Parashat Kedoshim
"The
Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the whole Israelite community and say to
them: 'You shall be holy, for I, the Lord your G-d, am holy'." (Leviticus
19:1)
Most commandments written in the portion of Kedoshim have already been written, sometimes word for
word, in other places in the Scripture. Nachmanides brought in his commentary
on Leviticus 19:4 the words of the midrash (Vayikra
Rabbah 24:5), "Rabbi Levi says…because the Ten Commandments are included
in it." Ibn Ezra wrote similarly on 19:2, "And the reason for
mentioning this section….and it is the Ten Commandments mentioned here."
For even the commandments enumerated in the Ten Commandments are repeated here.
We
will bring two examples, and you can examine the portion and find that most of
it is like this:
"Do
not gather the gleanings of your harvest" (Leviticus 19:9)
"Do
not gather the gleanings of your harvest" (Leviticus 23:22)
"You
shall keep my sabbaths and venerate my sanctuary: I
am the Lord" (Leviticus 19:30)
"You
shall keep my sabbaths and venerate my sanctuary: I
am the Lord" (Leviticus 26:2)
Nachmanides
wrote: "There are many warnings about the Sabbath, as there are about
idolatry." Since there are many warnings scattered all over the Scriptures
about one prohibition, our rabbis disagreed on the matter. Maimonides, in the
ninth root of Sefer Hamitzvot, wrote that the
multiplication of warnings was for emphasis alone: "Let us not look at the
multiplication of commandments on this issue…for they are merely for emphasis,
for sometimes the matter will be repeated with warning after warning, for
emphasis."
According
to Maimonides, the repetition of warnings is not meant to add extra
prohibitions for which one would received flogging, but is for emphasis only.
But since he found that sometimes our rabbis demanded two sets of flogging, he
wrote: "And it is impossible to know whether a replication of a positive
or a negative commandment has come to add something to the matter [that is,
another prohibition] unless such interpretation was given by the Teacher and
received by them [the Sages] OBM." The duplication of flogging is not
something which can be learned from what is written explicitly in the
Scriptures; it is an oral tradition.
But
Nachmanides, in his commentary on Maimonides's roots of Sefer HaMitzvot, disagrees with the opinion above and claims that
one can be given two or more punishments for a single act: "But he
(Maimonides) had already made a great mess of this issue, for all he said about
many negative utterances relating to a single prohibition and therefore
requiring a single punishment, is not so." Later on he brings an example
of this matter: Were it written, "the nakedness of your daughter-in-law
you shall not uncover, the nakedness of your son's wife you shall not
uncover," a person would earn two punishments (floggings or sacrifices)
though he did only one forbidden act in being with his daughter-in-law, his
son's wife. Nachmanides even saw problems in his own view: "It should not
be difficult for you that we give floggings for [violating prohibitions about]
insects based on the negative utterances written elsewhere in the Torah and
repeated in Deuteronomy but we do not do so for the non-kosher animals and
birds [whose prohibition is repeated, once in Leviticus and once in
Deuteronomy]..." And he explained, "There are many completely
unnecessary negative utterances, and therefore one is given lashes for them
according to their count, while the others are not for replication and
multiplication, but to teach us, as is written in the Gemara, chapter 'And
these are the treifot' (Chulin 63b), 'Why were the animals repeated?
Because of the shesua…'." So, only if
replications are without excuse or special reason is one punished according to
their number, but where there is a reason or excuse for the duplication one is
not punished based on their number.
According
to Nachmanides we have an incomprehensible situation: imagine, if a country's
law stated, "If there's a stop sign before you and you do not stop, you
will pay 100 shekel," and a few sections later it said, "If there's a
stop sign before you and you do not brake your vehicle you will pay 100
shekel." The law means (according to Nachmanides) that anyone who does not
stop at the sign must pay 200 shekel. And any reasonable person would find such
code of law ridiculous, yet this is how Nachmanides treats the divine book of
law. But Maimonides, guided by common sense, dismisses this entirely.
Our
opinion about the replication of warnings will be explained below.
Another
thing repeated in the portion of Kedoshim is the
section about the forbidden sexual relations, written in the portion of Acharei Mot--Leviticus 18--and in the portion of Kedoshim--Leviticus 20. What did our rabbis say about this?
