Sedra 7, Kedoshim
Leviticus 19:1 – 20:27
Which feels like a chapter added as a kind of digest; mostly it adds nothing, just takes a number of essential commandments and reiterates them in a very brief statement. The Idiot's Guide to the Torah! It is however very useful to us, as it allows an insight into what was considered the highest priority back then (whenever "then" was!).
19:1 VA YEDABER YHVH EL MOSHEH LEMOR
וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶלמֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר
KJ (King James translation): And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
BN (BibleNet translation): Then YHVH spoke to Mosheh, saying:
19:2 DABER EL KOL ADAT BENEY YISRA-EL VE AMARTA AL'EHEM KEDOSHIM TIHEYU KI KADOSH ANI YHVH ELOHEYCHEM
דַּבֵּר אֶל כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם קְדֹשִׁים תִּהְיוּ כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם
KJ: Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.
BN: Speak to all the congregation of the Beney Yisra-El, and say to them: You shall be holy; for I, YHVH, your god, am holy.
Once again, we need to remind ourselves what this concept of KADOSH actually means... literally "set apart": thus a Kohen is a person set apart from the rest of the community; the Kodesh, the Sanctuary, is a place set apart even from other parts of the building it may inhabit (the place of prayer in a modern synagogue continues to carry the name)... while a "holy nation" is not one given special preference - actually, it may even be the opposite of that: a nation set apart to provide a role-model for the perfectibility of the species, for the visible proof of morality, ethics, good behavious, responsibility - oi, what a burden, and life could be so much more pleasant doing the rites of Asherah...
19:3 ISH IMO VE AVIV TIYRA'U VE ET SHABTOTAY TISHMERU ANI YHVH ELOHEYCHEM
אִישׁ אִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו תִּירָאוּ וְאֶת שַׁבְּתֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם
KJ: Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.
BN (literal translation): Man, his mother and his father you shall fear, and you shall keep my sabbaths: I am YHVH your god.
I have translated the first four words literally, in order to point out the grammatical oddity, the change from the second to the third person in mid-phrase; or is that final-letter Vav in fact a suffix, and the verb is singular, TIYRA? The way the verbs are structured in the following verses (TIPHNU, TIZBECHU, etc) rejects this, however. Same meaning, either way.
Once again, we appear to be in the realm of formal legal documents, each clause signed. We noted previously that there were two different signatures; this is the second one, continuing on from the end of the last chapter. (There will be an even longer third, at verse 36.)
TIYRA'U: I would so much prefer to translate this as "respect your parents", but the Yehudit does not allow it. TIYRA'U really does mean "fear", and what an interesting notion, that one should fear one's parents, rather than that one should love and respect them (or even that they should conduct their parenting in a manner that merited love and respect, rather than fear).
The first part of the verse parallels Exodus 20:11, the second part Exodus 20:7. It is not obvious why they are in reverse order here, and note that the reward for honouring parents is not incuded here, perhaps because fear dies not get rewarded, where honouring and respecting does.
19:4 AL TIPHNU EL HA ELILIM VE ELOHEY MASECHAH LO TA'ASU LACHEM ANI YHVH ELOHEYCHEM
אַל תִּפְנוּ אֶל הָאֱלִילִם וֵאלֹהֵי מַסֵּכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ לָכֶם אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם
KJ: Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God.
BN: Do not turn to the idols, nor make for yourselves molten gods: I am YHVH your god.
19:5 VE CHI TIZBECHU ZEVACH SHELAMIM LA YHVH LIRTSONCHEM TIZBACHUHU
וְכִי תִזְבְּחוּ זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים לַיהוָה לִרְצֹנְכֶם תִּזְבָּחֻהוּ
KJ: And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, ye shall offer it at your own will.
BN: And when you offer a sacrifice of peace-offerings to YHVH, you shall offer it in a manner that will be accepted.
The King James translation here misses the point – RATSON infers willingness in the sense of sincerity, not convenience. You will offer the sacrifice because you want to, and not because you have to. Just as the victim cannot be sacrificed if it goes unwillingly, so the sacrifice has no value if it is offered unwillingly. This notion will be strongly reinforced in later Judaism, through the positive concept of Kavanah, as it will in Islam later still, through the negative concept of Munafiqun.
19:6 BE YOM ZIVCHACHEM YE'ACHEL U MI MACHARAT VE HA NOTAR AD YOM HA SHELIYSHI BA ESH YISAREPH
בְּיוֹם זִבְחֲכֶם יֵאָכֵל וּמִמָּחֳרָת וְהַנּוֹתָר עַד יוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בָּאֵשׁ יִשָּׂרֵף
KJ: It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.
BN: It shall be eaten on the same day that you offer it, and on the day after; but if any of it is still left on the third day, it shall be burnt on the bonfire.
Which is a far better way of dealing with dead meat that is now going high than putting it in a plastic bag, leaving it for days in a plastic garbage can, and eventually dumping it in a landfill site for the crows and the foxes and the bacteria.
