פרשת אחרי מות - הניסיון הגדול לרוב העם

(6) None of you men shall come near anyone of his own flesh to uncover nakedness: I am ה׳.

'אני ה I AM THE LORD, who am faithful to pay you your reward (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13 13.

§ Rav Tuvi bar Rav Kisna raises a contradiction to Rava and asked: We learned in the mishna that anyone who performs one mitzva has goodness bestowed upon him. This indicates that if one actually performed the mitzva, yes, he is rewarded, but if he did not perform the mitzva, no, he does not receive a reward. He raises a contradiction based on the following statement: If one sits and does not transgress, he receives a reward as one who performs a mitzva, despite the fact that he does not actually perform a mitzva. Rava said to him: There, when it is referring to one who sits and does not transgress, it does not mean that he was merely sitting; rather, it is speaking of a case where an opportunity to commit a sinful act presents itself to him and he is saved from it.

Faithful to give a reward. Even though here there is no performance of a mitzvah but only keeping away from a sin, and the giving of a reward is only appropriate regarding to an action, one may say that if a person had opportunity to sin and refrained himself from sinning, he is rewarded as if he performed a mitzvah, as we find in Kidushin 39b.

Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that as the verse states: “Only be steadfast to not eat the blood, as the blood is the soul” (Deuteronomy 12:23), it can be derived a fortiori: And if with regard to the blood, which a person’s soul loathes, one who abstains from its consumption receives a reward for that action, as it is written in a subsequent verse: “You shall not eat it, so that it shall be good for you and for your children after you” (Deuteronomy 12:25); then concerning robbery and intercourse with forbidden relatives, which a person’s soul desires and covets, one who abstains from their performance and overcomes his inclination, all the more so that he and his descendants and the descendants of his descendants until the end of all generations will merit a reward.

(18) There is nothing in the entire Torah that is more difficult for the majority of people to separate themselves from than sexual misconduct and forbidden relationships. Our Sages said: When the Jews were commanded regarding forbidden sexual relations, they wept and accepted this mitzvah with complaints and moaning, as implied by the phrase: "Crying among their families," [which is interpreted as meaning]: "Crying about family matters."

(19) Our Sages said: A person's soul desires and craves theft and forbidden sexual relations. You will never find a community that does not have some people who are promiscuous regarding forbidden relationships and prohibited sexual conduct. Moreover, our Sages said: Most people trespass with regard to theft; a minority with regard to forbidden sexual conduct, and all with regard to the shade of undesirable gossip.

(1) When a person voluntarily engages in sexual relations with one of the arayot mentioned in the Torah, he is liable for kerait, as [Leviticus 18:29] states: "Whenever anyone performs any of these abominations, the souls will be cut off...." [The plural is used, referring to] the man and the woman. If they transgressed unknowingly, they are liable to bring a fixed sin offering. There are some arayot with whom relations are punishable by execution in addition to kerait which is applicable in all cases.

(1) Whoever shares physical intimacy with one of the ariyot without actually becoming involved in sexual relations or embraces and kisses [one of them] out of desire and derives pleasure from the physical contact should be lashed according to Scriptural Law. [This is derived from Leviticus 18:30 which] states: "To refrain from performing any of these abominable practices," and [ibid.:6 which] states: "Do not draw close to reveal nakedness." Implied is that we are forbidden to draw close to acts that lead to revealing nakedness.

(12) The law about forbidden sexual intercourse seeks in all its parts to inculcate the lesson that we ought to limit sexual intercourse altogether, hold it in contempt, and only desire it very rarely. The prohibition of pederasty (Lev. 18:22) and carnal intercourse with beasts (ibid. 73) is very clear. If in the natural way the act is too base to be performed except when needed, how much more base is it if performed in an unnatural manner, and only for the sake of pleasure.

(13) The female relatives whom a man may not marry are alike in this respect—that as a rule they are constantly together with him in his house: they would easily listen to him, and do what he desires; they are near at hand, and he would have no difficulty in procuring them. No judge could blame him if found in their company. If to these relatives the same law applied as to all other unmarried women, if we were allowed to marry any of them, and were only precluded from sexual intercourse with them without marriage, most people would constantly have become guilty of misconduct with them. But as they are entirely forbidden to us, and sexual intercourse with them is most emphatically denounced unto us as a capital crime, or a sin punishable with extinction (karet), and as there is no means of ever legalizing such intercourse, there is reason to expect that people will not seek it, and will not think of it.