Rashi (on Leviticus 20:2) wrote, "'And to the children of Israel say' --
the punishment for the prohibitions." Similarly did Nachmanides write on
Leviticus 20:10, "The Scripture mentioned some of the prohibitions of sexual relations, to teach us
that they are punishable by death." This is what Chazal said in many
places, "the Scripture does not demand punishment unless a warning has
been stated in it before."
But
the question remains: why does did the one who authored the Torah divide
between the warning and the punishment, placing them in two separate sections?
They could have been written in one place, something like, "Do not
fornicate with a married woman or both adulterous parties will be put to
death," and thereby save us a whole chapter of duplication. Chazal, in Tractate
Pesachim 3b wrote: "One should always teach his disciples in the shortest
way possible." This is a good rule, but the Torah does not use it and does
not take a short path as should be expected of an orderly book of law.
This
is not the only difficulty; we have found in many places that the Scripture
demands punishment without issuing a warning before. Thus wrote Maimonides in
his introduction to the count of the commandments: "Sometimes the warning
will not be said with an explicit negative utterance, only the punishment will
be mentioned, with the warning assumed. But we still have the principle that
the Scripture does not punish unless it issued a warning before, and this is
impossible unless there was a warning for each punishment. Therefore they say
everywhere: we have heard a punishment, where is the warning? We are taught
thus and such. When the warning is not found in the Scripture it is learned by
inference, as brought in Sanhedrin 85a on the warning not to curse one's
parents or strike them, where the Scripture never said 'do not curse your
father' or 'do not strike your father'…" Again we find -- this time in
accordance with Maimonides's words -- that he who wrote the Torah was not
consistent, that sometimes he gives a prohibition and a warning and then gives
a punishment and in other places he leaves the warning to be learned by
inference. Learning by inference is one of the 13 ways in which the Torah is
elucidated; see pamphlet 8, where we showed that the 13
ways in which the Torah is elucidated are from the sages' own learning and
deduction.
There
is yet another difficulty in the repetition of the section on prohibited sexual
relations. In the portion of Acharei Mot, at the end
of the warnings, the punishment is written (Leviticus 18:29): "All who do
any of those abhorrent things -- the souls of those doing so shall be cut off
from their people."
And in
the portion of Kedoshim, Leviticus 20:17, "If a
man takes [possession of] his sister…they shall be excommunicated in the sight
of their kinsfolk." About this Nachmanides wrote (20:10): "The
mention of cutting off one who has a sexual contact with his sister is
superfluous." And see in Tractate Makkot 14a,
how Rabbi Isaac learns that one who has a sexual contact with sister is exempt
from flogging, and the sages learn something else -- and of this Nachmanides
wrote (in his commentary on Leviticus 20:10), "And the mention of cutting
off the soul of one who has sexual contact with his sister is
superfluous"! Again we find that not only had a verse been repeated for no
reason, but the repetition even confused our rabbis to the extent that they
disagreed on its meaning. Had it been shortened and the warning and punishment
been written in one chapter and one location, we would have learned it the
short, straight-forward, and clear way, as is seemly and appropriate for the
law of the living G-d.
Now
pay attention, student, and see: the matter of prohibited sexual relations,
repeated in the portion of Kedoshim, was repeated,
according to the sages, "To punish after giving warning." If so, why
did the Scripture not detail the punishment for one who marries two sisters
(warned against in the portion of Acharei Mot)?
About
this Ibn Ezra wrote on 20:19, "The punishment for the father's sister was
not mentioned, nor for one who marries two sisters was any punishment at all
mentioned. And the wise one will understand; the words of tradition are true,
as well."
Before
we proceed to explain our view about the replication of portions in the Torah,
we find it necessary to say that it is appropriate to look attentively at the
places where Ibn Ezra wrote "the wise one will understand," for in
some of those places this sage meant very deep and important things which he
did not want to be shown to all. One who understands will understand.
First
we will quote the words of Ibn Ezra on Leviticus 18:18, "In the portion of
Kedoshim the punishment for one who has a sexual
contact with two sisters is not mentioned…the commentator's reason is that
Rachel and Leah were not sisters…this is not an absolute proof…from the portion
of Vayelech you will know my opinion."
We
will add the words of Ibn Ezra on Genesis 35:2, where he also referred the
reader to the portion of Vayelech in Deuteronomy.
There he writes, "'Take off your foreign gods' -- G-d forbid a prophet
should lay with idolatresses. But the meaning can be found in the portion of
'And Moses walked'."