As previously, I have over-translated ESH here as "bonfire", to make the distinction between what is burned as a sacrifice on the altar, and what is cremated outside the camp.
19:7 VE IM HE'ACHOL YE'ACHEL BA YOM HA SHELIYSHI PIGUL HU LO YERATSEH
וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי פִּגּוּל הוּא לֹא יֵרָצֶה
KJ: And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted.
BN: And if any part of it is eaten on the third day, this is simply vile; it shall not be accepted.
The vileness by that time is not in doubt; but in what way does a sacrifice that has been accepted become unaccepted? To which the answer is: the sacrifice was a peace-offering; acceptance was both permission to eat, and the making of peace, whether in a private, a local or a wider quarrel. When the temporary peace comes to an abrupt end, know that acceptance was withdrawn, and expect renewed conflict. See the next verse to confirm this.
19:8 VE OCHLAV AVONO YISA KI ET KODESH YHVH CHILEL VE NICHRETAH HA NEPHESH HA HI ME AMEYHA
וְאֹכְלָיו עֲוֹנוֹ יִשָּׂא כִּי אֶת קֹדֶשׁ יְהוָה חִלֵּל וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מֵעַמֶּיהָ
KJ: Therefore every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the hallowed thing of the LORD: and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
BN: But anyone who eats it shall accept the consequences of doing so, because he has profaned the holy word of YHVH; and that soul shall be cut off from his people.
NICHRETAH: The word comes up repeatedly through these laws, and again in the writings of all the Prophets, and the truth is we do not know what was intended: mere jailing, excommunication within the community, expulsion from the community, death... at different times it appears to be any one of these.
19:9 U VE KUTSRECHEM ET KETSIR ARTSECHEM LO TECHALEH PE'AT SADCHA LIKTSOR VE LEKET KETSIRCHA LO TELAKET
וּבְקֻצְרְכֶם אֶת קְצִיר אַרְצְכֶם לֹא תְכַלֶּה פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ לִקְצֹר וְלֶקֶט קְצִירְךָ לֹא תְלַקֵּט
KJ: And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.
BN: And when you reap the harvest in your land, you shall not reap the whole of the corner of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest.
Another of the great liberal humanitarianisms. See the Book of Ruth, chapter 2, and not only for the gleaning - the issue of the Go'el is key to her story as well, but the Go'el is complicated, as we shall see at verse 20, below.
19:10 VE CHARM'CHA LO TE'OLEL U PERET KARM'CHA LO TELAKET LE ANI VE LA GER TA'AZOV OTAM ANI YHVH ELOHEYCHEM
וְכַרְמְךָ לֹא תְעוֹלֵל וּפֶרֶט כַּרְמְךָ לֹא תְלַקֵּט לֶעָנִי וְלַגֵּר תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָם אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם
KJ: And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.
BN: And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit in your vineyard; you shall leave these for the poor and for the stranger: I am YHVH your god.
19:11 LO TIGNOVU VE LO TECHACHASHU VE LO TESHAKRU ISH BA AMIYTO
לֹא תִּגְנֹבוּ וְלֹא תְכַחֲשׁוּ וְלֹא תְשַׁקְּרוּ אִישׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ
KJ: Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.
BN: You shall not steal; nor shall you deal falsely, nor lie one to another.
Variations and repetitions of the Ten Commandments. Dare we ask if it is possible that there was one document at some time, and that it included all these "Thou Shalt Nots", but the Redactor decided to take the first ten and place them on Sinai, leaving the remainder in these chapters of Leviticus?
19:12 VE LO TISHAV'U VI SHEMI LA SHAKER VE CHILALTA ET SHEM ELOHEYCHA ANI YHVH
וְלֹא תִשָּׁבְעוּ בִשְׁמִי לַשָּׁקֶר וְחִלַּלְתָּ אֶת שֵׁם אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲנִי יְהוָה
KJ: And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
BN: And you shall not swear falsely by my name, lest you profane the name of your god: I am YHVH.
The other signature this time.
And again we have one of the Ten, but in a different order. Much has been made of the order in Exodus 20 by scholars down the ages; does this throw all those conclusions into question again?
And again we have one of the Ten, but in a different order. Much has been made of the order in Exodus 20 by scholars down the ages; does this throw all those conclusions into question again?
19:13 LO TA'ASOK ET RE'ACHA VE LO TIGZOL LO TALIN PE'ULAT SACHIR IT'CHA AD BOKER
לֹא תַעֲשֹׁק אֶת רֵעֲךָ וְלֹא תִגְזֹל לֹא תָלִין פְּעֻלַּת שָׂכִיר אִתְּךָ עַד בֹּקֶר
KJ: Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.
BN: You shall not oppress your neighbour, nor rob him; you shall not hold back the wages of a hired servant until the morning.
TA'ASOK: "To be busy with", is the literal translation - is this then the Biblical language for bullying? Or is it simply about doing literal business with him?
