After this remark, which you will understand when you have read such of

their works as are at present extant, and have been mentioned by me,

hear what I will tell you. It is the object and centre of the whole Law

to abolish idolatry and utterly uproot it, and to overthrow the opinion

that any of the stars could interfere for good or evil in human

matters, because it leads to the worship of stars. It was therefore

necessary to slay all witches as being undoubtedly idolaters, because

every witch is an idolater; they only have their own strange ways of

worship, which are different from the common mode of worship offered to

those deities. But in all performances of witchcraft it is laid down as

a rule that women should be employed in the chief operation; and

therefore the Law says, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” (Exod.

xxii. 17). Another reason is the natural reluctance of people to slay

women. This is also the cause why in the law of idolatry it is said

“man or woman” (Deut. xvii. 2), and again repeated a second time, “the

man or the woman” (ibid. ver. 5)—a phrase which does not occur in the

law about the breaking of Sabbath, or in any other law; for great

sympathy is naturally shown to women. Now the witches believed that

they produced a certain result by their witchcraft; that they were able

through the above-mentioned actions to drive such dangerous animals as

lions, serpents, and the like out of the cities, and to remove various

kinds of damage from the products of the earth. Thus they imagine that

they are able by certain acts to prevent hail from coming down, and by

certain other acts to kill the worms in the vineyards, whereby the

latter are protected from injury; in fact, the killing of the worms in

vineyards, and other superstitions mentioned in the Nabatean

Agriculture, are fully described by the Sabeans. They likewise imagine

that they know certain acts by which they can prevent the dropping of

leaves from the trees and the untimely falling of their fruit. On

account of these ideas, which were general in those days, the Law

declares in “the words of the covenant” as follows: The same idolatry

and superstitious performances which, in your belief, keep certain

misfortunes far from you, will cause those very misfortunes to befall

you. “I will also send wild beasts among you” (Lev. xxvi. 22); “I will

also send the teeth of wild beasts upon them, with the poison of those

that creep in dust” (Deut. xxxii. 24). “The fruit of thy land, and all

thy labours, shall a nation, which thou knowest not, eat up” (ibid.

xxviii. 33). “Thou shalt plant vineyards and dress them, but shalt

neither drink of the wine nor gather the grapes, etc. Thou shalt have

olive trees throughout all thy coasts, but thou shalt not anoint

thyself with the oil” (Deut. xxviii. 39, 40). In short, in spite of the

schemes of idolaters to support and firmly establish their doctrine,

and to make people believe that by idolatry certain misfortunes could

be averted and certain benefits gained, worship of idols will, on the

contrary, as is stated in “the words of the covenant,” prevent the

advantages and bring the troubles. The reader will now understand why,

of all kinds of curses and blessings, those mentioned in “the words of

the covenant” have been selected by the Law, and particularly pointed

out. Note also the greatness of the benefit [of these laws].

In order that we may keep far from all kinds of witchcraft, we are

warned not to adopt any of the practices of the idolaters, even such as

are connected with agriculture, the keeping of cattle, and similar

work. [The Law prohibits] everything that the idolaters, according to

their doctrine, and contrary to reason, consider as being useful and

acting in the manner of certain mysterious forces. Comp. “Neither shall

ye walk in their ordinances” (Lev. xviii. 3). “And ye shall not walk in

the manners of the nation which I cast out before you” (ibid. xx. 23).

Our Sages call such acts “the ways of the Amorite”; they are kinds of

witchcraft, because they are not arrived at by reason, but are similar

to the performances of witchcraft, which is necessarily connected with

the influences of the stars; thus [“the manners of the nations”] lead

people to extol, worship, and praise the stars. Our Sages say

distinctly, “whatever is used as medicine” does not come under the law

of “the ways of the Amorite”; for they hold that only such cures as are

recommended by reason are permitted, and other cures are prohibited.

When, therefore, the dictum was quoted: a tree that casts off its fruit

may be laden with stone or dyed with red colour, the following

objection was raised: The loading of the tree with stones may be

justified on the plea that it serves to weaken the strength of the

tree, but why should it be permitted to dye the tree with red colour?

This question shows that the dyeing of the tree with red colour, and

all similar things which are not explained by analogy from nature, are

prohibited as “ways of the Amorite.” For the same reason our Sages

said, “The uterus of animals which have been selected for the Sanctuary

must be buried; it must not be suspended from a tree, and not buried in

the cross-road, because this is one of ‘the ways of the Amorite.’”

Hence you may learn how to treat similar cases.

It is not inconsistent that a nail of the gallows and the tooth of a

fox have been permitted to be used as cures; for these things have been

considered in those days as facts established by experiment. They

served as cures, in the same manner as the hanging of the peony over a

person subject to epileptic fits, or the application of a dog’s refuse

to the swellings of the throat, and of the vapours of vinegar and

marcasite to the swelling of hard tumours. For the Law permits as

medicine everything that has been verified by experiment, although it

cannot be explained by analogy. The above-named cures are permitted in

the same way as the application of purgatives. Learn, reader, these

noteworthy lessons from this my work, and keep them; “for they are a

diadem of grace for thy head” (Prov. iv.).

We have explained in our large work that it is prohibited to round the

corners of the head, and to mar the corners of the beard, because it

was the custom of idolatrous priests. For the same reason, the wearing

of garments made of linen and wool is prohibited; the heathen priests

adorned themselves with garments containing vegetable and animal

material, whilst they held in their hand a seal made of a mineral. This

you find written in their books. The same is also the reason of the

precept, “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man”

(Deut. xxii. 5). You find it in the book Tomtom, that a male person

should wear coloured woman’s dress when he stands before Venus, and a

female, when standing before Mars, should wear a buckler and other

armour. I think that this precept has also another reason; namely, that

the interchange of dress creates lust and leads to immorality.

It is easily understood why it is prohibited to derive any benefit

whatever from an idol. For sometimes a person buys it with the

intention to break it, but keeps it, and it becomes a snare to him.

Even if he broke it, recast it, and sold it to a heathen, he must not

use the money which he received in exchange for the idol; because

people frequently mistake accidental circumstances for essential

causes; thus most people say of a certain person that he has become

rich and wealthy after having dwelt in a certain house, or bought a

certain animal or vessel; and that these things were a blessing to him.

In the same way a person may be successful and make a good profit on

the business in which he employed the money received for the idol; he

might then think that the idol was the cause of his success, and that

the blessing of the money received for it brought him the profit; he

would then believe in the idol; a belief which is just the reverse of

the chief object of the Law, as is clearly seen in every word of it.

For this same reason, we are forbidden to turn to our use the covering

of the idol, its offerings and vessels. We are thus guarded against the

idea [of ascribing our success to idols]. In those days the belief in

the stars was very strong; it was generally assumed that life and

death, good and evil, depended on the stars. The Law employed therefore

strong means, as covenant, witnesses, great oaths, and the

above-mentioned [blessings and] curses, in order to overthrow that

belief. We are thus commanded to abstain from taking any portion of the

idol, and deriving any benefit from it; and God tells us that if money

received for idols be mixed with any person’s property, it will bring

loss and ruin to that property. This warning is contained in the words:

“Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be

a cursed thing like it” (Deut. vii. 26). How much more wrong must it be

to believe that there is a blessing in idols. When you examine all the

precepts that relate to idolatry, you will find that their reason is

obvious, and that they serve to make us abandon this evil belief, and

keep at the greatest possible distance from it.

We must also point out that originators of false, baseless, and useless

principles scheme and plan for the firm establishment of their faith;

and tell their fellow-men that a certain plague will befall those who

will not perform the act by which that faith is supported and confirmed

for ever; this plague may one day accidentally befall a person, who

will then direct his attention to the performance of that act, and

adopt idolatry. It being well known that people are naturally most in

fear and dread of the loss of their property and their children, the

worshippers of fire spread the tale, that if any one did not pass his

son and daughter through the fire, he will lose his children by death.

