul," the fact remains that its blood and its "soul" are not identical. Covering of the blood is required only for the מורגש, the tangibly peceptible, not for the היולי, that which is perceived only in the abstract, in its potential.

I wish to pursue the thought of why G'd decided to create the categories of the pure domestic animals as being so essentially different from the free-roaming beasts, animals which at first glance appear to have so much in common. We will understand the reason better if we first appreciate the factors which enable G'd's various creatures to fulfil their overall purpose and function on earth. Inasmuch as G'd is the source of all life in its various forms, He has made sure that all His creatures are equipped with the wherewithal to function in nature. He made all living creatures as composites of four basic raw materials, i.e. fire, air (spirit), water, and dust. The origin of these four raw materials is something that has not been made accessible to us, it is (at least partially) spiritual in nature and is described in kabbalistic literature as the "four legs of the throne of the Almighty," Ezekiel describes four carriers of this throne as creatures with the faces of four different animals including man in the opening chapter of his book as carriers of G'd's throne. There are also four angels who correspond to this basic "foursome" of creation, i.e. Gabriel, Rafael, Michael, and Nuriel. These three "foursomes" may be perceived as providing providing the background to the creation of a physical universe, the gradual reduction of pure spirit to something material. Each "foursome" is a preparatory level to a lower level of spirituality, something closer to the physical material world. The "foursome" described as part of G'd's throne in Ezekiel are the four categories of creatures which form the basis of life on earth. The face of אדם refers to the human species; the face of the ox refers to the pure domestic animals; the face of the lion refers to the free-roaming beasts on earth; and, finally, the face of the eagle refers to the fowl. Just as there are four categories of life on earth [living creatures containing blood Ed.] so there are four categories of inert beings, i.e. fire, wind, water, and dust. All creatures are composites of these four elements. Even amongst the intangible souls or life-forces G'd has created we find "foursomes." The highest of these are the celestial lights G'd has created which are almost part of the essence of G'd Himself. In every single sphere of creation we find the active, the dispenser, the male on one hand, and the passive, the recipient, the female. In the final analysis even the most inert component of our physical universe is the recipient of celestial input, i.e. from the region of the throne of G'd.

Let us now examine the nature of the celestial influences the foursomes in our world are exposed to. Inasmuch as the face of one of the foursomes in Ezekiel's vision is that of the ox, i.e. a pure domestic animal, it is reasonable to suppose that the pure domestic animals in our universe i.e. its counterpart in our regions, receive their spiritual input via their celestial counterpart. However, the face of the lion represents an impure free-roaming animal. It is reasonable therefore to assume that all free-roaming animals (including the pure ones) receive the kind of spiritual input from the celestial regions associated with their counterpart the lion and what it represents. They are therefore deprived of primary positive spiritual input. The same applies to the fowl, seeing that the face of the eagle in Ezekiel's vision is also that of an impure category of bird. We need to examine why the counterpart of these "faces on the throne of G'd" have not been granted positive spiritual input as did the pure domestic animals which are recipients of spiritual input from the ox in Ezekiel's vision? Furthermore what is the source of the criteria which enabled some free-roaming beasts such as the gazelle, etc. to be considered pure beasts, fit for consumption by Jews?