19:14 LO TEKALEL CHERESH VE LIPHNEY IVER LO TITEN MICHSHOL VE YARE'TA ME ELOHEYCHA ANI YHVH
לֹא תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל וְיָרֵאתָ מֵּאֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲנִי יְהוָה
KJ: Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.
BN: You shall not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but you shall fear your god: I am YHVH.
19:15 LO TA'ASU AVEL BA MISHPAT LO TISA PHENEY DAL VE LO TEHDAR PENEY GADOL BE TSEDEK TISHPOT AMIYTECHA
לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ עָוֶל בַּמִּשְׁפָּט לֹא תִשָּׂא פְנֵי דָל וְלֹא תֶהְדַּר פְּנֵי גָדוֹל בְּצֶדֶק תִּשְׁפֹּט עֲמִיתֶךָ
KJ: Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
BN: You shall not be unrighteous in judgment; you shall not give extra weight to a person's poverty, nor favours because a person is powerful; but you shall judge your neighbour righteously.
see also Exodus 23:3
I have not translated this literally, but have tried to bring out the full sense of the meaning. It is unclear whether "judgment" here is purely a judicial matter, or applies to everyone in the ways that we make private "judgments" of other people's characters and behaviour. Probably both.
19:16 LO TELECH RACHIL BA AMEYCHA LO TA'AMOD AL DAM RE'ECHA ANI YHVH
לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל בְּעַמֶּיךָ לֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל דַּם רֵעֶךָ אֲנִי יְהוָה
KJ: Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD.
BN: You shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among your people; nor shall you stand idly by the blood of your neighbour: I am YHVH.
The technical term for this is now Lashon ha-Ra (for which see also Proverbs 25:10). It is not clear whether this applies to whistle-blowing, or only to tittle-tattle and tabloid journalism.
19:17 LO TISNA ET ACHIYCHA BI LEVAVECHA HOCH'E'ACH TOCHIYACH ET AMIYTECHA VE LO TISA ALAV CHET
לֹא תִשְׂנָא אֶת אָחִיךָ בִּלְבָבֶךָ הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ אֶת עֲמִיתֶךָ וְלֹא תִשָּׂא עָלָיו חֵטְא
KJ: Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
BN: You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall surely rebuke your neighbour, and not bear sin because of him.
What does this mean? Rashi quotes Torath Kohanim 19:43 and Arachin 16b, that "in the course of your rebuking your fellow, do not embarrass him in public." This definitely applies to taboid journalism.
19:18 LO TIKOM VE LO TITOR ET BENEY AMECHA VE AHAVTA LE RE'ACHA KAMOCHA ANI YHVH
לֹא תִקֹּם וְלֹא תִטֹּר אֶת בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ אֲנִי יְהוָה
KJ: Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
BN: You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am YHVH.
This is not quite the answer that Rabbi Hillel gave "be regel echad", but certainly the verse that was in his mind at the time. In fact, he gave two explanations of this verse, on different occasions. In the first he explained it as meaning "do not do to others what would be unacceptable if it was done to you"; the second time he shifted the emphasis in a rather illuminating way: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It is also quoted by Jesus (Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31).
Some of this chapter contradicts, or at least moderates, some of what we have read elsewhere. The "GO'EL" for example, which is permitted elsewhere, is explicitly proscribed here: the necessity of vengeance in a blood-feud; such as the killing of Av-Ner by Yo'av and Avi-Shai in 2 Samuel 3:27-30. as a "blood vengeance" for Av-Ner's killing of their brother in 2 Samuel 2.
19:19 ET CHUKOTAI TISHMORU BEHEMTECHA LO TARBIYA KIL'AYIM SAD'CHA LO TIZRA KIL'AYIM U VEGED KIL'AYIM SHA'ATNEZ LO YA'ALEH ALEYCHA
אֶת חֻקֹּתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ בְּהֶמְתְּךָ לֹא תַרְבִּיעַ כִּלְאַיִם שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאָיִם וּבֶגֶד כִּלְאַיִם שַׁעַטְנֵז לֹא יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ
KJ: Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.
BN: You shall keep my statutes. You shall not hybrid two species of cattle. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall you wear any garment in which two kinds of cloth are mixed together.
SHA'ATNEZ: We have come across the word before so perhaps this comment should go there: this cannot be a Yehudit word. Whence and when did it enter the language? Gesenius, unusually, is stumped; the best he can suggest is a mispronunciation of the Coptic word "shontness", which he translates into Latin as "byssus fimbriatus", but which does not mean "mixed-cloth", but rather "finely fimbriated", which is to say "having a fringe or border of hair-like or finger-like projections"; which frankly sounds more like tsitsit than sha'atnez. J.P. Lange provides more detail on this in his commentary.
See also Deuteronomy 22:11, where the combination is specified as TSEMER (צֶמֶר - wool) and PISHTIM (פִשְׁתִּים - linen).