There is no doubt that on account of this absurd menace every one at

once obeyed, out of pity and sympathy for the child; especially as it

was a trifling and a light thing that was demanded, in passing the

child over the fire. We must further take into account that the care of

young children is intrusted to women, who are generally weak-minded,

and ready to believe everything, as is well known. The Law makes,

therefore, an earnest stand against this practice, and uses in

reference to it stronger terms than in any other kind of idolatry;

namely, “he defileth my sanctuary, and profaneth my holy name” (Lev.

xx. 3). The true prophet then declares in the name of God that the very

act which is performed for the purpose of keeping the child alive, will

bring death upon him who performs it, and destruction upon his seed.

Comp. “And I will set my face against that man and against his family,”

etc. (ibid. xx. 5). Know that traces of this practice have survived

even to the present day, because it was widespread in the world. You

can see how midwives take a young child wrapped in its

swaddling-clothes, and after having placed incense of a disagreeable

smell on the fire, swing the child in the smoke over that fire. This is

certainly a kind of passing children through the fire, and we must not

do it. Reflect on the evil cunning of the author of this doctrine; how

people continued to adhere to this doctrine, and how, in spite of the

opposition of the Law during thousands of years, its name is not

blotted out, and its traces are still in existence.

Idolaters have acted similarly in reference to property. They made it a

law that a certain tree, the asherah, should be worshipped, and that of

its fruit one part should be offered, and the rest consumed in the

temple of the idol; this is stated in the regulations concerning the

asherah. In the same manner, they made it a rule, that the first-fruit

of every fruit-tree should be partly offered as a sacrifice and partly

consumed in the idol’s temple. It was also a widespread belief that if

the first-fruit of any tree was not treated in this manner, the tree

would dry up, its fruit would be cast off, its increase would be

diminished, or some disease would come over it; just as they spread the

belief that every child, that was not passed through the fire, must

die. People in their anxiety for their property obeyed also this

precept unhesitatingly. The Law, in opposition to this doctrine,

commanded us to burn the produce of fruit-trees the first three years;

for some trees bear fruit after one year, whilst some begin to yield

fruit after two, and others after three years. The law is based upon

the nature of trees grown in an ordinary way, namely, in one of the

three well-known methods: planting, propagation, and inoculation

(netiʻah, habrakah, and harcabah). The Law does not take notice of the

case that a kernel or stone is sown; for the ordinances of the Law are

based on the usual condition of things, and as a rule a young tree in

Palestine bears fruit for the first time not later than the third year

after it has been planted. According to the divine promise, the waste

and destruction of this first-fruit of the tree will be followed by

years of plenty of fruit; for it is said, “that it may increase unto

you the fruit thereof” (Lev. xix. 25). The fruit of the fourth year we

are commanded to eat before God, instead of [the heathen custom of]

eating ʻorlah, “the fruit of the preceding years,” in the temples of

the idols, as has been described by us.

It is further mentioned in the Nabatean Agriculture that the ancient

idolaters caused certain things named in that work to rot, waited till

the sun stood in a certain degree [of the ecliptic], and then they

performed many acts of witchcraft. They believed that that substance

should be kept ready by every one, and when a fruit-tree is planted, a

portion of that rotten substance should be scattered round the tree or

under it; the tree would then grow quicker and produce more fruit than

is generally the case. They say that this process is very

extraordinary; it acts like a talisman, and is more efficient than any

kind of witchcraft in accelerating the productiveness of fruit-trees. I

have already shown and explained to you how the Law opposes all kinds

of witchcraft. The Law, therefore, prohibits us to use the fruit

yielded by a tree in the first three years after it has been planted,

so that there should be no opportunity for accelerating, according to

their imagination, the productiveness of any tree. After three years

most fruit-trees in Palestine yield fruit by the ordinary course of

nature, without the application of those magical performances which

were very general in those days. Note this remarkable fact.

Another belief which was very common in those days, and survived the

Sabeans, is this: When a tree is grafted into another in the time of a

certain conjunction of sun and moon, and is fumigated with certain

substances whilst a formula is uttered, that tree will produce a thing

that will be found exceedingly useful. More general than anything

mentioned by the heathen writers was the ceremony of grafting an olive

branch upon a citron tree, as described in the beginning of the

Nabatean Agriculture. I am of opinion that the book of medicines which

Hezekiah put away (B. T. Pes. 56a) was undoubtedly of this kind. They

also said that when one species is grafted upon another, the branch

which is to be grafted must be in the hand of a beautiful damsel,

whilst a male person has disgraceful and unnatural sexual intercourse

with her; during that intercourse the woman grafts the branch into the

tree. There is no doubt that this ceremony was general, and that nobody

refused to perform it, especially as the pleasure of love was added to

the (supposed) future results of the grafting. The Law, therefore,

prohibits us to mix different species together, i.e., to graft one tree

into another, because we must keep away from the opinions of idolaters

and the abominations of their unnatural sexual intercourse. In order to

guard against the grafting of trees, we are forbidden to sow any two

kinds of seed together or near each other. When you study the

traditional explanation of this precept, you will find that the

prohibition of grafting, the principal element in this commandment,

holds good for all countries, and is punishable by forty stripes; but

the sowing of seeds one near the other is only prohibited in Palestine.

In the Nabatean Agriculture it is further distinctly stated that it was

the custom of the people in those days to sow barley and stones of

grapes together, in the belief that the vineyard could only prosper in

this way. Therefore the Law prohibits us to use seed that has grown in

a vineyard, and commands us to burn both the barley and the produce of

the vineyard. For the practices of the heathen, which they considered

as of a magic and talismanic character, even if not containing any

idolatrous element, are prohibited, as we have stated above (p. 334) in

reference to the dictum of our Sages, “We must not hang upon a tree the

fœtus of an animal belonging to the Sanctuary.” The Law prohibits all

heathen customs, called by our Sages “the ways of the Amorite,” because

they are connected with idolatry. On considering the customs of the

heathen in their worship, you will find that in certain kinds of

worship they turn toward stars, in others to the two great luminaries;

frequently they choose the rise of signs in the Zodiac for sowing and

fumigating; and as to the circuits made by those who plant or sow, some

complete five circles, corresponding to the five planets, with the

exclusion of the two luminaries; others go seven times round, according

to the number of the planets, when including sun and moon. They believe

that all these practices are magic charms of great efficiency in

agriculture. Thus those practices lead to the worship of stars; and

therefore all practices of those nations have been prohibited, in the

words, “Ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation which I cast out

before you” (Lev. xx. 23). Those practices which were more general and

common, or were distinctly connected with idolatry, are particularly

pointed out as prohibited; e.g., eating the fruit of a tree during the

first three years, intermixing of species and the mixed species sown in

a vineyard. I am surprised at the dictum of Rabbi Joshiyah, which has

been adopted as legally binding, in reference to the mixed seed in a

vineyard, viz., that the law is only transgressed when wheat, barley,

and the stone of a grape are sown simultaneously. He must undoubtedly

have seen the source of that kind of the ways of the Amorite. It must

now be clear to you, and no room can be left for any doubt, that the

prohibition of wearing garments of wool and linen, of using the fruit

of a tree in the first three years, and of mixing divers species, are

directed against idolatry, and that the prohibition against adopting

heathen manners serves to remove anything which leads to idolatry, as

has been shown by us.

CHAPTER XXXVIII

The precepts of the third class are identical with those which we have

enumerated in Hilkot deʻot. Their use is evident; they are rules

concerning moral conduct by which the social relations of men are

regulated. This is sufficiently clear, and I need not dwell long on it.

Know that some precepts prescribe certain acts which are considered as

arbitrary decrees without any purpose, but are nevertheless the means

of acquiring some moral principle. We shall explain every one of them

in its proper place. But of all those precepts which are mentioned in

Hilkot deʻot, it is distinctly stated that their object is to inculcate

good moral principles.

CHAPTER XXXIX

The precepts in the fourth class include the laws which in our work are

contained in the section Zeraʻim, excepting the laws on the mixture of

species; the rules about things to be “valued” and things “devoted”

(Hilkot ʻerekin va-ḥaramim), and those concerning lender and borrower

(Hilkot malveh ve-loveh) and slaves (Hilkot ʻabadim). When you examine

these precepts you will clearly see the use of every one of them: they

teach us to have sympathy with the poor and infirm, to assist the needy

in various ways; not to hurt the feelings of those who are in want, and

not to vex those who are in a helpless condition [viz., the widow, the

orphan, and the like]. The purpose of the laws concerning the portions

which are to be given to the poor is likewise obvious; the reason of

the laws concerning the heave-offerings and the tithe is distinctly

stated: “for he hath no portion and inheritance with thee” (Deut. xiv.

