Parasha: Kedoshim · Aliyah: First (Chesed)

אל כל עדת בני ישראל, "to the whole community of the children of Israel." Torat Kohanim explains why the Torah writes the words "to all." Seeing that most of the important commandments of the Torah are contained in this portion Moses addressed them to the whole nation as outlined in Eyruvin 54. Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi describes the logistics of this [seeing they did not have a public address system in those days, Ed.] as distinctly different from other occasions when Moses revealed legislation. Whereas usually the people approached Moses in group after group- "a group" meaning a בית אב,- in this instance they all approached simultaneously. This is very difficult. If the Rabbi meant that whereas usually the elders came to Moses first to be followed by the people at large in groups, Moses would have had to repeat the same lecture more than 65 times. According to the Baraitha in Eyruvin 54 Moses taught the same legislation only four times. The Talmud there describes that by the time Moses taught the legislation to the people at large, Aaron had heard it four times, etc. If Rabbi Mizrachi meant by the words "group after group," that Aaron was one group, Nadav and Avihu a second group, and the elders a third group, whereas in this instance the Israelites, the elders, Nadav and Avihu and Aaron all came at the same time, the question is why Moses used a different system when he taught all the other commandments. Why did Moses not teach all of the people these commandments 4 times? Surely if the other commandments warranted that Aaron would hear them 4 times, in this instance it was warranted that all the people hear these commandments 4 times! It would be better if they heard it each time from Moses directly than just once, and the other times only from people who themselves had heard it only from Moses. I believe there are one of two possible reasons for the manner in which Moses normally taught the Torah precepts G'd had revealed to him. 1) He wanted to accord honour to the different levels of spiritual achievements attained by his respective listeners. Accordingly, he would first honour Aaron, then his sons, followed by the elders, and finally the people at large. 2) He wanted to ensure true transmission of his words. Seeing that he taught each group of people separately, when they in turn discussed what they had learned they would be able to compare if each one remembered exactly the same. If the entire people had learned the same lesson from Moses four times in a row, there would not have been any way to compare any discrepancies due to someone's faulty memory. This is something that the listener would be well aware of. It would therefore have been better to follow the pattern of teaching the legislation separately to different groups at different times in this portion also. Why would Moses deprive Aaron of his privileged status when teaching this legislation, or, why would he deprive everyone of the chance to double-check if he heard and remembered correctly? The more important the legislation, the more important that there should be unanimity about exactly what the legislation consisted of! On the other hand, if it was appropriate to teach these commandments to all the people at the same time, why was it not appropriate to have done so with the commandments Moses revealed prior to this occasion? It appears, at least when we look at this superficially, that the Torah's departure from its norm in this case represented a change for the worse!

I believe that the solution to our problem is that up until now Moses had not taught the commandments directly to the women but had spoken only to the men even when he addressed the people at large. In this instance G'd ordered Moses to speak directly also to the women and even to the children. They were to line up just as they had lined up at the revelation at Mount Sinai. We will offer an alternate solution shortly.

ואמרת אליהם, "and say to them." According to Vayikra Rabbah 24, the reason we find both the harsh דבר and the softer ואמרת is that seeing this portion contains so much basic legislation G'd wanted it presented in a manner similar to the revelation at Mount Sinai. We find the combination of דבר ואמרת also in Exodus 19,3 where the dual form of כה תאמר ותגד is also explained as both harsh speech and softer speech.

קדושים תהיו, "be holy!" We need to analyse what precisely G'd meant when He commanded us to either be or become "holy." I believe the Torah wanted to add a positive commandment as a corollary to the string of negative commandments we have just read in chapter 18. Inasmuch as G'd commanded us to be holy, a person who violates any of the transgressions of a sexual nature is not only guilty of violating a negative commandment but also simultaneously violates the commandment to strive and be holy.

Furthermore, our verse may reflect something we have learned in Kidushin 39: "If a person sits quietly and refrains from committing a transgression he is given a reward as if he had performed a positive commandment. This is the meaning of our verse. If you are presented with an opportunity to commit a sin and you refrain from grasping that opportunity, you have fulfilled the commandment to be or to become holy. The reason G'd commanded Moses to tell this commandment directly to the whole congregation of Israel was to inform them directly of this and to show them how easy it is to be counted amongst the people described as "holy." Every single individual can achieve that spiritual level by merely fighting off the desire to violate a commandment when the opportunity presents itself. Every Israelite is on the same spiritual level concerning the acquisition of this merit. This also explains why the Torah used both the harsh דבר and the softer ואמרת when introducing this comandment. The harsh דבר reminds us that violation of a commandment in chapter 18 is simultaneously a violation of the commandment to be holy. The softer ואמרת is a reminder that the merit of becoming holy can be attained by simply not violating a commandment when presented with an invitation to do so. Possibly, it is only the Israelites who qualify for reward simply for resisting the invitation to commit a sinful act. To assure us that this is so the Torah may have written the words: "to all the children of Israel."

כי קדוש אני, "for I am holy." What kind of a reason is this? Besides, how can a creature be expected to be similar to its Creator? Does not G'd possess many virtues and attributes not found amongst the Israelites? If the Torah wrote this line to explain that the reason why G'd commanded us to strive to be holy is that He Himself is holy, i.e. He wants us to be as much like Him as possible, but that this is not a reason which obligates us to be so, why would the Torah suddenly feel it incumbent upon itself to state a reason why G'd wishes us to behave in a certain manner?

It appears that our sages were sensitive to this point and that this is why they said the following in Torat Kohanim "If you sanctify yourselves I will account it for you as if you Had sanctified Me." Accordingly, we must view the word קדוש not merely as an adjective, but as a description of the usefulness of our action as well as of its reverse. If we were to do the reverse, G'd forbid, our moral failure would impair the very holiness of G'd Himself! The sages in Torat Kohanim phrased it thus: "If you do not strive to become holy, I will account it for you as if you had failed to sanctify Me." Possibly this is also a reason why the Torah used the dual דבר ואמרת, to teach us through the word דבר how seriously the Torah views the mere lack of effort to sanctify ourselves. On the other hand, ואמרת alludes to the Torah viewing a person who does try to sanctify himself as someone achieving spiritual stature.