19:20 VE ISH KI YISHKAV ET ISHAH SHICHVAT ZERA VE HI SHIPHCHAH NECHEREPHET LE ISH VE HAPHDEH LO NIPHDATAH O CHUPHSHAH LO NITAN LAH BIKORET TIHEYEH LO YUM'TU KI LO CHUPHSHAH
וְאִישׁ כִּי יִשְׁכַּב אֶת אִשָּׁה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע וְהִוא שִׁפְחָה נֶחֱרֶפֶת לְאִישׁ וְהָפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה אוֹ חֻפְשָׁה לֹא נִתַּן לָהּ בִּקֹּרֶת תִּהְיֶה לֹא יוּמְתוּ כִּי לֹא חֻפָּשָׁה
KJ: And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
BN (provisional): Any man who beds a woman who is a maidservant, designated for a man, and not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given her; the matter shall be subject to an inquiry; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
SHICHVAT ZERA: I am absolutely convinced that the translators and commentators have a key part of this one completely wrong. VE ISH KI YISHKAV ET ISHAH is straightforward: "any man who beds a woman". VE HI SHIPHCHAH likewise - "who is a maidservant" - we have seen SHIPHCHAH with the giving of Bilhah and Zilpah to Ya'akov by Le'ah and Rachel in Genesis 29 ff; an important reference in this regard, because Ya'akov takes both as concubines, and fathers children with both of them.
But then SHICHVAT ZERA. SHICHVAT comes from the same root as YISHKAV, the third word in this verse, and is therefore connected with the bedding of the woman; and ZERA is seed. But what if SHICHVAT was not from the same root as YISHKAV, but from the similar-sounding and similar-looking, but actually completely different-meaning root, SHACHAV, which we find in Exodus 16:13 and 14 as some kind of an effusion, an out-pouring, a flow - the context is the appearance of the quails and the "dew" on which the Beney Yisra-El are going to feed in the desert. SHICHVAT ZERA would then mean "a flow of seed", and we would understand that the man hasn't simply bedded her, but he has left her pregnant.
Which then brings us to her status, "betrothed to a husband" or "designated to a man", and more importantly "not redeemed", and not "freed". Rashi has a problem with the word NECHEREPHET - נֶחֱרֶפֶת - which intends "designated and specified for a [particular] man. And [regarding this term נֶחֱרֶפֶת,] I do not know of [a term] resembling it anywhere in Scripture, but the Scripture is speaking of a Canaanite handmaid, partly a handmaid and partly a free woman [i.e., she belonged to two partners and one freed his part of her], who is betrothed to a Hebrew slave, who is permitted to [marry] a handmaid. — [Torath Kohanim 19:52; Kereithoth 11a]"
The two commentaries to which her refers also presume the correctness of this translation, and from which them can see that it must have become the traditional understanding. And let us, for the moment, accept that it is. Because this isn't the issue here - the issue is the issue. The fact that she is pregnant, but with the wrong man, a man who owns her as property, but who has been promised either her freedom at the Jubilee and/or marriage to somebody, it doesn't matter whether stranger of Ben Yisra-El, freeman or slave: another man. The conclusion is that the matter needs investigating (the KJ and others translate this as "she will be punished" but that is not what the text says), because it might be that he used his position of ownership to coerce her, or it could be that she was a willing partner, or even that she seduced him, or he raped her. But whatever the investigation concludes, the law that requires a proven adulteress to be stoned does not apply in this case, KI LO CHUPHSHAH, because she is not free; and not because she is pregnant.
I have touched on the edges of this difficult legal point. This link to Kereithoth 11a takes you to a much fuller debate, including many other texts, commentaries and arguments.
This verse feels like a late addition; the custom of inquisition is not found anywhere else in Mosaic Law, and implies a judicial system that is more than the one that Mosheh established. Also the decision on death is always YHVH's in Torah, never a court's. This can only be post-Hellenic.
19:21 VE HEVI ET ASHAMO LA YHVH EL PETACH OHEL MO'ED EYL ASHAM
וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ לַיהוָה אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֵיל אָשָׁם
KJ: And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.
BN: And he shall bring his forfeit to YHVH, to the door of the tent of meeting, even a ram for a guilt-offering.
Whereas this feels more like Mosheh.
ASHAMO: I am intrigued that King James translates this, on this occasion, as "forfeit", which implies a fine, in the way that someone convicted for drunk-driving might be required to pay a sum of money over to the court - here, as a ram. I am not disputing the translating, merely intrigued by it: is this what a sin-offering and a guilt-offering really amount to? And if so, why we have not been translating it as such, and understanding it as such, on all the many previous occasions when it has been in the text?
EYL: Why is it sometimes EYL and sometimes AYIL? Regional variations? Dialect variations? Changes over time? Chaucer sometimes spells plough as "plow". East Anglians and Americans spell "through" as "thru" and "night" as "nite".