29). You certainly know that the Levites had no portion, because their

whole tribe was to be exclusively engaged in the service of God and the

study of the Law. They shall not plow or cut the corn, but shall only

minister to God. “They shall teach Jacob thy judgments and Israel thy

law: they shall put incense before thee” (Deut. xxxiii. 10). In the Law

we meet frequently with the phrase, “the Levite, the stranger, and the

orphan and the widow”; for the Levite is reckoned among the poor

because he had no property. The second tithe was commanded to be spent

on food in Jerusalem; in this way the owner was compelled to give part

of it away as charity. As he was not able to use it otherwise than by

way of eating and drinking, he must have easily been induced to give it

gradually away. This rule brought multitudes together in one place, and

strengthened the bond of love and brotherhood among the children of

men. The law concerning the fruit of a tree in its fourth year has some

relation to idolatrous customs, as has been stated by us (chap.

xxxvii.), and is connected with the law concerning the fruit of a tree

in its first three years. But it has in addition the same object as the

law concerning the heave-offering (Deut. xviii. 4), the dough-offering

(ḥallah) (Num. xv. 20), the first-fruit (Exod. xxiii. 19), and the

first of the shearing (Deut. xviii. 4). For the first of everything is

to be devoted to the Lord; and by doing so man accustoms himself to be

liberal, and to limit his appetite for eating and his desire for

property. The same is the reason why the priest took the shoulder, the

two cheeks, and the maw (Deut. xviii. 3); the cheek being the first

part of the body of animals, the right shoulder the first of the

extremities of the body, and the maw the first of all inwards.

The reciting of a certain portion of the Law when the first-fruits are

brought to the temple, tends also to create humility. For he who brings

the first-fruits takes the basket upon his shoulders and proclaims the

kindness and goodness of God. This ceremony teaches man that it is

essential in the service of God to remember the times of trouble and

the history of past distress, in days of comfort. The Law lays stress

on this duty in several places; comp. “And thou shalt remember that

thou hast been a slave,” etc. (Deut. v. 15). For it is to be feared

that those who become great in riches and comfort might, as is

generally the case, fall into the vices of insolence and haughtiness,

and abandon all good principles. Comp. “Lest thou eat and be full,

etc., and thine heart be lifted up and thou forget the Lord” (ibid.

viii. 12–14); “And Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked” (ibid. xxx. 15). On

account of this fear the Law commanded us to read each year a certain

portion before the Lord and His glory, when we offer the first-fruit.

You know how much the Law insists that we shall always remember the

plagues that have befallen the Egyptians; comp. “That thou mayest

remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all

the days of thy life” (ibid. xvi. 3); “That thou mayest tell in the

ears of thy son what things I have wrought in Egypt” (Exod. x. 2). Such

a law was necessary in order to perpetuate the memory of the departure

from Egypt; because such events verify prophecy and the doctrine of

reward and punishment. The benefit of every commandment that serves to

keep certain miracles in remembrance, or to perpetuate true faith, is

therefore obvious.

In reference to the law concerning the first-born of man and cattle it

is distinctly said, “And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let

us go, that the Lord slew all the first-born in the land of Egypt,

etc., therefore I sacrifice to the Lord,” etc. (Exod. xiii. 15). But it

can easily be explained why only cattle, sheep, and asses are mentioned

in this law; these are kept as domestic animals, and are found in most

places, especially in Palestine, where the Israelites were shepherds,

they, their fathers, and forefathers; comp. “Thy servants are

shepherds, both we and also our fathers” (Gen. xlvii. 3). Horses and

camels, however, are not wanted by shepherds, and are not found in all

places; thus in the booty of Midian (Num. xxxi.) no other animals are

mentioned but oxen, sheep, and asses. But asses alone are indispensable

to all people, especially to those who are engaged in the field or in

the forest. Thus Jacob says, “I have oxen and asses” (Gen. xxxii. 5).

Camels and horses are not possessed by many people, but only by a few,

and are only found in a few places. The law that the first-born of an

ass was to have its neck broken [in case it is not redeemed], will only

ensure the redemption of the ass. It has, therefore, been said that the

act of redeeming the ass is to be preferred to that of breaking its

neck.

As to the precepts enumerated in the laws concerning the year of

release and the jubilee (Hilkot shemittah ve-yobel) some of them imply

sympathy with our fellow-men, and promote the well-being of mankind;

for in reference to these precepts it is stated in the Law, “That the

poor of thy people may eat” (Exod. xxiii. 11); and besides, the land

will also increase its produce and improve when it remains fallow for

some time. Other precepts of this class prescribe kindness to servants

and to the poor, by renouncing all claims to debts [in the year of

release], and relieving the slaves of their bondage [in the seventh

year]. There are some precepts in this class that serve to secure for

the people a permanent source of maintenance and support by providing

that the land should remain the permanent property of its owners, and

that it could not be sold. “And the land shall not be sold for ever”

(Lev. xxv. 23). In this way the property of a person remains intact for

him and his heirs, and he can only enjoy the produce thereof. I have

thus explained the reason of all precepts contained in our work in the

Section Zeraiʻim, with the exception of the laws concerning the

intermixture of different species of beasts the reason of which will be

given (chap. xlix.).

In the same manner we find that all the precepts comprised in “the laws

on valuations,” and on “things devoted” are based on the principle of

charity; some of them prescribe what should be given to the priests;

others tell us what must be devoted to the repairs of the temple. The

practice of all these things accustoms man to act liberally and to

spend money unhesitatingly to the glory of God. For it is in the nature

of man to strive to gain money and to increase it; and his great desire

to add to his wealth and honour is the chief source of misery for man.

Also the precepts contained in “the laws concerning the relation

between lender and borrower” (Hilkot malveh veloveh) will be found, on

being carefully examined, to be nothing but commands to be lenient,

merciful and kind to the needy, not to deprive them of the use of

anything indispensable in the preparation of food. “No man shall take

the nether or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh a man’s life

to pledge” (Deut. xxiv. 6).

The precepts contained in “the laws concerning slaves” (Hilkot

ʻabadim), likewise prescribe only acts of pity, mercy and kindness to

the poor. It is an act of mercy to give liberty to a Canaanite servant

for the loss of one of his limbs (Exod. xxi. 26, 27), in order that he

should not suffer from slavery and illness at the same time. The law

applies even to the case that a tooth of a slave has been knocked out,

much more to the mutilation of other limbs. He could only be corrected

with a rod or reed or the like, as we have stated in Mishneh-torah.

Besides, if the master strikes the slave too hard and kills him, he is

punished with death as for ordinary murder. Mercy is also the object of

the law, “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant that is

escaped from his master” (Deut. xxiii. 15); but it teaches besides a

very useful lesson, namely, that we must always practise this virtue,

help and protect those who seek our help, and not deliver them unto

those from whom they flee; and it is not sufficient to give assistance

to those who are in need of our help; we must look after their

interests, be kind to them, and not hurt their feeling by words. Thus

the Law says: “He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place

which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best:

thou shalt not vex him” (ibid. ver. 16). This we owe to the lowest

among men, to the slave; how much more must we do our duty to the

freeborn, when they seek our assistance? But, on the other hand, when

sinners and evildoers seek our help, it must not be granted; no mercy

must be shown to them, and the course of justice must not be interfered

with, even if they claim the protection of that which is noblest and

highest; for “Thou shalt take him from mine altar that he may die”

(Exod. xxi. 14). Here a person comes to seek the help of God, and

claims the protection of that which is devoted to his name; God,

however, does not help him, and commands that he be delivered up to the

prosecutor, from whom he fled. Much less need any one of us help or

pity his fellow-men [under such circumstances]; because mercy on

sinners is cruelty to all creatures. These are undoubtedly the right

ways designated “righteous statutes and judgments” (Deut. iv. 8), and

different from the ways of the fools, who consider a person

praiseworthy when he helps and protects his fellow-men, without

discriminating between the oppressor and the oppressed. This is well

known from their words and songs.