When
we turn to the portion of Vayelech we find written
there (Deuteronomy 31:16): "We know that G-d is one and the change will
come from those who receive. G-d will not change his deeds, for they were all
done in wisdom; and one of the aspects of worshipping God is compliance with
the reception capacity of the place [one lives in]. Therefore it is written,
'[They do not know] the laws of the God of that land' (II Kings 17:26), and
therefore Jacob said, 'Take off your foreign gods.' And the opposite is the
land in which incestuous relationships are common; and the wise one will
understand."
Again
he had written "The wise one will understand"!
And
thus R' Joseph Bonfils (c. late 14th century CE) explained Ibn
Ezra's words in his commentary "Tzafnath
Pa'aneach" (portion Acharei Mot): "'In the
portion of Kedoshim the punishment for one who has a
sexual contact with two sisters is not mentioned,' and afterwards he wrote [Ibn
Ezra on the verse 'Do not commit any of these abominations -- neither a
permanent resident, nor a stranger' (Leviticus 18:26)]: 'This commandment
applies equally both to a permanent resident and to a stranger, because even
the latter dwells in the Land of Israel; and if you have a heart, you will
understand that when Jacob married two sisters at Haran, and when Amram married his aunt in Egypt, none of them became
impurified by such relations.' This comment [of Ibn Ezra] contains a secret, to
which he also hinted in his commentary on the verse concerning 'foreign gods'
in the portion of Vayelech -- that the forbidden
sexual relations are prohibited in the Land of Israel only, because of the
superior force which governs it -- that is, Mars, who is the enemy of Venus,
the governor of pleasures and sex -- for Mars hates lechery, and also because
the sun has some power over the Land of Israel and the sun has a rational soul;
these matters he explained in the book 'Reshit Chochmah'."
Amazing!
One of our great rabbis of the 14th century interprets the Ibn
Ezra's words as meaning that the forbidden sexual relations were prohibited in
the Land of Israel only!
It
follows that the prohibition of forbidden sexual relations, one of the three
commandments a Jew may not violate even under threat of death, is valid only in
the Land of Israel, but not outside it. Is this possible? But on the other
hand, such an intent seems quite clear in Ibn Ezra's words -- which may be the
reason he hid it twice behind the phrase, 'And the wise one will understand.'
We are astounded.
We
find it also useful to add that the things written by Ibn Ezra and other
commentators (and brought here by R' Bonfils) concerning the influence of the
planets Mars and Venus on laws and customs of human conduct are borrowed
directly from the Greco-Roman religion. The Greek and Roman idolaters
considered the stars and planets living, thinking, and influential figures and
associated them with their heathen deities. Thus, planet Mars was identified
with their god of war, and planet Venus -- with their goddess of love (the
planets were even named after these deities). And the gentile belief was that
Mars loved war and Venus loved pleasures and sex -- just as was written by R'
Bonfils, who ascribed this opinion to Ibn Ezra.
Yet
we will not accept things so strange; it seems much more reasonable that the
contradictions and discrepancies in the Torah text have a more logical source.
It seems that two different authors wrote these two portions (Kedoshim and Acharei Mot), and
when in a later period the Pentateuch was being edited, the editor just left
the both portions as they were. Thus are the discrepancies and the replications
explained.
Do not
wonder about what is said, that the Biblical text was written by different
authors, for so, too, writes Ibn Ezra on Deuteronomy 34:6, "These are the
words of Joshua, and it is possible that he wrote them at the end of his
life." (In the portion of Devarim 1:2 Ibn Ezra
hints at this, and we will clarify it at the proper time).
And
though some might claim we are writing harsh things here, this conclusion is
preferable for any reasonable person who keeps the honor of G-d before him. For
we find again and again that the Torah text is confused and out of order,
repeats itself many times, emphasizes the unimportant and leaves the important
matters to the sages, repeats prohibitions many times, punishes and does not
warn or warns and does not punish. Yet the Torah was intended to be the Book of
Law for humankind. How should one relate to one who wrote such a confused code
of law and dare claim its source to be the G-d of all the world? The author
would be considered mad.
And
see it yourself, "An examination shows that the world was built using a
worked out and considered plan, as though a wise engineer had drawn the world
before it was created" (Chazon Ish, "Emunah
V'Bitachon"), and yet anybody who looks at the
Biblical text will see bedlam in it, not a single author but many, for nature
is wonderfully organized, but the Scripture is not. Therefore there is only one
conclusion: the Creator of this wonderful and organized world could not
possibly have written the books of the Torah.
Words
of True Knowledge