19:22 VE CHIPER ALAV HA KOHEN BE EYL HA ASHAM LIPHNEY YHVH AL CHATA'TO ASHER CHATA VE NISLACH LO ME CHATA'TO ASHER CHATA
וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן בְּאֵיל הָאָשָׁם לִפְנֵי יְהוָה עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא וְנִסְלַח לוֹ מֵחַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא
KJ: And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.
BN: And the Kohen shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt-offering before YHVH for the sin which he has sinned; and he shall be forgiven for his sin which he hath sinned.
Thereby granting him license to go commit the same sin again! And what about her? Presumably that entirely depends on the outcome of the Inquiry.
pey break
19:23 VE CHI TAVO'U EL HA ARETS U NETA'TEM KOL ETS MA'ACHAL VA ARALTEM ARLATO ET PIRYO SHALOSH SHANIM YIHEYEH LACHEM ARELIM LO YE'ACHEL
וְכִי תָבֹאוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ וּנְטַעְתֶּם כָּל עֵץ מַאֲכָל וַעֲרַלְתֶּם עָרְלָתוֹ אֶת פִּרְיוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים יִהְיֶה לָכֶם עֲרֵלִים לֹא יֵאָכֵל
KJ: And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised: three years shall it be as uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten of.
BN: And when you come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then you shall regard its fruit as forbidden; for three years it shall be forbidden to you; it shall not be eaten.
This translation needs careful checking, particularly over the meaning of ARALTEM ARLATO. If it is correct, then we need an explanation of why so long, or why so short, because surely this is a matter that varies between fruit trees. If YHVH is simply a metaphorical and/or mythological explanation, primordial sceicne, so to speak, of the way that Life and Nature operate, then this law is not actually a prohibition of the eating of the fruit, but an understanding of husbandry: the wisteria, for example, will not even flower for the first six years. Apple trees can produce in two however (apple trees from seedlings will need at least six); date palms will need at least six years, and some varieties can take ten. What YHVH is saying, then, is not: "thou shalt not eat the fruit for three years", but "do not expect to harvest any fruit for at least three years".
See also Genesis 17:11 and elsewhere: the same root that gives ARALTEM and ARLATO here, gives ARLAT'CHEM, the rite of circumcision. One of the explanations of male circumcision is that it mirrors the clipping of the vine, necessary in all trees and flowers, if you want them to produce fruit in great abundance. There is no medical evidence that I have been able to find, that confirms this as an impact of human male circumcision.
19:24 U VA SHANAH HA REVIY'IT YIHEYEH KOL PIRYO KODESH HILULIM LA YHVH
וּבַשָּׁנָה הָרְבִיעִת יִהְיֶה כָּל פִּרְיוֹ קֹדֶשׁ הִלּוּלִים לַיהוָה
KJ: But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy to praise the LORD withal.
BN: And in the fourth year all of its fruit should be set apart, and then give praise to YHVH.
My translation is diferent from the standard, in order to pose a question about the precise meaning. Is the text saying: in the fourth year, all the fruit that you harvest counts as "first fruits", and not of the year but of the tree, and therefore must be brought to the Mishkan/Temple for sacrificial prayers. Or is it saying: "don't expect fruit in the first three years, but when it comes, yay, ain't god great, we have fruit trees! Sing, dance, make a party - but do it please at the Mishkan or the Temple, so that it has some religious significance as well". Given the way that Purim and Simchat Torah are celebrated in the Jewish tradition, and given the fact that Hallel is sung on all joyous occasions, including at the Passover table once the Haggadah has been read and the meal eaten, the latter is actually the more likely to be correct, though the differences between the two may not be that great.
But neither explanation states whether the fruit may then be eaten. The next verse will do that.
But neither explanation states whether the fruit may then be eaten. The next verse will do that.
HILULIM: The first reference in the Bible to what will become Hallel. Why the number four (or should we be understanding the holiness as lying in the three, and the four is simply what happens when the three are complete)? And which fruit? Other than the metaphorical fruit in the Garden of Eden, are there any actual fruit at all on the "forbidden" list? Nor is this a facetious question. Most modern Jews believe, wrongly, that the Kashrut prohibitions are a matter of hygiene; and if they were, would YHVH not also specify those fruits and vegetables and nuts and roots and tubers in Kena'an which were known to be non-edible: and these shall be detestable to you, the poison ivy and the wild fungus, the rotem (white broom) and the kikayon (castor oil), the shikaron (henbane, or deadly nightshade) and the harduf (oleander) ... yes, and the beloved mandrake, the duda'im, a plant of some significance in the rivalries of Le'ah and Rachel (Genesis 30:14 ff)?
19:25 U VA SHANAH HA CHAMISHIT TOCHLU ET PIRYO LEHOSIPH LACHEM TEVUA'TO ANI YHVH ELOHEYCHEM
וּבַשָּׁנָה הַחֲמִישִׁת תֹּאכְלוּ אֶת פִּרְיוֹ לְהוֹסִיף לָכֶם תְּבוּאָתוֹ אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם
KJ: And in the fifth year shall ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof: I am the LORD your God.