Remember that there are levels of perceptions which the recipient's mind is incapable of perceiving even if the source from which such perceptive powers emanate makes an effort to transmit such receptive power. Torah scholars are well aware of the fact that there are gradations of such perceptive powers and some of them are endowed with greater such powers than others. [I believe we can best describe what the author is trying to tell us when we imagine the receiver of a person equipped to handle a minimum of 5000 volt being bombarded from a transmitter which sends out impulses of 1000 volt maximum. The receiver in the hands of the person described would not be able to handle such transmissions. I shall continue to paraphrase the comments of our author as I feel that rendering them literally would not result in the reader's enlightenment. Ed.] The lion and eagle in our world are to be perceived as possessing such receivers having made efforts to exceed the natural receptive powers granted to them. As a result, the impulses emitted from their celestial counterparts are largely wasted on them and they are forced to stay outside the garden that G'd had intended for them to be part of seeing they have not achieved the spiritual goals they were meant to achieve. As a result of being under-achievers in G'd's overall scheme for His universe, He commanded the Israelites to keep a distance from such animals so as not to absorb any of their failings. We know from Deut. 4,11 that in order to remain both spiritually and physically alive one needs to maintain a close affinity to G'd and His commandments. We know from Job 14,4 that it is reserved for G'd alone to know by what devious paths purity can develop out of something that started with an impure base. If the original bird in Ezekiel's vision was the eagle, symbol of an impure bird, and so was the eagle in our world, this does not mean that amongst all the fowl some will not evolve which bear the mark of purity, such as the pigeons amongst the domesticated birds or the chickens, geese, turkeys, etc.. The same holds true for the free-roaming mammals. Although their archtype is the lion, this did not prevent certain categories evolving into pure free-roaming beasts such as the hart, the gazelle, and the roebuck. Due to their being cut off, or better, having caused themselves to be cut off from their celestial counterpart and not having received the required positive spiritual input from the source of their part of the celestial "foursome," the only level of "soul" these animals possess is their blood itself.

וכל נפש אשר תאכל גבלה, and every person eating an animal which died of natural causes, etc. The reason the paragraph commences with the letter ו before כל is to remind us that all the rules which apply to the eight different categories of Israelites and proselytes we listed in the last paragraph (verse 10) apply here also. The Torah here mentioned two categories, i.e. אזרח וגר, natural-born Jew and proselyte, to tell us that these are respective "headings" for the various categories of natural-born Jews and proselytes.

,דבד…. ואמדת כמעשה ארץ מצדים, "speak ….and say:…according to the doings in the land of Egypt, etc." We need to know why our verse repeated the instruction to Moses by writing both דבר and ואמרת. Besides, what news does our verse convey by having G'd describe Himself as "I am the Lord your G'd?" Was there anyone who did not know this as yet? Besides, what is the Torah's intention with the unusual introduction כמעשה? If the object of the word כמעשה was not known how would we know to what these מצות addressed themselves? This is true both for the מעשה which was presumed to be the norm in Egypt as well as the מעשה which was presumed to be the norm in the land of Canaan at that time. The entire paragraph from verse 2 through 5 is extremely vague.

Our sages in Torat Kohanim said that the Torah compared practices rampant in Egypt with practices rampant in the land of Canaan. According to their interpretation, why did the Torah have to repeat the commandment? If all the Torah wanted to tell us was that the people of both these countries committed the same kind of sins, why did the Torah have to phrase this in such a cumber-some manner? Besides, why did the Torah have to add the gratuitous remark אשר ישבתם בה, "that you have dwelled amongst," when speaking of Egypt? Who did not know that the Jewish people used to reside in Egypt? Is there then another country called "Egypt?" We can ask a similar question concerning the land of Canaan concerning which the Torah writes: "which I am about to bring you to?" What other land of Canaan is there? Even assuming that there was another country called Canaan, one we have never heard of, how would we know anything about their practices?

It appears to us that the fact that the commandment mentioned here appears next to the various laws about incest as well as the fact that in verse 24 we are told not to defile ourselves by transgressing any of these commandments seeing that the nations mentioned have defiled themselves by ignoring these sexual mores, it is clear that the commandment introduced by the word כמעשה refers to sexual mores. Once we keep this in mind we have no problem explaining the wording of the Torah here.