Another way of explaining this verse is this. In the last chapter G'd issued a number of directives all of which ask us to deny a natural biological urge, something that threatens to dominate and subvert our רצון, our will, which is seated in the mind. I have already written concerning this subject on Leviticus 18,2 when the Torah referred to practices rampant both in Egypt and in the land of Canaan. We explained in that context that it is impossible to resist the lure of one's biological urge unless one not only avoids visual exposure but also makes a conscious effort not to allow one's imagination to dwell on the subject. Seeing that G'd did command us to procreate and thereby to insure the continuity of the human species, one cannot totally dissociate oneself from the subject of sex and all that this entails. Not only that, there are times when the very preoccupation with that subject becomes a positive commandment, how else is one to engage in one's marital duty at the right time and place? Is this not what Solomon (Proverbs 30,19) had in mind when he spoke of דרך גבר בעלמה, "the way of a man with a maiden?" He referred to the duty to procreate, something which cannot be done by total denial of any thoughts involving one's sexuality.

The Torah commanded us to be holy in order that we elevate the subject of procreation to a spiritual experience, not to the fulfilment of a mere biological urge. Marital relations are not to be merely a means to gratify the urges of one's body. The act is to be performed as a מצוה, much like putting on טלית ותפלין. When a person feels himself assailed by thoughts of sex unrelated to the duty to sire children, he should reject such thoughts and suppress them. He should conduct himself in accordance with the story told by a woman of her husband's conduct during marital relations (Nedarim 20). She described the reason why they were blessed with exceedingly handsome looking children as due to her husband's rigorous self-control even during the act of procreation. She said that her husband acted as if the very act itself were forced upon him by a demon. Such a person can truly be described as holy, and it is this the Torah wishes us to strive for and emulate.

Seeing that man will ask how it can be expected of him to suppress thoughts and emotions which overcome him without his having invited them, and how would he know which thoughts are inspired by simply physical urges, the Torah writes כי קדוש אני ה׳ אלוקיכם, that whenever someone performs a מצוה, G'd's holy name will come to rest on one of his organs. It will invariably be the organ involved in performance of that מצוה. It follows that if man uses his male organ only for the performance of the commandment to procreate and to multiply that he will enjoy a heavenly assist helping him control his biological urges (Tikkuney Ha-Zohar 70). In fact our verse alludes to the type of מצוה which secures one this heavenly assist. I have explained on Leviticus 18,4 why half the holy name of G'd is spelled recognisably while the other half is spelled in a deliberately obscure fashion (page 1181).

Another approach to the words כי קדוש אני is that these words are a reminder of the mutual bond between Israel and its G'd. We know from Deut. 4,4 that "you who cleave to the Lord are alive this day," that the key to our survival is the דבקות, the affinity we maintain with G'd. This theme has been repeated by the prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah 13,11 where the prophet (G'd) describes this relationship in these words: "for as a loincloth clings close to the loins of a man, so I brought close to Me the whole House of Israel;" G'd therefore has the right to demand of us: קדושים תהיו, "be and maintain your sanctity because I am holy and you adhere to Me." If you were to argue: "how can one compare the straw to the grain," G'd answers "I am the Lord your G'd." This is a clear allusion to the principle that the presence of the שכינה in our midst is directly related to the degree of affinity we display in our relationship with G'd.

Another reason why the Torah writes: "be holy for I am holy," is that had it not been for this line we would have thought that as long as we had refrained from violating any of the sexual mores legislated in chapter 18 in deed, we had conformed with G'd's wishes. We would have thought that mere visual contact or fantasizing about such unions is not forbidden. We are told in Berachot 61 that even counting coins into the hands of a woman (in order to have an excuse to look at her) is forbidden. This prohibition is even derived from a biblical verse (Proverbs 11,21): יד ליד לא ינקה רע, "when [man and woman] join hands they will not be considered innocent of doing evil." (compare my translation of Alshich's commentary on that verse, page 209). In this instance G'd commanded the words "be holy," i.e. matters which are designed to maintain our distance from direct involvement with the women forbidden to us as sexual partners. The Zohar on 19,4 has interpreted the words: "do not turn in the direction of idols" in a similar manner. The Torah was not concerned with idolworship in that verse but with a mode of life which brings us into proximity with idols. We have interpreted Deut. 23,11 to mean that a ritually pure person will not experience involuntary seminal emission during his sleep. This is based on the same approach as the Torah employs here. He who does not entertain thoughts of forbidden sexual unions will not be aroused and lose control. A person is liable to claim that such nocturnal emissions during his sleep are entirely beyond his control, why should they be held against him? The Torah replies: "for I the Lord your G'd am holy." G'd implies: "I am able to protect you against such experiences for I will prevent a Jewish person falling victim to this kind of defilement unless the Israelite in question allows himself to dwell on the subject of forbidden sexual unions."

We may also interpret the words קדושים תהיו by emphasizing the future tense, i.e. תהיו, "you shall become holy." The implication is that this is a commandment which is an ongoing process. The Torah asks us to eat מצה on Passover, to sit in huts on סוכות, to abstain from certain kinds of activities on the Sabbath, etc. The common denominator of all those commandments is that they apply on certain days or on certain dates only. Not so the commandment of "be holy." This commandment applies day in day out throughout our lifetime. The imperative to strive for sanctity is one that we cannot take a vacation from. Even while we are busy performing this commandment it is one that we never have mastered completely. Whatever sanctity we attain is superior to what we had achieved previously but inferior to what we still hope to achieve. We know from our prophets that they too possessed sanctity in varying degrees, Moses having achieved the relatively highest level of sanctity. Nonetheless it is entirely possible that one can achieve even greater heights of sanctity than the level attained by Moses. The level of sanctity that will have been achieved by the Messiah when he reveals himself will prove to be even superior to that of Moses. We know this from Isaiah 11,2 in which the attributes of the Messiah are described. They include: "The spirit of the Lord shall descend upon him, a spirit of wisdom and insight, etc. etc." If we accept the words of Bamidbar Rabbah 19 and Devarim Rabbah chapter 2 that Moses himself will be the Messiah, this is further proof that there is no upper limit to the "holiness" described here by the Torah. The Torah writes תהיו in order to remind us that the ultimate realisation of the ideal of holiness will forever remain "in the future."