The reason and usefulness of every precept of this class has thus been

clearly demonstrated.

CHAPTER XL

The precepts of the fifth class, enumerated in the Section “On Damages”

(Sepher neziḳin), aim at the removal of wrong and the prevention of

injury. As we are strongly recommended to prevent damage, we are

responsible for every damage caused by our property or through our work

in so far as it is in our power to take care and to guard it from

becoming injurious. We are, therefore, responsible for all damage

caused by our cattle; we must guard them. The same is the case with

fire and pits; they are made by man, and he can be careful that they do

not cause damage. I will point out the equity of the various laws in

this respect. No compensation is enforced for damage caused by the

mouth or the foot of an animal in a public thoroughfare; because this

cannot be guarded against, and the damage caused there is not very

large. Those who place their things in a public place are themselves

guilty of neglect, and expose their property to injury. But

compensation is given for damage caused to the property of a person in

his own field by the tooth or the foot of an animal. It is different in

the case of damage caused by the horn of animals or the like. The

animal can be guarded everywhere [and prevented from causing injury],

whilst those who pass public thoroughfares cannot sufficiently take

care against accidents of this kind. In this case the law is the same

for all places; but there is a difference whether the owner of the

animal has been warned concerning it or not (muʻad or tam). If the

animal has not been in the habit of causing damage, the owner need only

pay half the damage; but damage caused by an animal which has been in

the habit of doing so, and has been known as savage, must be paid in

full. The compensation for a slave is uniformly estimated at half the

value fixed for a free man. For in the law concerning the valuation of

man you find the highest valuation at sixty shekels, whilst the money

to be paid for a slave is fixed at thirty shekels silver. The killing

of an animal that has killed a human being (Exod. xxi. 28, 29) is not a

punishment to the animal, as the dissenters insinuate against us, but

it is a fine imposed on the owner of that animal. For the same reason

the use of its flesh is prohibited. The owner of an animal will,

therefore, take the greatest possible care in guarding it; he will know

that if any person is killed by the animal, whether that person be

grown up or young, free or in bondage, he forfeits at least the animal;

and in case he has already received a warning concerning it, he will

have to pay a ransom in addition to the loss of the animal. This is

also the reason why a beast is killed that has been used by a human

being for an immoral purpose (Lev. xx. 15, 16); its owner will be more

careful as regards his beast, will guard it, and never lose sight of

it, just as he watches his household: for people fear the loss of their

property as much as that of their own life; some even more, but most

people hold both in the same estimation. Comp. “and to take us for

bondmen, and our asses” (Gen. xliii. 18).

This class includes also the duty of killing him who pursues another

person; that is to say, if a person is about to commit a crime we may

prevent it by killing him. Only in two cases is this permitted; viz.,

when a person runs after another in order to murder him, or in order to

commit fornication; because in these two cases the crime, once

committed; cannot be remedied. In the case of other sins, punished with

death by the court of law, such as idolatry and profanation of the

Sabbath, by which the sinner does no harm to another person, and which

concern only his own principles, no person may be killed for the mere

intention, if he has not carried it out.

It is known that desire is denounced because it leads to coveting, and

the latter is prohibited because it leads to robbery, as has been said

by our Sages.

The object of the law of restoring lost property to its owner (Deut.

xxii. 1–3) is obvious. In the first instance, it is in itself a good

feature in man’s character. Secondly, its benefit is mutual; for if a

person does not return the lost property of his fellow-man, nobody will

restore to him what he may lose, just as those who do not honour their

parents cannot expect to be honoured by their children.

A person who killed another person unknowingly must go into exile

(Exod. xxi. 13; Num. xxxv. 11–28); because the anger of “the avenger of

the blood” (Num. xxxv. 19) cools down while the cause of the mischief

is out of sight. The chance of returning from the exile depends on the

death of [the high-priest], the most honoured of men, and the friend of

all Israel. By his death the relative of the slain person becomes

reconciled (ibid. ver. 25); for it is a natural phenomenon that we find

consolation in our misfortune when the same misfortune or a greater one

has befallen another person. Amongst us no death causes more grief than

that of the high-priest.

The beneficial character of the law concerning “the breaking of the

neck of a heifer” (Deut. xxi. 1–8) is evident. For it is the city that

is nearest to the slain person that brings the heifer, and in most

cases the murderer comes from that place. The elders of the place call

upon God as their witness, according to the interpretation of our

Sages, that they have always kept the roads in good condition, have

protected them, and have directed every one that asked his way; that

the person has not been killed because they were careless in these

general provisions, and they do not know who has slain him. As a rule

the investigation, the procession of the elders, the measuring, and the

taking of the heifer, make people talk about it, and by making the

event public, the murderer may be found out, and he who knows of him,

or has heard of him, or has discovered him by any due, will now name

the person that is the murderer, and as soon as a man, or even a woman

or handmaid, rises up and names a certain person as having committed

the murder, the heifer is not killed. It is well known that it is

considered great wickedness and guilt on the part of a person who knows

the murderer, and is silent about him whilst the elders call upon God

as witness that they know nothing about the murderer. Even a woman

will, therefore, communicate whatever knowledge she has of him. When

the murderer is discovered, the benefit of the law is apparent. If the

court of justice cannot sentence him to death, the king may find him

guilty, who has the power to sentence to death on circumstantial

evidence; and if the king does not put him to death, the avenger of

blood may scheme and plan his death, and at last kill him. We have thus

shown the use of the law concerning the breaking of the neck of the

heifer in discovering the murderer. Force is added to the law by the

rule that the place in which the neck of the heifer is broken should

never be cultivated or sown. The owner of the land will therefore use

all means in his power to search and to find the murderer, in order

that the heifer be not killed and his land be not made useless to him.

CHAPTER XLI

The precepts of the sixth class comprise the different ways of

punishing the sinner. Their general usefulness is known and has also

been mentioned by us. I will here describe them one by one and point

out their nature in detail.

The punishment of him who sins against his neighbour consists in the

general rule that there shall be done unto him exactly as he has done:

if he injured any one personally, he must suffer personally; if he

damaged the property of his neighbour, he shall be punished by loss of

property. But the person whose property has been damaged should be

ready to resign his claim totally or partly. Only to the murderer we

must not be lenient because of the greatness of his crime; and no

ransom must be accepted of him. “And the land cannot be cleansed of the

blood that is shed therein but by the blood of him that shed it” (Num.

xxxi. 33). Hence even if the murdered person continued to live after

the attack for an hour or for days, was able to speak and possessed

complete consciousness, and if he himself said, “Pardon my murderer, I

have pardoned and forgiven him,” he must not be obeyed. We must take

life for life, and estimate equally the life of a child and that of a

grown-up person, of a slave and of a freeman, of a wise man and of a

fool. For there is no greater sin than this. And he who mutilated a

limb of his neighbour, must himself lose a limb. “As he hath caused a

blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again” (Lev. xxiv. 20).

You must not raise an objection from our practice of imposing a fine in

such cases. For we have proposed to ourselves to give here the reason

for the precepts mentioned in the Law, and not for that which is stated

in the Talmud. I have, however, an explanation for the interpretation

given in the Talmud, but it will be communicated vivâ voce. Injuries

that cannot be reproduced exactly in another person, are compensated

for by payment; “only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall

cause him to be thoroughly healed” (Exod. xxi. 19). If any one damaged

the property of another, he must lose exactly as much of his own

property: “whom the judges shall condemn he shall pay double unto his

neighbour” (Exod. xxii. 8); namely, he restores that which he has

taken, and adds just as much [to it] of his own property. It is right

that the more frequent transgressions and sins are, and the greater the

probability of their being committed, the more severe must their

punishment be, in order to deter people from committing them; but sins

which are of rare occurrence require a less severe punishment. For this

reason one who stole a sheep had to pay twice as much as for other

goods, i.e., four times the value of the stolen object; but this is

only the case when he has disposed of it by sale or slaughter (Exod.

xxi. 37). As a rule, the sheep remained always in the fields, and could

therefore not be watched so carefully as things kept in town. The thief

of a sheep used therefore to sell it quickly before the theft became

known, or to slaughter it and thereby change its appearance. As such

theft happened frequently, the punishment was severe. The compensation

for a stolen ox is still greater by one-fourth, because the theft is

easily carried out. The sheep keep together when they feed, and can be

watched by the shepherd, so that theft when it is committed can only

take place by night. But oxen when feeding are very widely scattered,

as is also mentioned in the Nabatean Agriculture, and a shepherd cannot

watch them properly; theft of oxen is therefore a more frequent

occurrence.