It is well known that a Jew is able to fulfil all the commandments G'd has demanded of His people without suffering undue hardship and that he can develop a tendency to do so willingly. The only exception to this rule is the commandment to refrain from certain sexual unions. The נפש, animalistic life-force within man, exercises a powerful influence over man urging him to disregard those commandments. The Israelite can successfully battle this urge only if he a) controls his visual contact with the opposite sex and b) if he controls his fantasizing. If a person fails to control these two senses he will fall victim to temptation. If a person does not limit his visual contact with the opposite sex, the fact that he does not think about it does not guarantee that he will not be aroused through visual contact. You may learn a valuable lesson in the psychology of sexual attraction from the following incident reported in Kidushin 81. Rav Amram who was the Rabbi of the pious, had a number of female prisoners whose freedom was bought by the community of Nehardea brought to his house. He gave them accomodation in the upper floor in his house and disconnected the stairs to that floor to prevent men from visiting there. It happened that one of these women passed the place where the ladder used to stand and Rabbi Amram felt as if he had seen a bright light, i.e. the beauty of that woman made a powerful impression upon him and he felt a strong attraction to her. He brought a ladder which was so heavy that it took ten people to move it and moved it single-handedly to climb to the upper floor. By the time he had climbed half the rungs of the ladder he managed to control his lust and cried out: "Amram! the house is on fire!" As soon as people heard him they came running and observed that Rabbi Amram was standing half way up that ladder. The rabbis scolded him for having caused them embarassment as it was clear to all of them what had prompted Rabbi Amram to call out. So he told them it was better they should be embarassed on his behalf in this world than to have to be embarassed by him when they would meet him in the Hereafter. He made the evil urge swear an oath to stop tempting him and the latter swore such an oath. Thereupon he said to Satan: "see here, you are fire and I am only flesh; I have proven now that though I am flesh I am stronger than you." The story proves that even though Rabbi Amram had not been able to control his thoughts, as long as he was not aroused by looking at the object of his lust he was able to fight his impulses. There is another story told in Yalkut Shimoni parshat Vayechi in which someone had himself blinded in order to withstand the lure of the evil urge to commit sexual offences. If exposure to even one of these causes of temptation is dangerous, how much more so is it impossible to fight off temptation which is the result of both a lively imagination and the visual allure of the object of one's fantasy. The author lists a few more examples of the deadly nature of combining fantasy with visual allure. When one is exposed to both these temptations they are almost impossible to resist. The author explains the statement in Berachot 34 that "in the place where the rehabilitated sinners stand, the perfectly righteous are not able to stand," as meaning that the perfectly righteous never had to battle his sexual urges, whereas the rehabilitated sinner "stood still," i.e. arrested his urge to run towards the object of his temptation only after a battle with his evil urge.

This brings us to the commentary on our verse. The Lord G'd was very clever in giving this commandment. He explained to us that an ordinary person who finds himself in the throes of sexual passion need not say that the fight against his evil urge is doomed to failure anyway. G'd does not demand anything of us which we are incapable of delivering. If He did not know that given the proper circumstances which we ourselves can create we are able to fulfil what He expects from us, He would not have given such a commandment. G'd expects His commandment to test only those people who have first taken measures not to expose themselves visually to such temptation or to indulge in fantasies arousing their desire. If a person did not take the above-mentioned precautions to help him fight temptation based on his sexual urge he is not likely to withstand temptation when it comes his way. This is what the Torah hinted at when it wrote כמעשה ארץ מצרים אשר ישבתם, meaning that although you resided in a country such as Egypt which is a centre of sexual permissiveness and you were therefore not able to avoid thinking about such temptations, I still command you to triumph over your evil urge. The word ישיבה is a metaphor for inactivity, for an inhibition. The Torah refers to the Jewish people who displayed the ability to resist sexual temptation while they were surrounded by it. This encouraged G'd to legislate such resistance to temptation in an environment which would be more friendly to those who wish to resist temptation. You are not to emulate the actions of the Egyptians.

At the same time, G'd continues: "though I will bring you to a country in which you will be constantly aroused by seeing sexual permissiveness all around you so that you would not even have to exercise your imagination in order to become aroused, I demand from you not to copy their activities."