(14) That the persons included in that prohibition are, as we have stated, at hand and easily accessible, is evident. For as a rule, the mother of the wife, the grandmother, the daughter, the granddaughter, and the sister-in-law, are mostly with her; the husband meets them always when he goes out, when he comes in, and when he is at his work. The wife stays also frequently in the house of her husband’s brother, father, or son. It is also well known that we are often in the company of our sisters, our aunts, and the wife of our uncle, and are frequently brought up together with them. These are all the relatives which we must not marry. This is one of the reasons why intermarriage with a near relative is forbidden.

(5) The meaning of I am the Lord is that God loves the one who separates himself to serve God and to obey his word. What happened at Mount Sinai is proof. The first man is proof. This is the secret of man. Since the inclination of the heart of man is like that of beasts, it was not possible to prohibit all women. Note, Scripture prohibited all women that are found around a person at all times. I will reveal to you a hidden and sealed secret in the Torah portion When thou goest forth in camp against thine enemies (Deut. 23:10). Observe, whoever defiles himself is distanced from God, from receiving God. Scripture therefore mentions, I am the Lord.

NONE OF YOU SHALL APPROACH TO ANY THAT IS NEAR OF KIN TO HIM, TO UNCOVER THEIR NAKEDNESS. The reason for the prohibition of sexual relationships with one’s near of kin is not expressly written [in the Torah]. The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim that [this law seeks to inculcate the lessons that] we should limit sexual intercourse, hold it in contempt, and perform it rarely. Now these women which Scripture has forbidden amongst the relatives of one’s wife are forbidden because they are constantly together with him in his house, and the same applies to one’s own relatives [sisters, aunts, and the wife of one’s uncle], who are frequently with him and he is closeted together with them. A similar reason the Rabbi states for all forbidden relations. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has already written likewise that since the passion of man’s heart is like that of the animals, it was impossible for Scripture to forbid all females, and therefore it prohibited only those that are available to him at all times. But this is a very weak reason, that Scripture should make a person liable to the punishment of excision in the case of these forbidden relations, just because they are sometimes found together with him, and at the same time permit a man to marry many women, even in the hundreds and thousands! And what harm would there be if a man would marry only his daughter, just as was permitted to the Noachides, or marry two sisters as did our patriarch Jacob? A person also could not do better than to give his daughter in marriage to his elder son, and they would inherit his possessions and multiply and increase in his house, for He created not the earth a waste, He formed it to be inhabited! We have no tradition as to [the reason of] this prohibition of forbidden relationships, but logically it would appear that there is in this matter one of the secrets of creation, which attaches to the soul and is part of the secret of the transmigration [of souls], to which we have already alluded.Know that sexual intercourse is held distant and in contempt in the Torah unless it is for the preservation of the human species, and therefore where there can be no offspring [such as in pederasty or carnal intercourse with beasts], it is forbidden. Similarly, where [the union is such that] the child born therefrom will not have a healthy existence, nor succeed from it, the Torah prohibited such a union. This is the sense of the expressions: el kol ‘sh’eir’ b’saro [literally: to any ‘flesh’ next to his flesh]; for he hath made naked ‘eth sh’eiro’ [literally: his flesh]. Thus the Torah forbade these marriages on account of sh’eir [i.e., because the forbidden relations constitute “flesh” next to one’s own], the term sh’eir being derived from the expression [in the verse], ‘hanish’ar’ (he that is left) in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem. Hence Scripture states, they are ‘sha’arah’ (near kinswomen); it is lewdness, meaning to say, “these are not marriages, nor fit for such a relationship, for they will not succeed [in having healthy offspring, as explained above]; rather it is lewdness, mere thoughts of indecency.” Thus the forbidden relationships are included in “the statutes,” the laws which constitute “the decrees of the King.” Now a decree is an ordinance which originates in the knowledge of the King, Who is wise in the management of His kingdom, and it is He Who knows the need for and the benefit of the command that He ordained, and He does not tell it to anyone except to His wise counsellors.

(20) Therefore it is proper for a person to subjugate his natural inclination with regard to this matter and train himself in extra holiness, pure thought, and proper character traits so that he will be guarded against them. He should be very careful with regard to entering into privacy with a woman, for this is a great cause [of transgression]. Our great Sages would tell their students: "Watch me because of my daughter," "Watch me because of my daughter-in-law," so that they would teach their students not to be embarrassed about such matters and distance themselves from entering into privacy with women.