The Torah supplies the reason for this with the words "for I the Lord your G'd am holy." G'd implies that just as there is no limit to His holiness, so our striving for holiness must remain something that has no upper limit. G'd desires that His favourite creatures engage in an ongoing process of becoming more and more like their father in Heaven.

When G'd supplied the reason that we have to strive to become holy as "for I am holy," He meant that if one wants to compare oneself to someone superior the degree of effort one has to make depends on the relative loftiness of one's ideal, of the person one wants to emulate. Seeing that it is G'd who wants us to emulate Him, we can imagine that the effort to strive for holiness is not merely a relative one but the task is monumental inasmuch as our ideal is so indescribably superior to us. When a junior minister invites the king to be his guest, he makes suitable preparations so that the king will feel at home in his house. When we invite G'd to make His residence amongst the Jewish people must we not make extraordinary preparations to merit His presence on a permanent basis? This is what the Torah reminds us of when it describes G'd as "for I the Lord your G'd am holy."

You are familiar with the statement in Shabbat 112 that if "former generations could be compared to angels then we nowadays are merely like ordinary mortals; if, however, even the earlier generations were comparable only to ordinary mortals, then our generation is comparable to donkeys." This only underlines how much and how hard we have to strive to fulfil the commandment the Torah has legislated in our verse. As an illustration of how hard even the members of former generations worked at this, look at the example of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah (compare Shabbat 54). When the cow of his neighbour [the text in our Mishnah speaks of Rabbi Eleazar's own cow, Ed.] left her stable on the Sabbath wearing a strap between her horns -something the Rabbis disapproved of-although according to the view of Rabbi Eleazar it was perfectly permissible, he fasted so many days that his teeth turned black (compare Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat chapter 5) as a form of penitence. The Torah uses the word דבר when introducing this commandment to alert us to the extraordinary demands this commandment makes upon us; on the other hand, the Torah continues with ואמרת, to remind us of the extraordinary spiritual benefits that accrue to people who take observance of this moral directive seriously. The words אל כל עדת בני ישראל are necessary so we should not say that a commandment demanding such stature could only be addressed to the elite of the people. The Torah stressed that everyone is included in this commandment to teach us that every single Israelite could become a potential Moses if he tried (compare Tannah be bey Eliyahu, and Maimonides hilchot Teshuvah chapter 5).

Yet another meaning of the words קדושים תהיו views this call as an invitation to become like the angels who are called קדושים. We know this from Daniel 8,13 where Daniel reports overhearing a קדוש speak, etc. We must understand this as similar to Psalms 82,6 in which the Psalmist Assaph describes the human species as אלוהים, divine beings prior to Adam's sin. Seeing that G'd used to reside in the heavens, the domain of the angels, it is no more than reasonable to describe the Israelites as angels once they qualified to provide G'd's new home on earth. You may be interested to read about the reaction of the angels in the celestial regions when they found out that G'd took up residence amongst the humans on earth. (compare Zohar volume 2 page 140). In view of the agitation amongst the angels in the celestial regions who heard that G'd intended to move His residence to earth, He decided to command the Israelites to be holy like angels in order that the angels should cease complaining. This lends additional meaning to the words "I am the Lord your G'd." Thus far the Zohar on the subject.

איש אמו ואביו תיראו, "Each one of you shall fear his mother and father." The reason the Torah wrote this commandment next to the commandment to be holy is also related to the legislation about forbidden sexual unions. Our sages in Sotah 36 interpret Genesis 49,24: "and his arms were made firm by the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob" as a reference to how his father's image helped save Joseph from the temptation he experienced at the hands of the wife of Potiphar. At the critical moment, when Mrs Potiphar grabbed hold of Joseph's tunic, he saw a vision of his father's face outside the window. This caused him to resist the advances of Mrs Potiphar and to leave the tunic in her hand and flee her presence. According to the Talmud, Joseph's semen escaped via his hands instead of via his male organ, etc. I have heard it said in the name of Kabbalists (Kav Hayashar chapter 2) that the image of one's father's face strengthens the forces of sanctity within his son and helps him resist becoming a victim to temptation involving sexual abominations. The reason the Torah speaks about "his mother and his father you shall fear," at this juncture close to chapter 18 is that anyone in the throes of carnal temptation should summon up the image of his parents before his eyes. He will find that this will help him resist the temptation.

We also have a hint here that if someone indulges in forbidden sex he shames the honour of his father. This is why the Torah wrote the commandment to fear mother and father so close to the legislation dealing with fordidden sex. In other words, indulgence in forbidden sex is equivalent to a violation of the commandment to fear one's mother and father. The parents would curse a son who commits such an act because they feel ashamed to have brought such a son into the world. This is also the reason the mother is mentioned here first as she feels the shame more deeply than her husband. Solomon explained this in Proverbs 10,1 when he wrote: "and a foolish son is his mother's sorrow." [The "foolishness" of the son is that he was invaded by a spirit of foolishness else he would not have committed the sin. See commentary of Alshich on that verse, my translation page 179. Ed.]