As far as someone saying that he is unable to control his thoughts in this manner, the Torah introduced this commandment by the repeated דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם אני ה׳ אלוקיכם, "speak and say to the children of Israel I am the Lord your G'd," that while it is quite true that the human species as such finds it almost impossible to control their fantasies regarding their sexual passions this is not so in the case of Israelites seeing that the Lord is our G'd. Our affinity to G'd enables us to master drives which are of a purely biological nature. As soon as an Israelite has agreed to cleave to G'd this means that G'd in His turn dominates his nature, i.e. that the צורה תשלוט בחומר, "mind controls matter." This is in accordance with the statement of our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 34,11 that the hearts of the righteous are under their control whereas the wicked are controlled by their hearts. What the Midrash means is that the heart is the seat of man's desires whereas the seat of his will-power is his mind, his brain. G'd has granted man two separate levels of decision-making power. In matters of the libido the heart is the dominating factor, though the will situated in and controlled by the brain is capable of overriding the urges of the heart and prevent it from carrying out its urge. You find that people are able to impose fasts on themselves through sheer will-power though they have a strong urge to eat and drink, an urge that originates in their hearts. The same is true of people's ability to overrule their hearts' craving to indulge their sexual urges. The righteous always conduct themselves in this manner, their hearts being controlled by their will-power in spite of any urges originating in their hearts which they may experience. Their שכל, intelligence, i.e. their soul, makes the choice of how to act. If, moreover, G'd has warned us not to indulge in certain activities or that He has made it plain that certain categories of activities are abhorrent to Him, the rightous will desist from idulging his urge even if He did not spell out any specific penalty in that context. As a result, the will of a righteous person does not experience any difficulty in curbing the craving to indulge in such an activity. The wicked, on the other hand, are so captive to the urgings originating in their hearts that their will is not powerful enough to restrain their hearts. Perhaps this is due to their not possessing a נשמה, soul, (in the case of Gentiles) or that their soul has already become too contaminated by their behaviour so that it has submitted to other forces within the personality of the body it inhabits. G'd said: כי אני ה׳ אלוקיכם, that due to our נשמה in which some divinity resides, we the Israelites are able to successfully combat the cravings of our libido. Compare Psalms 78,60: אהל שכן באדם, "the tent He set within man." In this verse G'd refers to the soul in man as a form of Tabernacle. It is this which lends the Israelite the strength to cope with even the strongest temptations of the evil urge.

This is also what David had in mind when he said in Psalms 40,9: "my desire is to do what pleases You." David meant that he cleaved to G'd so much that even his heart, the seat of his desire was anxious to do G'd's will. David's heart did not have to be reigned in by his will-power, but it had so reformed that it would do G'd's will of its own free will. His heart hated those things which the heart, the seat of desire for material physical things normally desires. David alluded to this with the word חפצתי, in the past tense, meaning that whatever used to be his חפץ, the desire inspired by his heart, seat of his physical cravings, had stopped being that. David also alluded to this in Psalms 109,22 when he said: ולבי חלל בקרבי, "my heart was empty (or dead) within me;" in either event he says that the desires which normally fill a heart have departed from him. Instead, in 40,9 David says: "ותורתך בתוך מעי," "Your teachings fill my innards." David says that whereas a normal person feels that his guts have been filled with physical food, he feels that his guts have been filled with G'd's Torah which have replaced the need for such physical food.

Perhaps David wanted to tell us something I have heard in the name of the sainted Ari Zal in the introduction to his שער הגלגולים. There are occasions when a person who was good changes into an evil person and that person himself is unable to account for such a change in his character. The sainted rabbi attributes this character change in a person to his having eaten some some food which contained forbidden, i.e. harmful natural ingredients or the residue of an evil being whose soul had undergone a transmigration. When the basically good person consumes such food it affects his character negatively as he absorbs part of the life-force of the soul of the wicked. It follows that one has to be extremely careful not to eat anything which might have absorbed the soul of a sinner in a previous incarnation. David may therefore have alluded to something of this nature when he said that even his heart, i.e. the seat of his חפץ, had become attuned to doing the will of its Creator and that his guts were full of G'd's Torah, i.e. food permitted by the Torah.

