Parasha: Kedoshim · Aliyah: Second (Gevurah)

לא תעשו עול במשפט. "Do not render an unfair decision in judgment." This warning is addressed to litigants who are not to try and secure favourable judgment by ruses. If this were to happen it would be considered an עול, an injustice, a perversion of justice. This is the reason the Torah addressed the prohibition in the plural form, i.e. litigants (pl).You may understand this as follows: עול במשפט, the injustice would occur during judgment the judges hand down seeing that the judge is obligated to arrive at his decision on the basis of the arguments presented by the litigants. This is also the reason that this commandment followed the directive not to place obstacles before the "blind." Usually the reason a judge arrives at a faulty decision is that one of the litigants has deceived him.

Another meaning of this verse is that if a litigant finds that the judge found in his favour although he himself is aware that such a ruling was unfair, he must not accept the judgment but must strive to have such a judgment set aside. This is another reason the Torah used the plural here, seeing that we deal with injustice to at least two parties.

The verse also addresses the judge himself. If the judge himself feels that the judgment he is bound to hand down on the basis of the evidence presented is unjust, he would become guilty of perverted judgment. He is to hand down only the kind of verdict he himself will be comfortable with.

We also need to consider the vowel patach under the letter ב in the word במשפט. This definitive article reminds us of something we learned in Beytzah 16 that on New Year's Day G'd allocates to man his material needs for the new year, based on what he deserves. If a judge were to declare the guilty as innocent and vice versa he would pervert G'd's judgment. As a result, the victim would question G'd's fairness as it were.

לא תלך רכיל בעמיך, "Do not go about your people bearing tales." Our sages in the Zohar have already preceded me in drawing attention to the apparent duplication when the Torah speaks both about לא תלך, "do not go," and רכיל, "bearing tales." The latter word implies that one goes from one person to another. So why do we need the words: "do not go?" The Zohar's answer in Nasso subsection Idra Rabbah 128 is of a mystical dimension. I believe the plain meaning of the Torah is a warning to each individual not to become a vehicle for potential defamatory information about a second party. How does one prevent this? By not revealing any information even innocent information in the hearing of anyone who might use this information or part of it and turn it into something defamatory. If that were to happen then the person who merely related the original harmless sounding story shares part of the guilt. The Torah purposely writes בעמיך, "amongst your own people," referring to people close to you who are indiscreet and blabber about any confidence they have heard or overheard. G'd adds: "I am the Lord" i.e. I am going to track down whence the defamatory remarks originated.

Another aspect of our verse is that the Torah warns that we must not associate with nor tolerate the presence of people who spread evil gossip. Providing such people with a home or otherwise assisting them makes the host an accessory to their sin, part of the cause.

לא תעמוד על דם רעך, "Do not stand idly by when your colleague's blood is being spilled." This part of the verse is a natural corollary of the prohibition to bear tales. When one becomes aware of an assassination attempt for instance, one has to warn the potential victim in order to enable him to save himself. The Torah writes the words: "Do not stand by idly, etc," to warn us that relaying a warning to a person of an attempt to assassinate him which one has overheard does not fall under the prohibition not to bear tales. Failure to warn the potential victim which results in the murder being carried out makes the party who did not issue the warning guilty of violating this commandment. Jeremiah 40,14 reports that Gedalyah ben Achikom was warned of an assassination attempt against him by a fellow Jew Ishmael ben Netanyah. Gedalyah's refusal to believe that he was in danger resulted in his death at the hand of assassins.

לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך, "do not hate your brother in your heart, etc." The Torah urges us that if we harbour some resentment against a fellow Jew not to bottle it up in one's heart saying nothing but hating the Jew in question. One has to come out with one's feelings into the open, בפיך, and rebuke the person who one thinks as guilty of having bad-mouthed him or otherwise hurt him to cause such hatred. הוכח תוכיח, "rebuke him, even repeatedly," ולא תשא עליו חטא, "so that you will not bear a sin on account of him." Do not assume in your heart that whatever it is the other Jew has done to cause you to hate him he has done purposely and that he continues to feel hostile towards you. Give him the benefit of the doubt and discuss the matter with him. The discussion could lead to one of two possible results. 1) He may explain to you that he had a good reason for what he did so that there is no reason to hate him. 2) He may change his attitude towards you, undertaking not to continue his hostile conduct. As a result he becomes "your friend, your brother."