BN: But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit, and in this way it will yield to you a richer crop: I am the LORD your God.
Joyful as you were that your investment has not proven infertile, you still have one more year before you can start to pluck or pick or cut; what this does not tell us, however, is whether or not the entire produce of the tree now counts as gleanings (see verse 9 above for the produce of the field), and can therefore be taken by the poor as their allotted portion. Click here for more background on this, including the rabbinic tradition that fruit is treated the same as grain and vines, in this regard.
And one more scholarly study for you to peruse at your leisure on the time it takes for new trees to fructify: three to five years, according to today's farmers and scientists, appears to be the norm (though they may well be using chemicals!). Click here.
19:26 LO TO'CHLU AL HA DAM LO TENACHASHU VE LO TE'ONENU
לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם לֹא תְנַחֲשׁוּ וְלֹא תְעוֹנֵנוּ
KJ: Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.
BN: Ye shall not eat blood in any form. You shall not perform the serpent rites, nor take part in séances.
LO TOCHLU AL HA DAM: Is this different from the blood prohibitions given previously? Grammatically it is certainly different (grammatically it is very awkward, and might well be sent by a middle school teacher for correction).
TENACHASHU: A rare example of Yehudit creating a new verb by adding a TAV (ת) prefix to the NOUN rather than to the root which formed the noun. Modern Ivrit does this frequently, in order to add contemporary vocabulary - LETADLEK for example, for airplanes refuelling in mid-air. The method here is similar: LENACHESH is the verb, a PI'EL or intensive form, built on the noun NACHASH = "serpent" (itself a non-Yehudit word, which may be the reason for this method being needed); the VAV sufffix is the 2nd person plural.
It is, surely, absolutely impossible for Mosheh to have established this prohibition, given what he did with his serpent-rod in Mitsrayim (Egypt), and the banner - Nechushtan - that he will shortly make as the banner of the Yisra-Eli army. LENACHESH means to "divine by serpents", or "to give oracles through the mouth of a serpent", which we have seen hidden in several of the verses of Genesis and Exodus, and will find repeatedly throughout the Tanach, despite this prohibition.
Does Rabbi Yishmael have anything to say about a verse which changes subject in the middle, as this one does (whereas American legislation regularly follows this principle: whereas a bill that begins by modifying gun law ends by budgeting a tidy sum for a bridge in Illinois, whereas another defining the laws on property rentals suddenly has a clause awarding an additional contribution to the state pension fund in, say, Wyoming... whereas I suspect the reason for the shift of subject there may be different from the reason for the shift of subject here)? To which the answer is, no, alas, Rabbi Yishmael missed this.
19:27 LO TAKPHU PE'AT ROSH'CHEM VE LO TASHCHIT ET PE'AT ZEKANECHA
לֹא תַקִּפוּ פְּאַת רֹאשְׁכֶם וְלֹא תַשְׁחִית אֵת פְּאַת זְקָנֶךָ
KJ: Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
BN: You shall not round the corners of your head-hair, nor cut the corners of your beard.
Why not? As we shall learn in a moment, and already mentioned earlier, because the Mitsrim (Egyptians) did. Significant numbers of Mosaic laws, including, almost certainly, most of the Kashrut laws, are in response to the rejected laws or behaviours of Mitsrayim and Kena'an, and stated as such in Leviticus 18:3.
TAKPHU: The root, TAKAPH, is generally understood to mean "strengthen", and is used for to "assail" and to "overpower" in various later texts (Ecclesiastes 4:12, Job 14:20 et al), or having "authority" (Esther 9:29)); how then do we get from this to the idea of "rounding the corners of the head-hair"? My sense is that TAKPHU is about using artificial strengtheners, hair gels, or cosmetics against baldness (almond and castor oil were apparently the most popular - click here) - so the hair may simply be an early form of Rastafari dreadlocks.
TASHCHIT: From the same root that gives Shechitah!
19:28 VE SERET LA NEPHESH LO TITNU BIV'SARCHEM U CHETOVET KA'AKA LO TITNU BACHEM ANI YHVH
וְשֶׂרֶט לָנֶפֶשׁ לֹא תִתְּנוּ בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם וּכְתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע לֹא תִתְּנוּ בָּכֶם אֲנִי יְהוָה
KJ: Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
BN: You shall not cut your flesh for the sake of the dead, nor print tatoos on your body: I am the LORD.
Cuttings for the dead, like teenagers cutting themselves today, were a means of self-inflicting pain, in order to generate an appropriate level of emotional outpouring. The "marks" (CHETOVET KA'AKA) are generally understood to be tattoos. The former was banned because it was deemed to be masochistic, and psychologically unhealthy; the latter because the flesh is sacred and cannot be mutilated (blemished, in the language of the sacrificial animals) in any way, whether by cut or mark.