Having appreciated this, we can now understand why the second half of our verse speaks about the need to observe the Sabbath legislation. The Zohar volume 2 page 277 and volume 3 page 301 explains that the seven days of the week were allocated to seven righteous people. [They are identical with the seven "guests" we welcome in our Sukkah, a different one each day. Ed.] According to the Zohar Chadash at the beginning of Parshat Toldot the Sabbath was allocated to Joseph. He represents the mystical dimension of peace. This is the reason we greet each other with the greeting שבת שלום on the Sabbath. It is also the reason that we re-phrase the conclusion of the prayer השכיבנו on Friday nights by adding the words "spread over us the the tabernacle (shelter) of Your peace, etc." Joseph earned his title "the righteous" because he preserved the covenant G'd had concluded with all Jews through the circumcision when He put the stamp of that holy covenant on our very flesh. When the Torah speaks of "My Sabbath days" in the plural, it refers to two dimensions of the Sabbath. The first is the generally accepted meaning of the word, i.e. the need to observe the Sabbath itself. The second is the need not to defile the holy covenant of the circumcision. Actually, both commandments are merely two sides of the same coin, so to speak. This is the reason that both circumcision and the Sabbath are referred to in the Torah as אות, a visible sign. The Sabbath is called אות in Exodus 31,13, whereas the circumcision is called אות in Genesis 17,11. The two commandments are different when it comes to their performance as an activity; [Sabbath is repetitive for instance, commitment having to be renewed weekly, whereas circumcision is once in a lifetime, and other differences, Ed.] from a passive point of view, i.e. the spiritual credit accruing to people observing these commandments both are so similar as to be considered one. Anyone who actively observes either one of these commandments confers the benefit of both commandments on his soul. This is why the Torah speaks of שבתתוי.

ואביו תיראו, "and fear your (his) father." Torat Kohanim draws attention to the fact that whereas here the Torah mentions the mother first, the father is mentioned first in the Ten Commandments where the Torah commands us to "honour your father and your mother." The reason the Torah varies the order is to teach us that both father and mother are of equal importance; however, the father takes precedence over the mother when it is impossible to accord honour to both simultaneously seeing that both father and mother (wife) are obligated to honour the father i.e. husband. The Baraitha in Kidushin 31 also deals with this subject: Rabbi said "it is clear to G'd that it is natural for a son to honour his mother more than his father, and that it is natural for a son to fear his father more than his mother. This is why G'd mentioned the need to honour one's father before He mentioned the need to honour one's mother, and He mentioned the need to fear one's mother before He mentioned the need to fear one's father." I have difficulties with both the reasoning underlying the exegesis of Torat Kohanim and that of Rabbi in the Talmud. If we really think about these two verses we will find that the Torah gave more weight to the father in both. In the Ten Commandments the word "father" appears next to the word "honour." In our verse the word "you shall fear" also appears next to the word "his father." It is a fact that our sages follow the above-mentioned method of Rabbi on numerous occasions in their exegesis. If it were not for the fact that the exegesis is designed to teach us a halachah, I would not hesitate to accept this interpretation as we are entitled to use the method used by Rabbi. Our sages did not mind as long as a departure from their rules did not result in a הלכה which is contrary to our tradition. In this instance, however, there would result a difference in the הלכה, i.e. that if we accept the above exegesis the father would not take precedence in situations where there are conflicting claims on the son's sense of respect for either parent. If you accept our interpretation, for instance, if both mother and father ask the son to give them some water to drink, the son would have to give first to his father based on both interpretations. If, however, father and mother were divorced so that the mother (ex-wife) no longer is obligated to honour her (ex) husband, according to our interpretation the son would be obligated to first give water to his father, whereas according to both the Talmud and Torat Kohanim the son would have the choice whose request he wanted to honour first. In fact, the Talmud presents the scenario of the son of a widowed mother asking Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua: "what is the הלכה if father and mother are divorced and they both want to be given water? The answer given by Rabbi Eliezer was to put a bowl of water at the disposal of both father and mother so both can help themselves from it. It is apparent that Rabbi Eliezer felt that father and mother are absolutely equal as far as the son's obligation to honour them is concerned.

It is possible that this is based on a further piece of exegsis we find in Torat Kohanim on this verse. Here is the quotation: "The Torah writes איש אמו ואביו תיראו. From the word איש I know only that the duty to fear mother and father applies to males. How do I know it also applies to females? This is why the Torah wrote the word תיראו in the plural. If so, why did the Torah commence the verse with the word איש? Answer: "Usually the man is free to observe this commandment whereas most women are preoccupied with carrying out prior commitments." Thus far Torat Kohanim. According to this last Baraitha the word איש is restrictive and excludes women when it comes to paying honour to father and mother [seeing the Torah does not use such phraseology in the Ten Commandments, Ed.] though the word תיראו (pl) had included women when it comes to displaying fear, i.e. respect for both mother and father. We may now extrapolate that as far as honouring the mother is concerned the Torah imposed this duty primarily on the man. Seeing the Torah had already done this explicitly in the Ten Commandments, this directive may now be used to teach us something different though related. It teaches that as far as honouring either father or mother is concerned the mother is to take precedence when it is impossible to honour both father and mother simultaneously. All of this is an argument to explain why the Baraitha in Torat Kohanim wrote as it did. According to the view expressed by Rabbi in Kidushin 31 which explained why the Torah mentioned the father as being the subject of honour prior to mentioning the mother we are still left with a problem. Perhaps the fact that the explanation of Rabbi is homiletical in nature makes it unnecessary to resolve the problem, seeing no הלכה is involved. After all, both mother and father are to be feared. We do not need much of an ambiguity in the Torah to permit us to draw conclusions of a homiletical nature.

It is also possible that the sages of the Baraitha did not feel that the position of the word "father" in relation to the directive was of consequence when we have to decide which of the two (father or mother) are entitled to precedence in a situation when both claim the honour due to them at the same time. The reason is that the Torah was forced to mention the two parties consecutively and could not mention them simultaneously. As a result, they assumed that whoever was mentioned first in the verse is the one vis-a-vis whom the particular duty described devolves first. It follows that if it is a matter of honour the father has to be shown honour first; if it is a matter of fear the mother has to be shown respect first, whenever it is impossible to do so simultaneously. The reason the word תיראו is written at the end of the verse is to show that the law also applies to women.