Another approach to our verse is based on the unusual structure of the verse. It should have read: "לא תשנא בלבבך את אחיך, the word "in your heart" which we consider central should not have been written at the end. The source of the hatred, the heart, should have been mentioned before the object of the hatred, a fellow Jew. If the Torah reversed this order there must be a reason for this. I believe that the message is that a person should not think that the Torah only forbids the kind of hatred which is the forerunner of acts of revenge or violence but does not forbid harbouring ill feelings towards someone in one's heart. By mentioning the object of one's hatred immediately next to the prohibition to hate, the Torah made it clear that even the kind of hatred which is not related to acts of retaliation is forbidden. As soon as a person distances himself mentally and emotionally from his fellow Jew he begins to violate the prohibition of hatred as defined by the Torah in this verse.

We need to examine why the Torah chose the term אחיך, "your brother," when describing who it is you hate, whereas the person that you are advised or directed to admonish is described as עמיתך, "your colleague."

Perhaps the best way to understand this distinction is based on what we read in Tannah de bey Eliyahu Rabbah at the end of chapter 3. We are told that if one observes a man known as a Torah scholar commit an obvious violation of a Torah precept, one should not think about this during the night, but rather assume that said scholar had already repented his mistake. We also find in Pessachim 113 where the Talmud discusses the implications of Exodus 23,5 that one must not stand by idly when the ass of someone whom one hates breaks down under its burden but one must assist the owner to unload the beast. The Talmud explains that the שנאך who is described as the owner of the donkey is a person whom one has observed commit sins, in other words someone who one is permitted to hate. Accordingly, there are exceptions to the rule "not to hate your brother." A Torah scholar is exempted from the list of sinners one is allowed to hate as it is to be presumed that he is not a habitual sinner but has momentarily committed a mistake which he will promptly regret. The Torah described such a Torah scholar as "your brother," to teach you that even if this Torah scholar became guilty of a transgression you must not hate him but assume that he has already done penitence and recaptured his status (and therefore stature) as a Torah-observant Jew. We base this on Psalms 122, 8 למען אחי ורעי אדברה נא שלום בך, "for the sake of my brethren and friends I pray for your wellbeing." We can also derive this from the way the Talmud Kidushin 57 interprets the verse את ח׳ אלוקיך תירא, "you shall fear the Lord your G'd," where the word את is taken to refer to the Torah scholars (Deut. 6,13). Similarly, the word אחיך here refers to G'd Himself who is described on occasion as a "brother of Israel" (compare Midrash Shochar Tov 23).

When the Torah wrote הוכח תוכיח, it speaks of a different situation altogether, i.e. it addresses your conduct vis-a-vis the average Israelite. In order to make this clear, that "average" Israelite is not described as "your brother" but as "your colleague." This is more pronounced by the Torah not saying הוכח תוכיחנו, "you shall rebuke him repeatedly, as we would have expected if the Torah had not changed the subject it speaks of in the first half of this verse. By rebuking your "average Israelite" you will help him to avoid becoming guilty of hating you so that the righteous will not be punished for his share in the guilt of the wicked. Failure to rebuke, however, will make the individual who is Torah-observant an accessory in the guilt of the sinners who have not been rebuked.

We have proof of this In Ezekiel 33,9 where the prophet is told that seeing he had warned the people he himself will be saved and does not have to share their fate.