The law concerning false witnesses (Deut. xix. 19) prescribes that they

shall suffer exactly the same loss which they intended to inflict upon

another. If they intended to bring a sentence of death against a

person, they are killed; if they aimed at the punishment of stripes,

they receive stripes; and if they desire to make a person pay money,

they are sentenced to pay exactly the same sum. The object of all these

laws is to make the punishment equal to the crime; and it is also on

this account that the judgments are “righteous” (Deut. iv. 8). A robber

with violence is not ordered to pay anything as fine (Lev. v. 24); the

additional fifth part [of the value of the robbed goods] is only an

atonement-offering for his perjury. The reason of this rule is to be

found in the rare occurrence of robbery; theft is committed more

frequently than robbery, for theft can be committed everywhere; robbery

is not possible in towns, except with difficulty; besides, the thief

takes things exposed as well as things hidden away; robbery applies

only to things exposed; against robbery we can guard and defend

ourselves; we cannot do so against theft; again, the robber is known,

can be sought, and forced to return that which he has robbed, whilst

the thief is not known. On account of all these circumstances the law

fines the thief and not the robber.

Preliminary Remark.—Whether the punishment is great or small, the pain

inflicted intense or less intense, depends on the following four

conditions.

1. The greatness of the sin. Actions that cause great harm are punished

severely, whilst actions that cause little harm are punished less

severely.

2. The frequency of the crime. A crime that is frequently committed

must be put down by severe punishment; crimes of rare occurrence may be

suppressed by a lenient punishment considering that they are rarely

committed.

3. The amount of temptation. Only fear of a severe punishment remains

us from actions for which there exists a great temptation, either

because we have a great desire for these actions, or are accustomed to

them, or feel unhappy without them.

4. The facility of doing the thing secretly, and unseen and unnoticed.

From such acts we are deterred only by the fear of a great and terrible

punishment.

After this preliminary remark, I say that the precepts of the Law may

be divided into the following four classes with respect to the

punishment for their transgression:—(1) Precepts whose transgression is

followed by sentence of death pronounced by a court of law. (2)

Precepts whose transgression is punished with excision, such

transgression being held to be a very great sin. (3) In some cases the

transgression is punished by stripes administered with a strap (such

transgression not being considered a grievous sin, as it concerns only

a simple prohibition); or by “death by Heaven.” (4) Precepts the

transgression of which is not punished [even] by stripes. Prohibitions

of this kind are all those that involve no act. But there are the

following exceptions: [First], Swearing falsely, because it is gross

neglect of man’s duty, who ought to bear constantly in mind the

greatness of God. [Secondly], Changing an animal devoted to the

sanctuary for another (Lev. xxvii. 10), because this change leads to

contemning sacrifices devoted to the name of God. [Thirdly], Cursing a

person by the name of God (ibid. xix. 14); because many dread the

effect of a curse more than bodily harm. The transgression of other

negative commandments that involve no act causes little harm, and

cannot always be avoided, as it consists in mere words; moreover, man’s

back would be inflicted with stripes all the year round if he were to

be punished with stripes for each transgression of this kind. Besides,

previous warning is impossible in this case. There is also wisdom in

the number of stripes; for although the number of their maximum is

given, there is no fixed number how many are to be applied to each

person; each man receives only as many stripes as he can bear, but not

more than forty (Deut. xxv. 3), even if he be strong enough for a

hundred.

The “death by the court of law” is not inflicted for the transgression

of any of the dietary laws; because in such a case no great harm is

done, and the temptation of man to transgress these laws is not so

great as the temptation to the enjoyment of sexual intercourse. In some

of the dietary laws the punishment is excision. This is the case with

the prohibition of eating blood (Lev. xvii. 26). For in ancient days

people were very eager and anxious to eat blood as a kind of idolatrous

ceremony, as is explained in the book Tomtom, and therefore the

prohibition of eating blood is made very stringent. Excision is also

the punishment for eating fat; because people enjoy it, and because it

was distinguished and sanctified by its use in the offerings. The

eating of leavened bread on Passover (Exod. xii. 15), and breaking the

fast on the Day of Atonement (Lev. xxiii. 29), are likewise punished

with excision: [first] on account of the great discomfort which the

obedience to the law causes in these cases; [secondly] on account of

the principles of faith which the laws of Passover and of the Day of

Atonement inculcate: they confirm fundamental principles of the Law,

viz., the belief in the wonderful departure [of Israel] from Egypt, and

in the effect of repentance, according to the words, “For on this day

will he forgive you” (Lev. xvi. 31). Just as in the case of eating fat,

so is excision also announced as a punishment when a person eats that

which is left [of a sacrifice beyond its limited time], or partakes of

a sacrifice which has been made abominable; or when an unclean person

eats of holy things (ibid. vii. 16–21). The object of this severity is

to increase the estimation of the offering in the eyes of the people,

as has been shown.

Death by the court of law is decreed in important cases: when faith is

undermined, or a great crime is committed, viz., idolatry, incest,

murder, or actions that lead to these crimes. It is further decreed for

breaking the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 15); because the keeping of Sabbath

is a confirmation of our belief in the Creation; a false prophet and a

rebellious elder are put to death on account of the mischief which they

cause; he who strikes his father or his mother is killed on account of

his great audacity, and because he undermines the constitution of the

family, which is the foundation of the state. A rebellious and

disobedient son is put to death (Deut. xxi. 18 seq.) on account of what

he might become, because he will likely be a murderer; he who steals a

human being is killed, because he is also prepared to kill him whom he

steals (Exod. xxi. 16). Likewise he who is found breaking into a house

is prepared for murder (ibid. xxii. 1), as our Sages stated. These

three, the rebellious and disobedient son, he who steals and sells a

human being, and he who breaks into a house, become murderers in the

course of time, as is well known. Capital punishment is only decreed

for these serious crimes, and in no other case. Not all forbidden

sexual intercourse is visited with the penalty of death, but only in

those cases in which the criminal act can easily be done, is of

frequent occurrence, is base and disgraceful, and of a tempting

character; otherwise excision is the punishment. Likewise not all kinds

of idolatry are capital crimes, but only the principal acts of

idolatry, such as praying to an idol, prophesying in its name, passing

a child through the fire, consulting with familiar spirits, and acting

as a wizard or witch.

As punishments and judgments are evidently indispensable, it was

necessary to appoint judges throughout the country in every town;

witnesses must be heard; and a king is required whom all fear and

respect, who is able to restrain the people by various means, and who

can strengthen and support the authority of the judges. Although I have

shown the reason of all the laws contained in “the Section of Judges”

(Sefer Shofetim), I find it necessary, in accordance with the object of

this treatise, to explain a few of these laws, e.g., the laws

concerning a rebellious elder.

God knew that the judgments of the Law will always require an extension

in some cases and curtailment in others, according to the variety of

places, events, and circumstances. He therefore cautioned against such

increase and diminution, and commanded, “Thou shalt not add thereto nor

diminish from it” (Deut. xiii. 1); for constant changes would tend to

disturb the whole system of the Law, and would lead people to believe

that the Law is not of Divine origin. But permission is at the same

time given to the wise men, i.e., the great court (Synhedrion) of every

generation to make fences round the judgments of the Law for their

protection, and to introduce bye-laws (fences) in order to ensure the

keeping of the Law. Such fences once erected remain in force for ever.

The Mishnah therefore teaches: “And make a fence round the Law” (Abot

i. 1). In the same manner they have the power temporarily to dispense

with some religious act prescribed in the Law, or to allow that which

is forbidden, if exceptional circumstances and events require it; but

none of the laws can be abrogated permanently, as has been explained by

us in the Introduction to the Commentary on the Mishnah in treating of

temporary legislation. By this method the Law will remain perpetually

the same, and will yet admit at all times and under all circumstances

such temporary modifications as are indispensable. If every scholar had

the power to make such modifications, the multitude of disputes and

differences of opinion would have produced an injurious effect.