KA'AKA: This is the only Biblical instance of its usage, which makes it tough to deduce its source and root. Possibly KA'A (קעע) or KI'A (קיע) = "to burn", on the premise that tattooing the flesh is done through a process equivalent to burning. And if that is correct, then do we also have a connection with KAYIN, in that the Mark of Kayin (Cain) was the branding of a bull that had been designated for sacrifice - branding likewise being a process of burning the skin? I am not aware that anyone has made this suggestion previously.
19:29 AL TECHALEL ET BIT'CHA LE HAZNOTAH VE LO TIZNEH HA ARETS U MAL'AH HA ARETS ZIMAH
אַל תְּחַלֵּל אֶת בִּתְּךָ לְהַזְנוֹתָהּ וְלֹא תִזְנֶה הָאָרֶץ וּמָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ זִמָּה
KJ: Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
BN: Do not offer your daughter as a prostitute, lest the land fall into harlotry, and lewdness and decadence prevail.
As stated earlier (in Genesis, on several occasions), harlotry in the ancient Middle East was not the same as prostitution today (though there was probably prostitution as well). Cf Yehudah and Tamar for example (Genesis 38). There is thus both the hierodule-hierophant (KADESH-KADESHAH) practices of the harvest festival, and there is streetwalking: because the later Prophets tended to describe the former in the terms of the latter, we cannot know for certain which is intended here, but probably both. (There is a case to be made that the acceptance of polygamy and the existence of hierodule-hierophant practices in the ancient world made prostitution unnecessary; though one cannot easily imagine that this could be the case in actual human reality).
19:30 ET SHABTOTAI TISHMERU U MIKDASHI TIYRA'U ANI YHVH
אֶת שַׁבְּתֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ וּמִקְדָּשִׁי תִּירָאוּ אֲנִי יְהוָה
KJ: Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.
BN: You shall keep my sabbaths, and show respect to my Sanctuary: I am YHVH.
The chapter becomes repetitive, and begins to feel like a list - especially here, where Shabat had already been stated earlier in the chapter (verse 3). What happened to the literary style, the sense of YHVH having a personality, and it coming through the lines? This chapter is what you get at a Torah-for-beginners workshop, when the facilitator sends everyone off into break-out groups and asks them to brainstorm every commandment they can think of. A late addition surely? (And the facetiousness of my phrasing breaches the instruction in the second part of the verse - right? I know. I know)
19:31 AL TIPHNU EL HA OVOT VE EL HA YID'ONIM AL TEVAKSHU LE TAM'AH VAHEM ANI YHVH ELOHEYCHEM
אַל תִּפְנוּ אֶל הָאֹבֹת וְאֶל הַיִּדְּעֹנִים אַל תְּבַקְשׁוּ לְטָמְאָה בָהֶם אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם
KJ: Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.
BN: Do not turn to the soothsayers or the mediums; do not seek them out, and then be defiled by them: I the YHVH your god.
OVOT: The translation of this as "ghosts" in several versions marks the lowest point of the translators' efforts, and indicates a failure to read the rest of the Tanach, let alone undertake research. The concept of a ghost has no basis in any mythology or even folk-superstition of the Middle East, but really belongs to Nordic mythology in Europe. The Latin spiritus has an entirely different connotation. The nearest we can find in the ancient world is the animistic conviction that the souls of the dead pass through a state, sometimes known as Limbo, before they find their final resting place in the afterlife. But this too is unheard of as a Yisra-Eli concept, for whom the afterlife is a grave planted in the ground. The OVOT were soothsayers and oracle givers, the equivalent of horoscope and Tarot readers today, while the YIDONIM were the equivalent of today's psychics. The most famous BA'ALAT OV is the so-called Witch of En Dor, whom King Sha'ul will consult in 1 Samuel 28:3-25.
The same instruction will be given in Deuteronomy 18:11. See also my notes on Chazo - click here.
The same instruction will be given in Deuteronomy 18:11. See also my notes on Chazo - click here.
YID'ONIM: From the root YADA (ידע) = to know.
19:32 MI PENEY SEYVAH TAKUM VE HADARTA PENEY ZAKEN VA YARE'TA ME ELOHEYCHA ANI YHVH
מִפְּנֵי שֵׂיבָה תָּקוּם וְהָדַרְתָּ פְּנֵי זָקֵן וְיָרֵאתָ מֵּאֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲנִי יְהוָה
KJ: Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the LORD.
BN: You should stand in the presence of a senior citizen, and show respect at all times to the elderly. And you should fear your god: I am YHVH.
The intention is respect for elders, but the King James translation is terrible, because far too literal - just as we euphemise with "senior citizens", so did they with these "hoary heads". Exactly what grounds exist to support this law are also unclear.
Is ELOHE(Y)CHA singular here or plural? It ought to be singular, yet most Chumashim add the YUD which makes it plural. Most odd!
Why do the sentences sometimes end ANI YHVH, and sometimes ANI YHVH ELOHEYCHEM? Two versions of the text again?
19:33 VE CHI YAGUR IT'CHA GER BE ARTSECHEM LO TONU OTO
וְכִי יָגוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר בְּאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תוֹנוּ אֹתוֹ
KJ: And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
BN: And if a stranger dwells alongside you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.