I have found another interesting statement in chapter 18 of Tannah de bey Eliyahu Rabbah who writes as follows: "Does the Torah here refer to brothers of the same father or brothers of the same mother? In answer to this question he says that the word "your brother" refers to G'd who does not have any "brothers" either in this world, the world to come, or after the arrival of the Messiah, except for the righteous who perform His commandments meticulously day after day. Thus far Tannah de bey Eliyahu Rabbah. From this comment It emerges that "brothers" are considered as closer relations than "sons" or "daughters" as we know from Shir Hashirim Rabbah 3 that G'd first called Israel "My daughter," whereas eventually He called her "My sister" (i.e. a higher form of endearment).

לא תקום ולא תטור, "Do not take vengeance and do not bear a grudge." Yuma 23 defines vengeance as someone responding in kind to a hateful act by his neighbour he has experienced, whereas the "grudge" is defined as repaying a hateful act with a kind act pointing out, however, that one is morally superior to the person who committed the hateful act. The proof for this is the verse following that one should "love your neighbour as yourself." The reason the Torah has to say this is to indicate that it is G'd's wish that we relate to our fellow Jews with the same love we have for ourselves. If the person described as bearing a grudge told his neighbour that despite the fact that the latter refused to lend him his spade, he in turn was willing to lend him his own spade, he indicated that he had harboured resentment against his neighbour first. G'd tells us that the reason we must not bear a grudge is because the Lord is our G'd. This means that by means of individual Israelites experiencing a unification of their hearts, G'd's Unity itself is enhanced. This is all based on the kabbalistic concept that all Jewish souls are branches of the Holy name of G'd (י־ה־ו־ה) based on Deut. 32,9 "for His people are part of Him" (compare Zohar volume 3 page 16).

The Torah was very shrewd in giving these directives to the Israelite in a staggered form. 1) First of all, one is not to hate a fellow Jew; 2) next, one is not take revenge for something a fellow Jew has done to him; 3) one is not even to bear a grudge; 4) one is to love one's fellow Jew. The Torah uses 2 different descriptions for a fellow Jew, a) "your brother;" b) "your colleague" or "member of your people." This tells us that the legislation applies only to Jews who basically are Torah-observant but with whom you have a disagreement of a personal nature. If your hatred for them is due to such a Jew displaying his disdain for the Jewish religion one must not only not love them but hate them as we have been told by David in Psalms 139,21 "You know I hate those who hate You, etc."

את חקותי תשמרו, בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים, "You shall keep My statutes. Do not let your cattle mate with a different species of animal." Here is the way Torat Kohanim interprets this verse: "From the wording of the text I only know a prohibition concerning a domestic animal owned by one. How do I know that the same prohibition applies also to the domestic animals owned by one's neighbour? We derive this from the extraneous word את in the expression את חקרתי. If this is correct, why did the Torah use the suffix "your" altogether when describing the domestic animal? It could have written בהמה לא תרביע כלאים and saved both the word את as well as the possessive ending ך. I have seen a comment by the author of Korban Aharon explaining that the verse deals with a normal situation, i.e. an owner cross-mating his own animals. I do not believe that this is an adequate reason for the Torah phrasing the commandment in this fashion.

I believe that the key to the verse is the fact that the Torah wrote this law immediately after the commandment to love fellow Israelites like ourselves. The message of that commandment is that G'd loves for Jews whose souls are all branches of the same pool of sanctity to behave accordingly towards each other. As a result we might think that G'd does not mind if those mammals which are fit for consumption by us, i.e. the בהמות טהורות, would intermate. The Torah tells us that this is against G'd's will. The ending ך in the word refers to the fact that these animals are yours to eat, not that they are owned by you. Torat Kohanim also writes that the verse as it stands forbids only the crossbreeding or mating of pure animals with other pure animals. Whence do I know that one must not crossbreed or mate impure animals with pure animals? Answer: This is why the Torah says את חקותי תשמרו. This shows you quite clearly that the author had understood the word בהמתך to mean pure animals as opposed to animals which are your own. If the Torah had not written the suffix ך, I would not have known that the subject are pure animals at all, but would have assumed that inasmuch as the pure animals are fit to eat, mating between pure animals would be permissible as opposed to mating between impure and pure species.