(21) Similarly, a person should distance himself from levity, intoxication, and flirtation, for they are great precipitators and steps [leading] to forbidden relations. A man should not live without a wife, for this practice leads to great purity. And [our Sages gave] even greater [advice], saying: "A person should always turn himself and his thoughts to the words of the Torah and expand his knowledge in wisdom, for the thoughts of forbidden relations grow strong solely in a heart which is empty of wisdom." And in [Solomon's words of] wisdom [Proverbs 5:19], it is written: "It is a beloved hind, arousing favor. Her breasts will satisfy you at all times. You shall be obsessed with her love."

(12) It is a clear and apparent matter that the concepts of purity and impurity are Scriptural decrees and they are not matters determined by a person's understanding and they are included in the category of chukim. Similarly, immersion in a mikveh to ascend from impurity is included in the category of chukim, because impurity is not mud or filth that can be washed away with water. Instead, the immersion is a Scriptural decree and requires the focusing the intent of one's heart. Therefore our Sages said: "When one immersed, but did not intend to purify himself," it is as if he did not immerse. Although it is a Scriptural decree, there is an allusion involved: One who focuses his heart on purifying himself becomes purified once he immerses, even though there was no change in his body. Similarly, one who focuses his heart on purifying his soul from the impurities of the soul, which are wicked thoughts and bad character traits, becomes purified when he resolves within his heart to distance himself from such counsel and immerse his soul in the waters of knowledge. And Ezekiel 36:25 states: "I will pour over you pure water and you will be purified from all your impurities and from all your false deities, I will purify you."

(2) Speak to the whole Israelite community and say to them: You shall be holy, for I, your God ה׳, am holy.

(2) קדשים תהיו YE SHALL BE HOLY — This means, keep aloof from the forbidden sexual relations just mentioned and from sinful thoughts. [It is evident that this is the meaning of קדשים תהיו because] wherever you find in the Torah a command to fence yourself in against such relations you also find mention of “holiness". Examples are: (Leviticus 21:7) “[They shall not take] a wife that is a harlot, or a profane etc.", and in the next verse "for I, the Lord, who sanctifieth you, [am holy]"; (Leviticus 21:15) “Neither shall he profane his seed (by the forbidden unions mentioned in the preceding verses) for I the Lord do sanctify him"; (Leviticus 21:6) "They shall be holy… followed by (v. 7) "[they shall not take] a wife that is a harlot or a profane" (cf. Vayikra Rabbah 24:4-6).