The following will help to understand the plain meaning of ותורתך בתוך מעי, "Your Torah is inside my guts." The origin of all plants, be they the kind that are essential for the survival of our נפש, our physical life-force, be they part of the multitude of beneficial herbs nature is full of, or be they plants which we merely eat for our own gratification, is rooted in the Torah which is the "mother" of all. Just as the Torah itself contains several levels i.e. פשט ,רמז, דרש ,,סוד so the various foodstuffs we find in this world may also be classified according to different levels; each level i.e. category of food, makes a different kind of contribution to our wellbeing. In my commentary on Song of Songs called ראשון לציון have explained the verse (2,4) הביאני אל בית היין that just as there are herbs which have a natural beneficial effect on those who consume them, so there are commandments in the Torah the fulfilment of which has a natural beneficial effect on the body of the person fulfilling them. This is a most important prerequisite to the understanding of the commandments of the Torah. I have mentioned here only an outline of the subject in order to make Psalms 40,9 intelligble on the basis of the plain meaning of the verse. The nutritional value of every food a person eats derives from its having absorbed some of the sanctity of Torah. Ever since the time Adam ate from the tree of knowledge beneficial and harmful effects of food have become mixed up so that every food contains a negative element also. G'd commanded us not to eat from the fruit of a tree which is less than four years old in order to allow time for the harmful effects to have been screened out. Wheat, (since Adam's sin) is surrounded by husks, straw, and other parts which have to be discarded. G'd has instructed us through the Torah to abstain from numerous foods in which the harmful elements cannot be separated from the beneficial elements so that the life-force of the chosen people not become contaminated. It follows that when an Israelite eats food which is permitted, it is as if he benefited directly from the light of Torah, the light from the celestial regions. The only difference is that this light underwent a metamorphosis in accordance with the needs of the physical universe all of whose creatures require physical food each in accordance with his specific needs. David simply said that G'd's Torah reached his guts via the method G'd had prescribed for this food to fulfil its function within man. His desire to carry out G'd's will was aided by his having partaken only of permitted food. His guts do not contain anything which would deter him from making his desire correspond to G'd's will.

Let us now go back to the main subject under discussion, the Israelite's imagination as applied to matters concerning his libido. The more he thinks about this subject the more his desire becomes aroused making it harder for his רצון, will, to control his emotions, the urges rooted in his being flesh and blood. Whereas normally, one needs to concentrate on the subject of G'd's commandments in order to ensure that one fulfils them in the best way possible, in this case one must avoid even thinking about it so that one does not see the object of one's desire with one's eyes. The moment one looks upon the object in question one places one's innocence in jeopardy. We know that King David fell victim to his carnal urges as a result of looking at Bat Sheva (Samuel II 11,2) bathing on the roof of her house. Up until that moment David's heart which had been devoid of lust had not been aroused. He did what he did only as a result of what he saw with his eyes. The moment one begins to think carnal thoughts one's temptation is reinforced, and as a result this makes preoccupation with carnal thoughts appear as something natural. The wise Solomon was fully aware of this and this is why he wrote in Proverbs 1,10: "my son, if sinners entice you, do not consent." He meant that one should not engage in arguing with anyone who tries to entice one to sin. The mere fact that one argues about it already strengthens the forces of temptation. When David said in Psalms 19,9 that the precepts of G'd are clear and brilliant, he referred to the expressions דבור and אמירה respectively, i.e. that on the one hand G'd gave clear directives, i.e. like the decree of a king, דבור; on the other hand, He also phrased this commandment as אמירה, as a soft-spoken one, the kind of tone one adopts with highly placed people and He asked Moses to tell them that He is their G'd, i.e. to bestow His Holy Name on them. There is no greater tribute G'd can pay to a people.

את משפטי תעשו, "You shall carry out My ordinances, etc." In view of the fact that the entire chapter deals only with regulations about forbidden sexual unions, what does the Torah mean by referring to "My statutes and My ordinances?" Besides, what does the Torah mean with the words ללכת בהם, "to walk in them?"