Therefore it was commanded that of the Sages only the great Synhedrion,

and none else, should have this power; and whoever would oppose their

decision should be killed. For if any critic were allowed to dispute

the decision of the Synhedrion, the object of this law would not be

attained; it would be useless.

Transgressions may be divided into four classes, viz.—(1) involuntary

transgressions, (2) sins committed in ignorance, (3) sins done

knowingly, and (4) sins done spitefully. He who sins involuntarily is,

according to the distinct declaration of the Law, exempt from

punishment, and free from all blame; comp. “Unto the damsel thou shalt

do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death” (Deut. xxii.

26). If a person sins in ignorance, he is blamable; for if he had been

more considerate and careful, he would not have erred. Although he is

not punished, his sin must be atoned for, and for this reason he brings

a sin-offering. The Law distinguishes in this respect between a private

person and a king, a high-priest or Teacher of Halakah. Hence we

conclude that a person who acts wrongly, or who teaches wrongly, guided

by his own reasoning—except in the case of the great Synhedrion or the

high-priest—is treated as mezid (as one who sins knowingly), and does

not belong to the category of shogegim (of those who sin by error). A

rebellious elder is therefore put to death, although he acted and

taught according to his view. But the great Synhedrion must teach

according to its opinion, and if the opinion is wrong, the sin is

considered as due to error. In reference to such a case the Law says,

“And if the whole congregation of Israel err,” etc. (Lev. iv. 13). It

is on this principle that our Sages say, “The error in learning amounts

to intentional sin” (Abot iv. 13); he who has studied insufficiently,

and teaches and acts according to his defective knowledge, is to be

considered as if he sinned knowingly. For if a person eats of the fat

of the kidneys in the belief that it is the fat of the rump, his error

is not so grave as the error of him who, eating of the fat of the

kidneys, knows that it is that fat, but is ignorant of the fact that it

is prohibited. The latter brings a sin-offering although he is almost

an intentional transgressor. But this is only the case as far as he

acts according to his knowledge; but if he decides a religious question

[wrongly], he is undoubtedly an intentional sinner. The Law admits the

plea of error in a religious decision only in the case of the great

Synhedrion.

He who has sinned knowingly must pay the penalty prescribed in the Law;

he is put to death or receives stripes, or—for transgression of

prohibitions not punishable by stripes—other corporal punishment, or

pays a fine. There are some sins for which the punishment is the same,

whether they have been committed knowingly or unknowingly; because they

are frequent, and are easily done, consisting only in the utterance of

words, and involving no action besides; e.g., false swearing by

witnesses, or by trustees. Intercourse with a betrothed handmaid is

likewise easy and frequent; she is exposed unprotected, being in

reality neither handmaid nor a free person, nor a married woman,

according to the traditional interpretation of this precept.

If a person sins presumptuously, so that in sinning he shows impudence

and seeks publicity, if he does not sin only to satisfy his appetite,

if he does what is prohibited by the Law, not only because of his evil

inclinations, but in order to oppose and resist the Law, he

“reproacheth the Lord” (Num. xv. 30), and must undoubtedly be put to

death. None will act in such a manner but such as have conceived the

idea to act contrary to the Law. According to the traditional

interpretation, therefore, the above passage speaks of an idolater who

opposes the fundamental principles of the Law; for no one worships a

star unless he believes [—contrary to the teachings of Scripture—] that

the star is eternal, as we have frequently stated in our work. I think

that the same punishment [viz., sentence of death] applies to every sin

which involves the rejection of the Law, or opposition to it. Even if

an Israelite eats meat [boiled] in milk, or wears garments of wool and

linen, or rounds the corners of his head, out of spite against the Law,

in order to show clearly that he does not believe in its truth, I apply

to him the words, “he reproacheth the Lord,” and [I am of opinion] that

he must suffer death as an unbeliever, though not for a punishment, but

in the same manner as the inhabitants of a “city misled to idolatry”

are slain for their unbelief, and not by way of punishment for crime;

wherefore their property is destroyed by fire, and is not given to

their heirs, as is the case with the property of other criminals

condemned to death. According to my opinion, all the members of an

Israelitish community which has insolently and presumptuously

transgressed any of the divine precepts, must be put to death. This is

proved by the history of “the sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad”

(Josh. xxii.), against whom the whole congregation of Israel decided to

make war. When warning was given to the supposed offenders, it was

explained to them that they had relinquished their faith, because by

agreeing to transgress one particular law they rejected the truth of

the whole Law. For they were addressed as follows: “What trespass is

this that ye have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away

this day from following the Lord?” (Josh. xxii. 16); and they replied:

“The Lord knoweth, etc., if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression

against the Lord,” etc. (ibid. 22). Take well notice of these

principles in respect to punishments.

The Section on Judges includes also the commandment to blot out the

memory of Amalek (Deut. xxv. 17–19). In the same way as one individual

person is punished, so must also a whole family or a whole nation be

punished, in order that other families shall hear it and be afraid, and

not accustom themselves to practise mischief. For they will say, we may

suffer in the same way as those people have suffered; and if there be

found among them a wicked, mischievous man, who cares neither for the

evil he brings upon himself nor for that which he causes to others, he

will not find in his family any one ready to help him in his evil

designs. As Amalek was the first to attack Israel with the sword (Exod.

xvii. 8–16), it was commanded to blot out his name by means of the

sword; whilst Ammon and Moab, who have not been friendly simply from

meanness, and have caused them injury by cunning, were only punished by

exclusion from intermarriage with the Israelites, and from their

friendship. All these things which God has commanded as a punishment

are not excessive nor inadequate, but, as is distinctly stated,

“according to the fault” (Deut. xxv. 2).

This section contains also the law concerning preparing “a place

without the camp,” and “having a paddle upon the weapon” (Deut. xxiii.

12, 13). As I have told you, it is one of the objects of the Law to

train Israel to cleanliness; that they should keep free from dirt and

filth, and that men should not be degraded to the condition of cattle.

Another object of this law is to confirm by these preparations the

belief of the warriors that God dwells in their midst. The reason of

the law is therefore stated thus: “For the Lord thy God walketh in the

midst of the camp” (ibid. ver. 14). The mention of this reason gave

occasion to add another lesson: “That he see no unclean thing in thee

and turn away from thee” (ibid.). These words warn and caution us

against the usual inclination of soldiers to fornication, when they are

away from their homes a long time. God therefore commanded us to do

certain things which remind us that He is in our midst; we will thereby

be saved from those evil practices; as it is said, “and thy camp shall

be holy, that he see no unclean thing in thee” (ibid.). Even those who

are unclean by pollution were compelled to stop outside the camp till

the evening, and “then he shall come into the camp again.” It will thus

be confirmed in the heart of every one of the Israelites that their

camp must be like a sanctuary of the Lord, and it must not be like the

camps of the heathen, whose sole object is corruption and sin; who only

seek to cause injury to others and to take their property; whilst our

object is to lead mankind to the service of God, and to a good social

order. I have told you already that I only propose to give here such

reasons as are apparent from the text of the Law.

To the same class belongs also the law concerning “the marriage of a

captive woman” (Deut. xxi. 10 seq.). There is a well-known saying of

our Sages: “This law is only a concession to human weakness.” This law

contains, nevertheless, even for the nobler class of people, some moral

lessons to which I will call your attention. For although the soldier

may be overcome by his desire which he is unable to suppress or to

restrain, he must take the object of his lust to a private place, “into

the inner of his house” (Deut. xxi. 12), and he is not permitted to

force her in the camp. Similarly our Sages say, that he may not cohabit

with her a second time before she leaves off her mourning, and is at

ease about her troubles. She must not be prevented from mourning and

crying, and she must be permitted to abstain from bathing, in

accordance with the words, “and she shall weep for her father and for

her mother” (ibid.); for mourners find comfort in crying and in

excitement till the body has not sufficient strength to bear the inner

emotions; in the same manner as happy persons find rest in various

kinds of play. Thus the Lord is merciful to her and gives her

permission to continue her mourning and weeping till she is worn out.