This is only one of many, but perhaps the most significant, of those points at which Christians who claim that their religion is rooted in Jewish scripture, teaching and Torah need to undertake a serious self-reassessment, and seek redemption from their own history. This verse could as easily read "Thou shalt not oblige people of a different faith or colour to live in ghettoes, nor to wear special clothing that makes it clear to everyone that they are different, nor..."... you can fill in the rest as your personal history dictates; and then please send a copy as a reminder-note to the Knesset in Jerusalem.
19:34 KE EZRACH MIKEM YIHEYEH LACHEM HA GER HA GAR IT'CHEM VE AHAVTA LO KAMOCHA KI GERIM HEYIYTEM BE ERETS MITSRAYIM ANI YHVH ELOHEYCHEM
כְּאֶזְרָח מִכֶּם יִהְיֶה לָכֶם הַגֵּר הַגָּר אִתְּכֶם וְאָהַבְתָּ לוֹ כָּמוֹךָ כִּי גֵרִים הֱיִיתֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם
KJ: But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
BN: The stranger who lives alongside you shall be treated exactly the same as he who was born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Mitsrayim: I am YHVH your god.
Is this verse not merely a variant of verse 18 above?
It might also have been helpful if the text had included the feminine, rather than leaving it open to assumed inference, intrinsicness and implicitiude. Or not, if you prefer not.
It might also have been helpful if the text had included the feminine, rather than leaving it open to assumed inference, intrinsicness and implicitiude. Or not, if you prefer not.
19:35 LO TA'ASU AVEL BA MISHPAT BA MIDAH BA MISHKAL U VA MESORAH
לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ עָוֶל בַּמִּשְׁפָּט בַּמִּדָּה בַּמִּשְׁקָל וּבַמְּשׂוּרָה
KJ: Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.
BN: You shall not act unrighteously when you pass judgment in court, nor in judging weights and measures, be they solids or liquids.
MISHPAT...MIDAH, MISHKAL, MESORAH: There is a splendid play on words in this, which I have tried to capture in the English. MISHPAT is really a sentence, and it may be a grammatical one, with a subject-verb-object, or it may be a judicial one, involving a different kind of parole. In its second usage, it becomes "judgement", but we pass judgements about people all the time, and this too we are being told to do righteously, and just as we weigh up the evidence in order to reach our verdicts, so we weigh up the cloth we are selling you, or the sack of grain, and "just weights, just balances" are required in that as well - see the next verse, which continues the word-play.
19:36 MOZNEY TSEDEK AVNEY TSEDEK EYPHAT TSEDEK VE HIN TSEDEK YIHEYEH LACHEM ANI YHVH ELOHEYCHEM ASHER HOTSE'TI ET'CHEM ME ERETS MITSRAYIM
מֹאזְנֵי צֶדֶק אַבְנֵי צֶדֶק אֵיפַת צֶדֶק וְהִין צֶדֶק יִהְיֶה לָכֶם אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם
KJ: Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.
BN: Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall you have: I am YHVH your god, who brought you out of the land of Mitsrayim.
EPHAH...HIN: click here for more detail on the Biblical weights and measures.
The Torah was written down in the time of Ezra, and among the three great Prophets of that epoch was Zechar-Yah, who with Chagai was the inspiration for Zeru-Bavel, about seventy eyars before Ezra and Nechem-Yah. Why am I mentioning it? Because these are exactly the sorts of word-games in which Zechar-Yah specialised, and no better example than in Zechariah 5:6, which just happens to be centred on the very same word EYPHAH that is at the core of the word-games here (you need to read from verse 1 to get the full context). Does this, perhaps, give us a clue, not just to the dating of this chapter, but also of its authorship?
Note also the extended signature, which seems to me a further indication of a later date than the Mosaic - the point being that he hasn't yet, not fully, in Mosheh's time.
The Torah was written down in the time of Ezra, and among the three great Prophets of that epoch was Zechar-Yah, who with Chagai was the inspiration for Zeru-Bavel, about seventy eyars before Ezra and Nechem-Yah. Why am I mentioning it? Because these are exactly the sorts of word-games in which Zechar-Yah specialised, and no better example than in Zechariah 5:6, which just happens to be centred on the very same word EYPHAH that is at the core of the word-games here (you need to read from verse 1 to get the full context). Does this, perhaps, give us a clue, not just to the dating of this chapter, but also of its authorship?
Note also the extended signature, which seems to me a further indication of a later date than the Mosaic - the point being that he hasn't yet, not fully, in Mosheh's time.
19:37 U SHEMARTEM ET KOL CHUKOTAI VE ET KOL MISHPATAI VA ASIYTEM OTAM ANI YHVH
וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת כָּל חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת כָּל מִשְׁפָּטַי וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם אֲנִי יְהוָה
KJ: Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.
BN: So you shall observe all my statutes, and all my ordinances, and do them: I am YHVH.
No comments:
Post a Comment