I believe we may explain this in connection with what we wrote that thinking about the subject of sex increases one's lust at the expense of the power of the will to dominate one's decision-making process. The Torah was afraid to tell us to distance ourselves from the subject of sex absolutely in order that we would not refrain from fulfilling the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply, or to marry the widow of a brother who died without children, and other related commandments. Taking the warnings of the Torah too much to heart would result in something counterproductive to G'd's "statutes and ordinances." Therefore the Torah introduced the subject by first repeating the need to carry out G'd's ordinances, i.e. את משפטי תעשו, referring to the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply, before warning us to observe the prohibitions about to be legislated in that context, i.e. ואת חקותי תשמרו. Sukkah 52 describes man as possessing a small organ which becomes more hungry in direct proportion to the amount of food it is provided with, whereas it feels satisfied with less and less if one starves it. The organ is, of course, man's reproductive organ. Therefore G'd had to tell us to walk in His ordinances, i.e. to perform the basic commandment of procreation, populating earth, etc.. At the same time, and while fulfilling those ordinances, we must be careful also to observe G'd's statutes, i.e. the limitations legislated in this chapter as to who we are allowed to mate with.

Alternatively, we may view the entire legislation about forbidden sexual unions as a form of mental preparation for the performance of the positive commandment to procreate in the proper spirit. If the Torah had not introduced the whole subject matter by asking us to carry out the various positive ordinances and by refraining from the various statutes so that we would be mentally prepared to conform with G'd's wishes, we would have considered indulgence in the sexual act as something which contaminates the soul and body of the human being. We would have thought that it is so fraught with both spiritual and physical impurity that it contaminates each and every organ of a human being as well as all his faculties. As a result, we would have considered ourselves as unable to fulfil any of the Torah's positive commandments properly unless we abstained from all sexual activity. We would have considered ourselves as in the class of the wicked whose מצוה-performance Assaph describes in Psalms 50,16 as: "who are you to recite My laws and to mouth the terms of My covenant?" Assaph implies that G'd is not interested in anyone performing His commandments unless such a person has attained a certain level of sanctity first.

The Torah added the words ללכת בהם as a reference to the raw material the human being represents when performing G'd's commandments. If man has performed the sexual act after proper spiritual and mental preparation he will be able to father children whose natural tendency it will be to observe G'd's commandments. David referred to something like this when he said in Psalms 119,59: "I have considered my ways and have turned back my feet to Your decrees." Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 35,1 understand these words to mean that David had so trained himself that his feet automatically would walk towards the Torah Academy out of habit and out of a desire to study G'd's Torah. When the Torah asked us ללכת בהם, it urged us to so relate to G'd's commandments that we would develop a "natural" tendency to walk in the paths of Torah.

Another meaning of the words ללכת בהם may be similar to the meaning of Ezekiel 33,12 who said: "the righteousness of the righteous one will not save him on the day of his iniquity." Ezekiel meant that even if a person had lived a perfectly righteous life all his years but turns to sin in the end he has lost the merits he accumulated during the years prior to his turning to sin. His merits will not accompany him on his way to judgment after death. [According to the Talmud this is so only if he regrets having lived a righteous life before he turned to sin. Ed.] When we consider the words of Ezekiel we must understand the words ללכת בהם to mean that a person has to walk in the path of the Lord's commandments in order that his merits will accompany him on his most important journey, i.e. on the way to the last judgment.

Another meaning of the Torah's admonition to walk in G'd's ordinances and statutes is to remind us not to perform them in order to receive our reward in this life. Our sages in Eyruvin 22 phrase the line in Deut. 7,11 היום לעשותם as meaning "you are to perform the commandments this day (in this life) in order to receive your reward tomorrow, i.e. in the hereafter." It is a warning to us not to want to cash in all our rewards in this life.