איש איש אל כל שאר בשרו לא תקרבו, “any man shall not approach his close relative (with a view to sexual relations).” This verse expresses the Torah’s prohibition of incest. According to Nachmanides the following verses describe the type of relations-through blood or through marriage- which are included in this prohibition. The biological reason for this prohibition is presumed to be that children born from such incestuous unions have a limited life expectancy and are generally genetically deficient in some way. Seeing that the whole purpose of sexual relations is the creation of healthy children, cohabitation with the various categories of family members mentioned in this chapter is forbidden. This is the meaning of the words (chapter 20,19) כי את שארו הערה, “for he has revealed his blood-relationship,” i.e. the prohibition is due to the deficiencies in such blood-relationship. Concerning the prohibition to have sexual intercourse with a woman while she is experiencing her monthly cycle, this proves further that prohibitions of marital relations are rooted in considerations of health, the chance of a viable fetus being produced from such sexual unions. Seeing that the fetus is formed out of the blood of the woman either in the main or completely, reproduction of the human species from menstrual blood is scientifically not possible; the fetus would not even be started if cohabitation occurred during that period. What would Nachmanides have to say in respect of Deut. 23,2 where the Torah permits [by implication, Ed.] the person who suffers from crushed testicles, i.e. is unable to sire children, to marry a female convert or a female Gentile slave who has been freed by her master (and has converted)? Surely if the dominating reason of the עריות legislation were rooted in biological considerations these people should not be permitted to cohabit with a Jewess, even one who was not a natural born Jewess! This proves that sexual intercourse not designed to produce Jewish offspring is not necessarily forbidden. I will explain this in context when we come to the relevant verses (Deut. 23,2). The ראב"ד in his book בעלי הנפש chapter שער הקדושה, writes that sexual intercourse may be divided into five categories. Category one is a duty designed to ensure the survival of the human species. Category two is obligatory on the husband in order for him to fulfill his duty vis-a-vis his wife; this duty is called עונה in Exodus 21,10. Category three is when it serves therapeutic functions, is recommended for one’s health. Category four is when it serves to release carnal urges which preoccupy one’s thinking and may lead to sex with forbidden partners unless given an outlet. Category five, a forbidden category, is to indulge one’s lust as do the animals. Maimonides in the third part of his Moreh Nevuchim, chapter 49 writes that the reason for the עריות legislation is to reduce the frequency men indulge in cohabitation, to train people to accept that the sex act per se is considered revolting and that when it comes to the Torah’s prohibiting man’s pairing with the females of the species mentioned in our chapter, the common denominator found here is that the women in question are constantly part of his immediate environment and therefore represent a temptation due to their easy availability. Seeing that man is surrounded by such temptation, the Torah decreed harsh penalties against the violation of this legislation. Ibn Ezra in verse 6 cites similar reasons as governing this legislation. Nachmanides considers that this is a very inadequate reason for such legislation, and that to impose the karet penalty on a transgression merely because these women are close at hand is neither logical nor psychologically sound. Why should the Torah prohibit these relatives because they are close at hand, while permitting one to marry multiple women who are not his relatives? Why should one not be allowed to marry his daughter alone (as is permitted for a gentile), or marry two sisters as Yaakov did? One could not find a more suitable marriage partner for his older son than one of his own daughters, the sister of his son, and bequeath them his inheritance and have them populate in his own home, being that G’d did not create the earth for it to remain a wasteland (Isaiah 45,18). The fact remains that we have no valid tradition concerning the true reasons for this legislation and the choice of which relationships are objectionable. [For instance — why an uncle may marry a niece whereas an aunt may not marry a nephew (even if the nephew happens to be older than the aunt). Ed.] I will explain the reason for the legislation on my own account. (Rabbi Chavell traces this explanation to a well known Kabbalist, Rabbi Ezriel, quoted in the Sefer Hamitzvot of Rabbi Recanati). Relationships, i.e. kinship, are divided into three categories: The first category comprises kinship between people who had never been separated. The second category comprises new kinship between people between whom there never had been any genetic relationship before. The third category of kinship is that between people who are related by blood but have been separated at one stage or other in life. An example of the first category is Adam and his family; all of his descendants were allowed to intermarry freely, their union being considered like branches which unite with their common root. This is how we must understand the saying of our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 22,3) that when Adam and Chavah had their first marital union they joined on a bed and when they got off the bed there were seven human beings; Kayin and his female twin, Hevel and two female twins. The number seven symbolises the ”union” just as the Menorah (candlestick in the Tabernacle) had seven arms, all of them being part of the central shaft. Our sages say further that from a legal point of view Adam could have married his own daughter, however he performed an act of kindness toward his son Kayin giving him his daughter as a wife. This is the meaning of Psalms 89,3: “the world is built on loving kindness” (compare Sanhedrin 55). This kind of kinship where all the parties concerned had never been separated was not subject to the present legislation. Just as Adam and his wife were made of the same flesh, so their children were the product of genetically the very same material as their parents. No other genetic material was part of any of these children. The second category of human relationships is the exact opposite of the first. Two people who are of genetically totally different background are permitted to join together in marriage precisely because they are not related to one another. Such a union is comparable to the branch of a tree which had been totally cut off and is being planted in the earth again to produce a new root. Thirdly, the kinspeople who are too closely related to one another have been forbidden as potential marriage partners because they had at one time become separated. This is the group of people for whom this legislation has been written. Seeing these people were united generations back but had grown apart in the interval they cannot serve as a symbol of unity, something that marriage, building a family is all about. To sum up: the rule is that people who are genetically distant from one another may unite in marriage in order to demonstrate that genetic distance from one another is no barrier to union, on the contrary the concept of unifying, creating a bond resulting in a union is best demonstrated by such people. People who are genetically very close must not enter marital unions (or sexual unions) because up until then they were symbols of the reverse of union, of separation. Seeing that the kinsmen and kinswomen were not the product of the kind of genetically unified unions such as Adam and Chavah, they do not display signs of such genetic uniformity. Seeing that branches should unite with their roots (if they did not remain united by not being lopped off), the Torah encourages marriage between such “stray, isolated” branches. The same is true of a solitary trunk. A trunk’s genetic excellence can be demonstrated only by means of its branches. If these branches had been cut off and scattered this is equivalent to the trunk (root) having lost its yichus, genealogical excellence. We may view people who violate the laws pertaining to עריות, forbidden sexual unions, as destroying the concept of creating unity. This is also the reason why the tetragrammaton, the name of G’d emphasizing His Unity, prefaced this legislation. This is why the words אני י-ה-ו-ה are appended at the end of verse two in our chapter. Our sages in Sanhedrin 57 interpreted the words איש איש in our verse as including members of the Gentile nations to whom such legislation (in part) also applies. We find other instances where the expression איש איש is also used to alert us to the fact that the law in question applies also to the Gentiles. A prominent example is Leviticus 24,15 where the prohibition of cursing the name of G’d is legislated. This is also one of the seven Noachide laws. Similarly, worshipping the Moloch and sacrificing one’s children to that deity is forbidden to the Gentiles. This prohibition is also introduced with he words איש איש, (compare Leviticus 20,2).