You know certainly that he married her as a heathen, and that during

the thirty days she openly keeps her religion and even continues her

idolatrous practices; no interference with her faith was allowed during

that time; and after all that she could not be sold, nor treated as a

handmaid, if she could not be induced to accept the statutes of the

Law. Thus the Law does not ignore the cohabitation of the Israelite

with the captive woman, although it involved disobedience to God to

some extent, having taken place when she was still a heathen. The Law

prescribes: “Thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast

humbled her” (ibid. 14). We have thus shown the moral lessons contained

in these laws, and we have explained the reason of every precept of

this section.

CHAPTER XLII

The precepts of the seventh class are the civil laws enumerated in the

Section on Judgments, and part of the Section on Property. The object

of these precepts is obvious. They define the ways of equity in the

various transactions which must take place between man and man. Those

that are engaged in such transactions must mutually promote each

other’s interests; neither of the parties must strive to increase only

his own profit, and that he alone should enjoy the whole benefit of the

transaction. In the first place, no overcharge is permitted; only the

ordinary and known rate of profit may be taken. The law fixes the

limits of profits within which the transaction is valid. Even

imposition in mere words [where no material harm is inflicted] is

forbidden, as is well known. Next comes the law of the four kind of

bailees; the fairness of the law is evident. If one keeps the property

of his neighbour for nothing, without deriving therefrom any benefit

for himself, and is only obliging his neighbour, he is free from all

responsibility, and if any injury is done to the property, the owner

alone must bear the loss. He who borrows a thing keeps it only for his

own advantage, whilst the owner lends it to him to oblige him; he is

therefore responsible for everything; any loss in the property must be

borne by the borrower. If one takes wages for keeping the property or

pays for using it, he as well as the owner profit thereby; the losses

must therefore be divided between them. It is done in this manner; the

bailee pays for any loss caused through want of care, namely, when the

property is stolen or lost; for this happens only when the bailee does

not take sufficient precaution. The owner, on the other hand, bears

such losses as cannot be prevented; namely, if by accident the animal

falls and breaks its limbs, or is carried away by armed men as booty,

or if it dies. The Law further ordains merciful conduct towards hired

workmen because of their poverty. Their wages should be paid without

delay, and they must not be wronged in any of their rights; they must

receive their pay according to their work. Another instance of kindness

to workmen is this: according to the regulations of this law, workmen,

and even animals, must be permitted to partake of the food in the

preparation of which they have been engaged. The laws which relate to

property include laws concerning inheritance. They are based on the

sound principle that man must not “withhold good from those to whom it

is due” (Prov. iii. 27), and when he is about to die, he must not

conceive ill-will against his heirs, by squandering his property, but

leave it to the one who has the greatest claim on it, that is, to him

who is his nearest relation, “unto his kinsman that is next to him of

his family” (Num. xxvii. 11). It is clearly stated that the son has the

first claim, then comes the daughter, then the brother, and then the

father’s brothers, as is well known. The father must leave the right of

the first-born to his eldest son, because his love for this son came

first; he must not be guided by his inclination. He may not make the

son of the beloved first-born before the son of the hated (Deut. xxi.

16). Thus our highly equitable Law preserves and strengthens the virtue

of respecting all kinsmen, and doing well unto them, as the prophet

says: “He that is cruel troubleth his own flesh” (Prov. xi. 17). The

Law correctly says, “Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother,

unto thy poor” (Deut. xv. 11). Our Sages bestow much praise upon him

who is kind to his relatives, and him who marries the daughter of his

sister. The Law has taught us how far we have to extend this principle

of favouring those who are near to us, and of treating kindly every one

with whom we have some relationship, even if he offended or wronged us;

even if he is very bad, we must have some consideration for him. Thus

the Law says: “Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother”

(ibid. xxiii. 7). Again, if we find a person in trouble, whose

assistance we have once enjoyed, or of whom we have received some

benefit, even if that person has subsequently done evil to us, we must

bear in mind his previous [good] conduct. Thus the Law tells us: “Thou

shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land”

(ibid.), although the Egyptians have subsequently oppressed us very

much, as is well-known. See how many moral lessons we have derived from

these precepts. The last two precepts do not belong to the seventh

class; but the discussion of the preference due to relatives as regards

inheritance led us to speak of the Egyptians and the Edomites.

CHAPTER XLIII

The precepts of the eighth class are enumerated in “the Section on

Seasons” (Sefer zemannim). With a few exceptions, the reasons for all

of them are stated in the Law. The object of Sabbath is obvious, and

requires no explanation. The rest it affords to man is known;

one-seventh of the life of every man, whether small or great, passes

thus in comfort, and in rest from trouble and exertion. This the

Sabbath effects in addition to the perpetuation and confirmation of the

grand doctrine of the Creation. The object of the Fast of Atonement is

evident. The Fast creates the sense of repentance; it is the same day

on which the chief of all prophets came down [from Mount Sinai] with

the second tables, and announced to the people the divine pardon of

their great sin; the day was therefore appointed for ever as a day

devoted to repentance and true worship of God. For this reason all

material enjoyment, all trouble and care for the body, are interdicted,

no work may be done; the day must be spent in confession; every one

shall confess his sins and abandon them.

Other holy days are appointed for rejoicing and for such pleasant

gathering as people generally need. They also promote the good feeling

that men should have to each other in their social and political

relations. The appointment of the special days for such purposes has

its cause. The reason for the Passover is well known. It is kept seven

days, because the period of seven days is the unit of time intermediate

between a day and a month. It is also known how great is the importance

of this period in Nature, and in many religious duties. For the Law

always follows Nature, and in some respects brings it to perfection;

for Nature is not capable of designing and thinking, whilst the Law is

the result of the wisdom and guidance of God, who is the author of the

intellect of all rational beings. This, however, is not the theme of

the present chapter; let us return to our subject.

The Feast of Weeks is the anniversary of the Revelation on Mount Sinai.

In order to raise the importance of this day, we count the days that

pass since the preceding festival, just as one who expects his most

intimate friend on a certain day counts the days and even the hours.

This is the reason why we count the days that pass since the offering

of the Omer, between the anniversary of our departure from Egypt and

the anniversary of the Lawgiving. The latter was the aim and object of

the exodus from Egypt, and thus God said, “I brought you unto myself”

(Exod. xix. 4). As that great revelation took place only on one day, so

we keep its anniversary only one day; but if the eating of unleavened

bread on Passover were only commanded for one day, we should not have

noticed it, and its object would not have been manifest. For it

frequently happens that we take the same kind of food for two or three

days. But by our continuing for a whole period [of seven days] to eat

unleavened bread, its object becomes clear and evident.

New-Year is likewise kept for one day; for it is a day of repentance on

which we are stirred up from our forgetfulness. For this reason the

shofar is blown on this day, as we have shown in Mishneh-torah. The day

is, as it were, a preparation for and an introduction to the day of the

Fast, as is obvious from the national tradition about the days between

New-Year and the Day of Atonement.

The Feast of Tabernacles, which is a feast of rejoicing and gladness,

is kept seven days, in order that the idea of the festival may be more

noticeable. The reason why it is kept in the autumn is stated in the

Law, “When thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field” (Exod.

xxiii. 16); that is to say, when you rest and are free from pressing

labours. Aristotle, in the ninth book of his Ethics, mentions this as a

general custom among the nations. He says: “In ancient times the

sacrifices and assemblies of the people took place after the

ingathering of the corn and the fruit, as if the sacrifices were

offered on account of the harvest.” Another reason is this—in this

season it is possible to dwell in tabernacles, as there is neither

great heat nor troublesome rain.