There is another reason why the Torah commences with addressing an individual whereas at the end of the verse it addresses several people, at least. The Torah hints that if a son demonstrates that he respects his own father, the chances are that his son in turn will also show respect for him. You may attribute this to the principle we wrote about in connection with Genesis 49,3 that the roots of sanctity and impurity respectively are found in the mind of the father when he engages in marital intercourse in order to fulfil the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply. His spiritual input at that critical time will be reflected in the spiritual level of the child that is born from a union based on lofty ideals. Alternatively, the matter is psychological. When a son observes that his father belittles his grandfather or grandmother, he in turn will not feel the inclination to show respect or honour to his own father or mother. On the other hand, when a son observes that his father treats his grandfather with great respect, he in turn will be in awe of his father. As a result of such considerations the fulfilment of one act of reverence will lead to the fulfilment of two (or more) acts of reverence spanning at least two generations. This is reflected in the Torah's use of the word תיראו in the plural at the end of our verse. The Torah wrote the word at the end of the verse [not like כבד את אביך at the beginning of the verse in the Ten Commandments, Ed.] to show that one act of respect will eventually produce more acts of respect. This is a perfect illustration of what our sages in Avot 4,2 described as מצוה גוררת מצוה, that the fulfilment of one מצוה brings another in its wake.

Yet another way of explaining our verse is based on a ruling in Tur item 240 where the author rules as follows: "I believe that inasmuch as the father demonstrated that he is wicked by not honouring or respecting his father, the son (grandson) is not obligated to show honour to a wicked father. We base this ruling on Baba Kama 94 where the Talmud rules that if a father bequeathed a stolen cow to his children the latter have to return it to the party from whom it was stolen as part of the commandment to honour their father. The Talmud challenges this ruling saying that seeing the father had placed himself outside the circle of Torah observing Jews by stealing, the son is not bound by the commandment "honour your father?" The Talmud answers that the case under consideration was one where the father had done תשובה, had repented. We see from here that the author of the Tur holds that unless one had seen the father repent we do not merely assume that he had done so and we would not accord him the honour our verse calls for. [The whole exemption of someone from the law of honouring father and mother is based on the word בעמך in Exodus 22,27 that one must not curse a prince. The word בעמך IS considered a restrictive clause, i.e. the law applies only if the prince acts in accordance with Torah tradition. Ed.] According to the above we have to read our verse as follows: "a man must display respect for his mother and father provided the man (his own father) conducts himself with his own father and mother in accordance with what the Torah demands." This is the reason תיראו, that you must accord them respect. If, however, a father slighted his father or mother, the son is free from the obligation our verse imposes upon him. The words אמו ואביו, "his mother and his father" refer back to the word איש who is perceived as the man who begot the son in question.

In my book פרי תואר I upheld the words of Maimonides on this subject who holds that one may assume that one's father had repented even if one did not have direct evidence of this. Maimonides bases this on Kidushin 49 where the Talmud discusses someone betrothing a woman on the assumption that he is a righteous person. If the individual in question had been known to have violated Torah commandments in the past we nonetheless assume that he would not have made such a statement unless he had repented previous mistakes. We have therefore repudiated the argument advanced by the Tur. How could we assume that the father mentioned in Baba Kama had become a penitent seeing he himself had not returned the stolen cow? Where there is no circumstantial evidence that the father who was a sinner had not repented, I assume that he had and his son is therefore duty-bound to observe the legislation presented in our verse. Our words that the son is free from the obligation to honour his father when his own father is still actively engaged in belittling his (own) father are absolutely correct as we then have no reason to assume that the father in question had repented. Such a father is no better than the father who bequeathed a stolen cow to his children in the example in Baba Batra.

Another way of looking at this plural form of the word תיראו is that it addresses the father himself. If the father behaved in a manner which is sinful, he would become guilty of violating the commandment not to put an obstacle before a blind man, i.e. not to cause his son to become guilty of neglect of the commandment legislated in our verse by making himself unworthy of being respected by his own son.

ואת שבתותי תשמדו, "and observe My Sabbath days." Our sages in Baba Metzia 32 ask: "Whence do we know that if a father orders his son to desecrate the Sabbath, etc., that the son is not obligated to do his father's bidding?" Answer: "It says איש אמו ואביו תיראו ואת שבתותי תשמרו, that the commandment to respect one's father is premised on one's observing G'd's Sabbath days." G'd reminds us that He is the One whom both the father and the son have to honour." Thus far the Talmud. From the comparison of "you and your father are obligated to honour Me," it is clear that the example of the Sabbath in our verse is only just that i.e. that a son must not violate any of the Torah laws even when it results in his declining to respect his father's halachically illegal request. Why did the Torah choose to describe Sabbath observance, a law whose violation is punishable by death, as the example for G'd's laws taking precedence over a father's demands when it could have made the same point by writing the commandment to respect one's father next to the law to restore someone's lost property, for instance? Moreover, there was no need to add the words "I am the Lord your G'd?" How does this add to our case? Everybody knows that G'd's laws take precedence over man's law, i.e. the father's authority over his son.

I believe we can explain all this in light of what Maimonides wrote in Hilchot Mamrim chapter 5. Here is what he wrote: "If someone's father or mother are absolute sinners it is still a punishable offence for their son to physically abuse them." All the codifiers conclude from this that all that is forbidden is physical abuse of one's parents in such a case; however, the son or daughter does not have to accord such parents any honour or respect. I have raised this problem in my commentary on Yore Deyah when dealing with Maimonides' view in connection with what he wrote in chapter 7 of Hilchot Mamrim that according to my understanding Maimonides' ruling applies only if the father was guilty of transgressions לתאבון, because he had trouble controlling his evil urge and he sinned only occasionally. In our case we talk about a habitual sinner; this is why Maimonides in chapter 5 made sure to use the wording רשע גמור, "a confirmed sinner," instead of simply writing: "a sinner." I believe that the term "confirmed sinner, רשע גמור, is applicable to people who habitually violate any commandment that presents itself for them to observe. A son is totally absolved of the commandment to honour or respect father and mother when he has the misfortune to have such a רשע גמור as his father. Our verse addresses such a situation when it writes: איש אמו ואביו תיראו ואת שבתותי תשמרו. The last three words refer to the duty of both generations to observe G'd's commandments. The reason the Torah chose the example of the Sabbath to illustratte its point is because Sabbath-observance is equivalent to total Torah-observance as we know from Shemot Rabbah 25,12.