איש איש אל כל שאר בשרו לא תקרבו; logic would suppose that offspring from genetically related parents would result in superior human beings, evenly matched ones, as for instance in the case of Amram and Yocheved, where the marital union of aunt and nephew produced three outstanding human beings such as Miriam, Aaron, and Moses. In fact, the Talmud Yevamot 62,63 praises someone who marries his niece by quoting Isaiah 58,9 who calls down a special blessing from heaven on such a person. [“Then when you call, the Lord will answer, when you cry, He will say: ‘Here I am.’”] The considerations I have just mentioned are valid only if both parties to such a marital union are motivated exclusively by the desire to carry out G’d’s will as they perceive it. However, truth to tell, this occurs in only rare cases. The vast majority of people, when choosing their mate, are driven by the desire to gratify their libido. Compare Psalms 51,7 הן בעוון חוללתי ובחטא יחמתני אמי, “Indeed, I was born with iniquity; with sin my mother conceived me.” Seeing that genetically close relatives, usually living under the same roof, provide ample opportunity for the males and females of that family to engage in illegitimate sexual relations, and not only do they find it enjoyable but they do not consider it at all sinful, such pairings will hardly ever be for the purpose of marriage, but merely for the purpose of mutual physical indulgence. As a result, allowing marital relations of an incestuous nature would result in sexual promiscuity of major dimensions. This is why the Torah wrote לגלות ערוה, in most instances the very baring of flesh, and especially private parts, is the physical gratification desired in the first instance. This is why the Torah, in order to nip incest in the bud, addresses itself again and again to this phenomenon by using the expression לגלות ערוה, the titillation provided by feasting one’s eyes on the flesh of the opposite sex. When listing degrees of blood relationship, the Torah proceeds from the man’s vantage point, and in the case of the woman from the perspective of her husband. This is why in order of sequence the Torah first forbids the sister of one’s father who is a first degree blood relation to one’s father. On the other hand, the Torah permits the daughter of such father who is a relative of the second degree to the party. The Torah then prohibits the wife of one’s father and the wife of one’s brother and the wife of one’s uncle, even after their respective husbands have already died. This is in spite of the fact that no genetic connection exists between the people forbidden to one another as man and wife. The reason is simply that they Torah views them all from the perspective of how they are related to their husbands. This appears to be the guideline for all incest-related legislation.

איש איש אל כל-שאר בשרו, ”any man shall not approach his close relative, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the underlying reason for the legislation not to indulge in incestuous relationships has not been spelled out in the Torah. Maimonides claims in his Guide for the Perplexed (3,49) that the underlying reason is to minimize the frequency of indulging one’s libido, and with close relatives who may live in the same house such opportunities exist more than with potential sexual partners who live elsewhere. The subject is closely related to matters discussed in the Sefer Yetzirah, that the author claims not to have understood. Moreover the subject of sexual gratification contains animalistic elements at the same time as the fulfillment of the first commandment G’d gave man. Anyone who knows that in indulging his libido he will not or cannot fulfill that commandment must not indulge in sexual intercourse. Seeing that in order to fulfill the commandment to multiply, i.e. to have children, our libido has its positive part to play in the way the Creator arranged the human race, it was impossible to outlaw sexual activity altogether. He therefore legislated what from our vantage point may look like a compromise, but what from His vantage point no doubt reflects His superior wisdom. [Some of this wording is my own. Ed.]