Another meaning of the expression ללכת בהם may be related to the verse in Proverbs 6,23: כי נר מצוה ותורה אור, that a single commandment is like a lamp whereas the Torah in its entirety is compared to Light with a capital L. The celestial universe is distant and when the soul of man ascends from this world to the celestial regions he will find the road dark if he lived the life of a sinner. On the other hand, if a person lived a life filled with מצוה- performance, the commandments he performed will light up the way between this world and the celestial regions. We have a verse in Psalms 119,105: "Your word is a lamp at my feet, a Light for my path," expressing a similar sentiment. What the Psalmist means is that both the lamp and the Light possess features not shared by the other. The advantage of a lamp is that its source of light is close to the person holding it, and this is why our sages in Pessachim 2 insist that the search for leavened things on the evening prior to Passover must be conducted in the presence of a lamp, i.e. at night when there is no light. A lamp's advantage is that it illuminates all the dark corners in the room, something the brightest natural daylight fails to do. On the other hand, Light possesses a great advantage compared to a lamp as it enables one to see for great distances. This is why David said that performance of G'd's commandments results in two benefits to the person performing them; 1) he will be able to see what is nearby, i.e. נר לרגלי; "they are a lamp at my feet," at the same time it also provides Light increasing the ability to see for long distances ahead. This is why David said ואור לנתיבתי. When the Torah said that the function of the ordinances and the statutes is ללכת בהם, to walk by them, it referred to both the lamp and the Light which performance of the commandments secures for the people performing them.

In the Zohar volume 1, page 170 Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai states that the 613 commandments which are divided into 248 positive commandments and 365 negative commandments, are symbolic of man's bones and sinews respectively. The performance of each commandment provides a positive momentum for the respective bone or sinew it represents. The words ללכת בהם refer to the power of מצוה-performance to move man's limbs. Performance of each מצוה also results in G'd's name, or rather part of it, coming to rest on the limb or sinew which that מצוה represents. The word מצוה is equivalent to the 4-lettered name of G'd י־ה־ו־ה, when one employs the system known as א־ת,ב־ש,ג־ר i.e. that one reverses the sequence of the letters in the aleph-bet. Inasmuch as we subscribe to the principle of ה׳ אחד ושמו אחד, that the unity of G'd is expressed also in His very name, this is the mystical dimension of Exodus 25,8: ושכנתי בתוכם. "I will be present within them." In that verse G'd demonstrated that we, the Jewish people, have become the carriers of the מרכבה, the presence of G'd and His entourage. The same idea is also found in Leviticus 26,12 where G'd speaks of "walking" amongst us. All of this is provided we fulfil what is written in Deut. 4,4: "you who cleave to G'd are alive this day."

ושמרתם את חקותי, "You shall keep My statutes, etc." Why did the Torah have to repeat in this verse almost word for word the same directive it had written in the previous verse? Perhaps we may best explain this on the basis of Sanhedrin 74 where the Talmud explains the words וחי בהן, "so that he may live by them," as meaning "so that he will not die by them." If a Jew is forced to violate one of G'd's commandments, he should rather violate such a commandment than make a martyr of himself. The Talmud adds that there are three exceptions to this rule, idol-worship, forbidden sexual relations, and killing an innocent person. If a Jew is threatened with death if he does not violate any of these three commandments he must choose death rather than violate any of these commandments. You will observe that in verse 4 no mention is made of וחי בהם, that one should prefer life over martyrdom, whereas in our verse the Torah added the words וחי בהם. It follows that the commandments mentioned in verse 4 are those for which a person must be prepared to martyr himself and to sanctify the name of G'd by laying down his life.