One may also approach the moral-ethical allusions contained in this verse as evident from the plural שבתותי as opposed to the Torah's custom to speak about the Sabbath in the singular. Our sages in Shabbat 69 explain the plural to mean that in certain cases the non-observance of many work-prohibitions over a period of numerous Sabbaths may be viewed as a sin which requires only a single sin-offering to atone for it. This is so when the person in question was unaware of a Sabbath legislation at all. The Zohar part 2 page 5 understands the plural to refer to the two parts of each Sabbath, i.e. night and day. This had to be stated as the Torah requires us to separately sanctify (קדוש) both Friday night and Sabbath morning. We know that the sanctity of the night is not of the same level as the sanctity of the day; had the Torah not spoken of "My Sabbath-days" in the plural we would not have known that we had to sanctify also the evening. Our mystical literature views the sanctity of the Sabbath evening as in the nature of the light to which a bride relates, the שמר aspect of the Sabbath. The sanctity of the Sabbath morning is viewed as a supernatural light one which surpasses the intensity of the light at night, something to which the bridegroom relates, i.e. the זכור aspect of the Sabbath. Kabbalists are familiar with these concepts. This is why the Zohar volume 2 page 88 compares the Sabbath evening meal to the apples from a holy piece of earth, whereas when one partakes of the meal of the Sabbath day it is considered comparable to dining at G'd's own table. This is the reason that the sages called the קדוש sanctification of the Sabbath we recite by day, by the name קדושא רבא, "the major sanctification" (compare Pessachim 106). [Interestingly, the Talmud relates this to prove that on Sabbath morning the קדוש consists of reciting only the benediction over wine without the addition of any paragraph from the Torah. Ed.] I have also found at the end of the Shulchan Aruch of the Ari Zal that he relates that during the period of Ibn Ezra someone erred by writing that the Sabbath is different from all other days in that the day precedes the night. Rabbi Ibn Ezra became aware of this writer's error by some miracle (not having seen the text or heard about it) and he succeeded in preventing publication of this work. In his book אגרת שבת, the Ari Zal explains the words of our verse as follows in order to prove that the writer who believed the day precedes the night in the case of the Sabbath erred. The Torah mentioned the mother before the father and equated the commandment to respect mother and father to the commandment to observe the Sabbath days. The reason that the Torah wrote איש אמו ואביו תיראו mentioning the mother before the father is to establish a linkage with the words ואת שבתותי תשמרו, the word ואת referring to the preceding evening whereas the word שבתותי refers to the daytime. The Torah hints that we need to recite קדוש also at night, a period compared to the feminine attribute (אמו) as well as by day the period compared to the masculine attribute (אביו). The reason that both commandments appear in the same verse side by side then is to compare the order of precedence of the parts of the Sabbath to the order of precedence of the two parents; the night i.e. the feminine attribute precedes the day, the masculine attribute.

אל חפנו אל האלילם "Do not turn to the idols, etc. This verse prohibits idolatrous thoughts. One should not turn one's thoughts in that direction. In order to understand this better remember that when a Jew thinks of idolatry it is as if he regresses, i.e. read אחורים, "backwards," instead of אחרים, "others." On the other hand, when a Jew dwells on the subject of the true G'd, it is as if G'd turns His face towards him.

האלילם, the idols. The reason the Torah uses the plural form when speaking of even a single idol is that idolatry represents a belief in a multiplicity of domains in this world, separation of powers. Judaism, however, represents the belief in a single Creator, in a single Supreme Power in this universe. When idols are described as deities, אלוהים, they are automatically described as אלוהים אחרים, other deities, i.e. in the plural.

ואלהי מסכה לא תעשו לכם, "neither construct for yourselves molten gods;" seeing that the Torah has already prohibited all kinds of idols why did it single out the molten gods as something we must not construct? Besides, why did the Torah have to stress the word לכם, "for yourselves?" Perhaps we can understand this in connection with chapter 18 in Tikkuney Ha-Zohar where we read that if someone performs a good deed G'd's presence will dwell upon him; if, however, he transgresses one of G'd's commandments the שכינה will depart from the respective organ that should have performed a commandment and that organ will become the home of a spirit of defilement, of טומאה. This spirit of טומאה is the "iron curtain" which is a barrier between such a person and his G'd. Isaiah 59,2 spelled it out when he said: "your iniquities have created a barrier between yourselves and your G'd." When the Torah writes ואלהי מסכה, this means "and a god which forms an iron curtain (from the word מסך, curtain) you must not construct for yourselves." If you do, you would separate yourselves from your source of life. G'd adds the words: "I am the Lord your G'd," to remind you Who it is that you sever your connections with if you violate this commandment.

The words: "I am the Lord your G'd" may also mean that if we refrain from violating this commandment we qualify for the promise that the Lord is indeed our G'd. Our sages in Chulin 5 phrased this as follows: "Anyone who denies the validity of idolatry is considered as if he had expressed his belief in everything written in the Torah."

A moral-ethical dimension of this verse may teach us the lesson spelled out in Megillah 28 in connection with Kings II 3,14 לולי פני יהושפט אני נשא אם אביט עליך, "if I did not (at the same time) behold the face of Jehoshaphat king of Yehudah I would not even look at your face." Elisha explained to Achav that it is forbidden to even look at a confirmed sinner such as he. G'd warns that we must not make ourselves into a molten image so that it will be prohibited to even look at ourselves.

ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מעמיה and this person (soul) will be cut off from its people. We must explore the reason why the penalty for a priest who eats sacrificial meat after the time the Torah allocated for it is so severe. Why is this sin worse than eating all kinds of animals which were not allowed to be consumed at any time, such as creeping things, certain kinds of grasshoppers, or even mammals which died of natural causes or were found to be diseased? You should know that the reason is connected to what we learned in Baba Metzia 114 that the corpse of an Israelite confers ritual impurity on people under the same roof, whereas the corpse of a pagan does not. In other words, the bodies of Israelites are of a higher level of sanctity (while alive) than are the bodies of pagans. Once the sanctity departs from the body of the Jew when he dies, this is replaced by all kinds of spiritually negative phenomena. This accounts for the fact that the difference between a live Jew and a dead Jew is far greater than the difference between a live pagan and a dead pagan. No sanctity departed from the pagan when he died, hence no additional קליפות, spiritually negative forces, will invade that body. The same principle operates in connection with the legislation in our verse. The parts of the animal offered on the altar have enjoyed a higher status than any other animal dead or alive, seeing the remains of this animal have been considered fit to be offered up in holy precincts, an area that most Israelites are not allowed to enter either dead or alive. As soon as the time allocated for these parts to be eaten has elapsed the animal forfeits all the holiness it possessed and this is replaced in turn by spiritually negative forces, just as in the case of the body of a Jew who has died. These forces of טומאה which have now invaded the remains of that animal cause the premature death, etc. of the priest who will eat these parts belatedly. None of the other animals which the Torah has outlawed for consumption by Jews had ever been imbued with any sanctity so that this could have been replaced upon its death by spiritually negative forces which would represent mortal danger to a Jew eating such an animal. Any negative influences a Jew absorbs when he eats these forbidden animals can be expunged by the sinner receiving corporal punishment, מלקות.

The reason the Torah gives for the harsh penalty "that he (the priest) has defiled something that is sacred," appears to mean that the Torah is concerned with the status of the remains of the animal; according to our approach, however, it seems to indicate that G'd is very concerned with the sacred status of the priest. The Torah does not want the priest to jeopardise his status. Possibly, the fact that peace-offerings are not complete until the priests had consumed their portions, is the reason why the Torah had to be very blunt in outlawing eating any of that sacrificial meat after the deadline, even if, as a result of the priest not having eaten all of it on time some of it became נותר.

ובקצרכם את קציר ארצכם, "And when you reap the harvest of your land, etc." The Torah commenced this verse by speaking in the plural, whereas it concluded by addressing an individual i.e. לא תכלה פאת שדך, "you (sing.) must not reap the corner of your field." The Torah may have wanted to dispel the faulty notion that when the amount of gleanings, etc. does not amount to anywhere near enough to provide something meaningful for the poor that the law does not apply. We find an example of such thinking in Kings II 4,43 where Gechazi, Elisha's servant, questioned the use of sharing out twenty loaves amongst over one hundred of Elisha's followers. The Torah therefore addresses each farmer individually to tell him that even though his individual contribution is minimal he must abide by this legislation. The Torah uses the singular for each one of the types of gifts for the poor listed in our verse.

The Torah may have felt forced to write this positive commandment immediately following mention of the severe כרת penalty for the priest who violates the perimeters of eating sacrificial meat. It wanted to disabuse a person who has become guilty of such a penalty from saying to himself that there is no point in observing any of G'd's commandments because he had already forfeited his share of the hereafter by violating a different commandment. The Torah says: "when you reap the harvest of your fields;" this is a reference to the people (i.e. the nation at large) who had "harvested" i.e. cut themselves off by commission of a sin which made them subject to extinction. G'd directs: "do not destroy the corner of your field to harvest it;" this is a warning to the people or individuals not to become guilty of additional misdemeanours. He advises us that not the whole soul will be destroyed. The only part of the personality (soul) which will be destroyed is the branch to which this particular commandment had been addressed in the first place. Other parts of that soul continue to maintain their affinity with their holy origin. Every Jewish soul has roots in the celestial regions, one root corresponding to each of the commandments in the Torah. The Torah continues: ולקט קצירך לא תלקט, "do not gather the gleanings of your harvest." This is a reminder not even to repeat the specific sin for which one has already once become guilty of the כרת penalty. The rationale for this can best be understood in light of a comment by the Ari Zal. He said that it is in the nature of sanctity to leave behind some mark even if its bulk has been erased. If this is so, it follows that although the sinner has "harvested," i.e. put an end to his spiritual career by his sin, there is still a residue of the former sanctity he has forfeited by his deed. The Torah commanded such a sinner to be careful not to commit an act which would wipe out even that residue by repeating his sin, i.e. לקט. It is G'd's hope and desire that this לקט, residue of former sanctity, should prompt the sinner to become a penitent so that G'd will have cause to extend His mercy to him. After all, we are told in Yuma 86 that although a person may be guilty of a variety of sins which are punishable either by execution in this life or כרת at the hands of G'd, his repentance will atone for such sins. We are all aware of the call of Hoseah to the sinner (Hoseah 14,2) to become a penitent and to express his guilt first of all with his lips. Our sages explain in this connection that "repentance is great indeed as it penetrates up until the throne of G'd's glory." The meaning of these words is that although the חוט, the lifeline which connects every Jewish soul directly to that throne, had already been severed so that only the thinnest of threads remains within the sinner, repentance enables the sinner to re-establish contact with the throne of G'd.

לא תגנבו, "Do not steal, etc." What is the reason the Torah chose to write this commandment next to that of leaving your gleanings for the poor? Perhaps Torat Kohanim provides the clue. They quote Ben Bag Bag who said: "do not steal your own property back from the thief lest you will be perceived as a thief" (i.e. by those who do not know that what you took was yours in the first place). Thus far Torat Kohanim. Here the Torah warns the farmer that if he collects the gleanings of his own harvest he should not rationalise this by saying that he is only taking what belongs to him anyway.

Our verse actually contains three prohibitions. 1) "Do not steal!" i.e. to not take someone else's money without that person being aware of it. 2) "Do not deal falsely!" i.e. do not deny that you have in your possession money belonging to your fellow man though you obtained this money legally. 3) "Do not lie!" i.e. do not deny that you have money of your fellow man in your possession and there are witnesses who testify to this. The Torah tells us that even in a case such as this where the claim of the thief is easily disproved and the money will be restored to its rightful owner, the thief is guilty of having lied.

The Torah also hints here that in the event a person violates the first of these three commandments and steals, G'd will see to it that the theft becomes known. Our sages in Chagigah 16 have stated that if someone commits a sin in secret G'd will make the sin public so that the sinner's wickedness will be exposed. This is why the Torah writes the prohibition to deny one's guilt immediately after writing the prohibition to steal. When the Torah wrote לא תכחשו, "do not falsely deny your guilt," it speaks of a situation where the culprit would be able to get away with his denial legally such as when he is confronted by only one witness; if the thief confesses, all well and good; if he denies the accusation, the Seer, i.e. G'd Himself, will act as the second witness against the guilty person; needless to say that in that event the culprit will not be able to get away with his lie; the Torah adds: "do not lie!" to teach that in addition to the culprit's denial having proven useless to him he will also have become guilty of the sin of lying.