Furthermore, when we examine the different nuances in these two verses we will be enlightened further. In verse 4 the Torah writes אני ה׳ אלוקיכם, "I am the Lord your G'd," whereas in our verse the Torah only writes: אני השם, "I am the Lord." We may infer from this that the Torah addresses different Jews in the two verses. In one verse the Torah addresses the Jews who fulfil the commandments due to a feeling of love for G'd, whereas in the other verse the Torah addresses Jews who fulfil the commandments due to a fear of punishment should they fail to observe G'd's laws. Sotah 31 has already taught us that the reward for people performing the commandments out of a sense of fear of the Lord extends for up to one thousand generations, whereas the reward for people whose motivation is love for G'd extends for up to two thousand generations. It is quite impossible for a person to attain the level of serving the Lord out of feelings of love until he had first experienced the level of serving the Lord out of a feeling of fear of punishment. This is the mystical dimension of Psalms 118,19: "this is the gate of the Lord, the righteous are able to enter it." In accordance with this, verse 4 addresses itself to people who serve the Lord from a sense of fear, and the Torah writes: את משפטי תעשו, "you are to perform My ordinances, etc., ending with the words "I am the Lord your G'd," the word אלוקיכם being a clear reference to G'd in His capacity of the attribute of Justice. In verse 5, however, when the Torah addresses itself to someone who has already passed the initial stage of serving the Lord out of fear and he serves the Lord out of feelings of love, the Torah no longer has to make mention of the attribute of Justice because the person addressed would not be influenced in his observance by mention of that attribute.

The Torah adds the words וחי בהם in our verse to tell us that when someone serves the Lord out of feelings of love, he will also partake of the good to be found in this life in addition to any reward he accumulates for use in the hereafter, in eternity. Perhaps this is why the Torah wrote the letter ו before the word חי, to tell us that the good experienced by such a person in this life is additional to i.e. ו, to the reward he stores up for himself in the hereafter. People addressed in verse 4 who serve G'd motivated by fear do not qualify for this assurance. According to what we have just explained the words ללכת בהם in verse 4 apply basically to the hereafter whereas they apply also in this life if the people concerned serve G'd because they love Him. We may explain Deut. 11,13 "It will be if you hearken diligently to My commandments…to love the Lord your G'd….and I will grant the rain of your land in its season, etc." in the same way we have just mentioned, that מצוה-performance based on love of G'd results in dividends in this life and that such people deserve reward in both worlds. This in spite of the fact that our sages in Kidushin 39 state that there is no reward in this life for מצוה-performance. The Talmud did not refer to people who receive a bonus in this life rather than the actual reward due them. The Torah (Deut. 11,14) also alludes to reward in the hereafter by commencing with the conjunctive letter ו, i.e. ונתתי. The meaning of that letter ו is that any blessing experienced in this life is only a bonus in addition to the reward itself which will be paid in the hereafter, the exact nature of which the Torah has not revealed.

האדם, man. We have several statements in the Talmud (Baba Kama 38, Avodah Zarah 3 et al) in the name of Rabbi Yirmiyah according to which a Gentile who engages in study of the Torah may attain a spiritual level comparable to that of a Jewish High Priest. The Talmud derives this from our verse, i.e. האדם וחי בהם. The Torah does not speak of "priests, Levites, or Israelites, but only of האדם." Thus far Rabbi Yirmiyah. Rabbi Yirmiyah's comment was prompted by the apparently superfluous word האדם. He was also perplexed by the fact that the Torah wrote those few words in the third person whereas the rest of the two verses are written in direct speech. The Torah should have written אשר תעשו אותם if it wanted to be consistent with the syntax of the chapter up to this point. Rabbi Yirmiyah therefore concluded that the words האדם וחי בהם refer to someone not included in the people addressed by the Torah directly in the previous verses, i.e. neither Israelites, Levites, or priests. The only person left therefore is the Gentile. Tossaphot query this from a Baraitha in Baba Metzia 114 which quotes Rabbi Shimon as saying that only Israelites qualify for the complimentary description אדם, based on Ezekiel 34,31 "אדם אתם, אני ה׳ אלוקיכם." Tossaphot answer that we must distinguish between the term אדם and האדם. Whereas the term אדם refers only to Jews, the term האדם does not have such a narrow connotation. I saw a similar comment in the Zohar volume 1, page 25 stating that this is not merely an artificial semantic distinction. Adding a letter does not enhance the concept it represents but diminishes it. Perhaps it is true that when a Gentile occupies himself with Torah for valid reasons he too will be able to qualify for the complimentary title אדם. At any rate, Rabbi Yirmiyah sees in the additional letter ה an indication that Gentiles are included in the term אדם if they study Torah. The letter ה is not to be considered as integral to the noun האדם.