The reason the Torah employs the plural here and in subsequent verses as opposed to the first ten verses in this chapter and the commandments starting with verse 16 may be to warn the victim of the thief not to take the law into his own hands and retrieve what has been stolen from him in that fashion. The words לא תגנובו therefore are addressed to both the original thief as well as the victim who resorts to stealing to retrieve his own property. The result of taking the law into your own hands would likely result in both of you becoming guilty of violating the related commandments לא תכחשו ולא תשקרו. As to the reason why also verse 12 is in the plural, I believe the reason is identical. If someone observes that the thief denies on oath that he has stolen someone's property, that someone may feel justified in recovering his property by swearing a false oath himself. This is why the Torah warns לא תשבעו בשמי לשקר, not to swear a false oath by citing G'd as one's witness. Inasmuch as this would involve a desecration of the name of G'd, the Torah reverts to addressing such a person in the singular (in the middle of verse 12); this makes it plain that the Torah addresses only the person who profanes G'd's name in order to salvage his own property by swearing an oath. There was no need to include the thief seeing he was already included in the general prohibition לא תשעבו בשמי לשקר. It is also possible that the words לא תשעבו are a warning to the party who tries to make a second party swear an oath when he has reason to believe that that party will perjure himself. Better not to let him swear than to contribute to his desecrating G'd's name. In the worst case scenario then there will only be one person involved in desecrating G'd's name.

לא תעשוק את דעך, "Do not oppress your fellow Jew." After the Torah had forbidden the acquisition of someone else's money through theft a person might conclude that the Torah's objection is only to thievery and not to other ways of appropriating something which is rightfully someone else's. This is why the Torah had to outlaw the obtaining of money by someone exploiting his position of strength vis-a-vis a person whose social or financial position places him at a disadvantage. The prohibition includes withholding wages of a labourer even only for one night.

The reason the Torah describes the injured party as רע, a colleague or friend, is to warn us not to presume on the other party's friendship towards us to shortchange them in what is due to them. One must not play loose with a friend's money because he is one's friend and presumably will not voice his objection for the sake of preserving the friendship. The word את רעך is justified seeing the subject is one which involves only people, not G'd directly. Moreover, if the friend forgives the harm done to him such behaviour is not considered a sin vis-a-vis G'd.

A moral-ethical dimension of these verses is found in Berachot 35 where the Talmud discusses Proverbs 28,24: "he who robs father or mother saying it is no sin is a companion of a destroyer." The Talmud views the verse as referring to someone enjoying the products of this world without first reciting a benediction acknowledging that it all belongs to G'd. Father and mother in that verse are supposed to be G'd and the concept of the people of Israel, commonly referred to as כנסת ישראל. The word רעך in our verse would refer to G'd Himself. We are entitled to this homiletical approach based on Proverbs 27,10 where Solomon warns not to abandon "your friend and the friend of your father." This means one should not "rob" G'd of what He provides without first acknowledging it, taking permission, so to speak. The reason the Torah adds the words "do not rob," is to tell you that even the paucity of מצוה-performance contains an element of robbery. When one fails to carry out a commandment which one is obligated to observe and has the opportunity to observe one causes harm to the entire Jewish people, i.e. one is guilty of transgressing the commandment לא תלין, not performing one's duty on time. When the Torah writes: "do not keep overnight with you the wages due to a labourer," this is a demand to perform daily and punctually in one's מצוה-performance. Vayikra Rabbah 26,4 describes the practice of day borrowing from night during the summer months, whereas night borrows from day during the winter months. [ideally, both day and night should be 12 hours long all year long were it not for the fact that the earth's axis is (nowadays, since the deluge) at an angle. Ed.] The Midrash presents this as an ideal way of two parties helping each other out without recourse to written contracts, demands for repayment, etc. When the Torah writes לא תלין פעולת שכיר אתך, "do not hold back the wages of your labourer with you all night long," the word אתך, refers back to the word שכיר, "someone hired by G'd," a reference to the spirit G'd has granted His labourers, i.e. man. G'd looks upon man as His hired hand. He has granted this spirit both to the hired hand as well as to the resident. Man's wages are that he is granted the privilege to carry out the commandments of G'd. Anyone of us failing to do so or doing so belatedly harms the whole people.

This verse also contains an allusion to the well known statement by our sages (Berachot 28) that Torah scholars do not find much sustenance in this life. We also have a Yalkut Shimoni (item 934 on Proverbs) on Proverbs 3,3 which appears to promise much temporal reward for Torah study. The Torah is supposed to have wanted to know why people studying it are usually so poor. I have heard a good answer to this question in the name of the Ari Zal. He explained that the physical universe we live in would be unable to absorb all the goodness G'd would have to bestow on the Torah scholars. G'd therefore decided to bestow such goodness only on the average individuals who in turn are charged with looking after the material needs of the Torah scholars. This teaches that the only reason there are apparently undeserving wealthy people in this world is that they serve as a מרזב, a channel to furnish sustenace to the Torah scholars. G'd has commanded here that that a (wealthy) person must not oppress a Torah scholar by withholding the material benefits from him which it is his function to provide for his רע, his friend, the Torah scholar.

The word את in the verse לא תעשוק, next to the word רעך, -a reference to G'd as we explained,- is to be understood as similar to what Rabbi Akiva explained in Pessachim 22. In that instance Rabbi Akiva explains the word את in את ה׳ אלוקיך תירא as referring to Torah scholars. The Torah intended to warn us to revere Torah scholars, the judges, in much the same manner as we revere G'd Himself. Judges are also known as אלהים, so that we can say the Torah warns not to steal or rob as G'd has representatives on earth who will deprive the thief or robber of whatever he has taken unlawfully.