The two festivals, Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles, imply also

the teaching of certain truths and certain moral lessons. Passover

teaches us to remember the miracles which God wrought in Egypt, and to

perpetuate their memory; the Feast of Tabernacles reminds us of the

miracles wrought in the wilderness. The moral lessons derived from

these feasts is this: man ought to remember his evil days in his days

of prosperity. He will thereby be induced to thank God repeatedly, to

lead a modest and humble life. We eat, therefore, unleavened bread and

bitter herbs on Passover in memory of what has happened unto us, and

leave [on Succoth] our houses in order to dwell in tabernacles, as

inhabitants of deserts do that are in want of comfort. We shall thereby

remember that this has once been our condition; [comp.] “I made the

children of Israel to dwell in booths” (Lev. xxiii. 43); although we

dwell now in elegant houses, in the best and most fertile land, by the

kindness of God, and because of His promises to our forefathers,

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were perfect in their opinions and in

their conduct. This idea is likewise an important element in our

religion; that whatever good we have received and ever will receive of

God, is owing to the merits of the Patriarchs, who “kept the way of the

Lord to do justice and judgment” (Gen. xviii. 19). We join to the Feast

of Tabernacles the Feast of the Eighth Day, in order to complete our

rejoicings, which cannot be perfect in booths, but in comfortable and

well-built houses. As regards the four species [the branches of the

palm tree, the citron, the myrtle, and the willows of the brook] our

Sages gave a reason for their use by way of Agadic interpretation, the

method of which is well known to those who are acquainted with the

style of our Sages. They use the text of the Bible only as a kind of

poetical language [for their own ideas], and do not intend thereby to

give an interpretation of the text. As to the value of these Midrashic

interpretations, we meet with two different opinions. For some think

that the Midrash contains the real explanation of the text, whilst

others, finding that it cannot be reconciled with the words quoted,

reject and ridicule it. The former struggle and fight to prove and to

confirm such interpretations according to their opinion, and to keep

them as the real meaning of the text; they consider them in the same

light as traditional laws. Neither of the two classes understood it,

that our Sages employ biblical texts merely as poetical expressions,

the meaning of which is dear to every reasonable reader. This style was

general in ancient days; all adopted it in the same way as poets [adopt

a certain style]. Our Sages say, in reference to the words, “and a

paddle (yated) thou shalt have upon thy weapon” [azeneka, Deut. xxiii.

14]: Do not read azeneka, “thy weapon,” but ozneka, “thy ear.” You are

thus told, that if you hear a person uttering something disgraceful,

put your fingers into your ears. Now, I wonder whether those ignorant

persons [who take the Midrashic interpretations literally] believe that

the author of this saying gave it as the true interpretation of the

text quoted, and as the meaning of this precept; that in truth yated,

“the paddle,” is used for “the finger,” and azeneka denotes “thy ear.”

I cannot think that any person whose intellect is sound can admit this.

The author employed the text as a beautiful poetical phrase, in

teaching an excellent moral lesson, namely this: It is as bad to listen

to bad language as it is to use it. This lesson is poetically connected

with the above text. In the same sense you must understand the phrase,

“Do not read so, but so,” wherever it occurs in the Midrash. I have

departed from my subject, but it was for the purpose of making a remark

useful to every intellectual member of the Rabbanites. I now return to

our theme. I believe that the four species are a symbolical expression

of our rejoicing that the Israelites changed the wilderness, “no place

of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates, or of water to

drink” (Num. xx. 5), with a country full of fruit-trees and rivers. In

order to remember this we take the fruit which is the most pleasant of

the fruit of the land, branches which smell best, most beautiful

leaves, and also the best of herbs, i.e., the willows of the brook.

These four kinds have also those three purposes: First, they were

plentiful in those days in Palestine, so that every one could easily

get them. Secondly, they have a good appearance, they are green; some

of them, viz., the citron and the myrtle, are also excellent as regards

their smell, the branches of the palm-tree and the willow having

neither good nor bad smell. Thirdly, they keep fresh and green for

seven days, which is not the case with peaches, pomegranates,

asparagus, nuts, and the like.

CHAPTER XLIV

The precepts of the ninth class are those enumerated in the Section on

Love. Their reason is obvious. The actions prescribed by them serve to

remind us continually of God, and of our duty to fear and to love Him,

to keep all His commandments, and to believe concerning God that which

every religious person must believe. This class includes the laws of

Prayer, Reading of Shema, Grace, and duties connected with these,

Blessing of the priests, Tefillin, Mezuzah, Ẓiẓit, acquiring a scroll

of the Law, and reading in it at certain times. The performance of all

these precepts inculcates into our heart useful lessons. All this is

clear, and a further explanation is superfluous, as being a mere

repetition and nothing else.

CHAPTER XLV

The precepts of the tenth class are those enumerated in the laws on the

Temple (Hilkot bet ha-beḥirah), the laws on the vessels of the temple

and on the ministers in the temple [Hilkot kele ha-miḳdash veha-ʻobedim

bo]. The use of these precepts we have stated in general terms. It is

known that idolaters selected the highest possible places on high

mountains where to build their temples and to place their images.

Therefore Abraham, our father, chose Mount Moriah, being the highest

mount in that country, and proclaimed there the Unity of God. He

selected the west of the mount as the place toward which he turned

during his prayers, because [he thought that] the most holy place was

in the West; this is the meaning of the saying of our Sages, “The

Shekinah (the Glory of God) is in the West” (B. T. Baba B 25a); and it

is distinctly stated in the Talmud Yoma that our father Abraham chose

the west side, the place where the Most Holy was built. I believe that

he did so because it was then a general rite to worship the sun as a

deity. Undoubtedly all people turned then to the East [worshipping the

Sun]. Abraham turned therefore on Mount Moriah to the West, that is,

the site of the Sanctuary, and turned his back toward the sun; and the

Israelites, when they abandoned their God and returned to the early bad

principles, stood “with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and

their faces toward the East, and they worshipped the sun toward the

East” (Ezek. viii. 16). Note this strange fact. I do not doubt that the

spot which Abraham chose in his prophetical spirit, was known to Moses

our Teacher, and to others; for Abraham commanded his children that on

this place a house of worship should be built. Thus the Targum says

distinctly, “And Abraham worshipped and prayed there in that place, and

said before God, ‘Here shall coming generations worship the Lord’”

(Gen. xxii. 14). For three practical reasons the name of the place is

not distinctly stated in the Law, but indicated in the phrase “To the

place which the Lord will choose” (Deut. xii. 11, etc.). First, if the

nations had learnt that this place was to be the centre of the highest

religious truths, they would occupy it, or fight about it most

perseveringly. Secondly, those who were then in possession of it might

destroy and ruin the place with all their might. Thirdly, and chiefly,

every one of the twelve tribes would desire to have this place in its

borders and under its control; this would lead to divisions and

discord, such as were caused by the desire for the priesthood.

Therefore it was commanded that the Temple should not be built before

the election of a king who would order its erection, and thus remove

the cause of discord. We have explained this in the Section on Judges

(ch. xli.).

It is known that the heathen in those days built temples to stars, and

set up in those temples the image which they agreed upon to worship;

because it was in some relation to a certain star or to a portion of

one of the spheres. We were, therefore, commanded to build a temple to

the name of God, and to place therein the ark with two tables of stone,

on which there were written the commandments “I am the Lord,” etc., and

“Thou shalt have no other God before me,” etc. Naturally the

fundamental belief in prophecy precedes the belief in the Law, for

without the belief in prophecy there can be no belief in the Law. But a

prophet only receives divine inspiration through the agency of an

angel. Comp. “The angel of the Lord called” (Gen. xxii. 15); “The angel

of the Lord said unto her” (ibid. xvi. 11); and other innumerable

instances. Even Moses our Teacher received his first prophecy through

an angel. “And an angel of the Lord appeared to him in the flame of

fire” (Exod. iii.). It is therefore clear that the belief in the

existence of angels precedes the belief in prophecy, and the latter

precedes the belief in the Law. The Sabeans, in their ignorance of the

existence of God, believed that the spheres with their stars were

beings without beginning and without end, that the images and certain

trees, the Asherot, derived certain powers from the spheres, that they

inspired the prophets, spoke to them in visions, and told them what was

good and what bad. I have explained their theory when speaking of the

prophets of the Ashera. But when the wise men discovered and proved

that there was a Being, neither itself corporeal nor residing as a

force in a corporeal body, viz., the true, one God, and that there

existed besides other purely incorporeal beings which God endowed with

His goodness and His light, namely, the angels, and that these beings

are not included in the sphere and its stars, it became evident that it

was these angels and not the images or Asherot that charged the

prophets. From the preceding remarks it is clear that the belief in the

existence of angels is connected with the belief in the Existence of

God; and the belief in God and angels leads to the belief in Prophecy

and in the truth of the Law. In order to firmly establish this creed,

God commanded [the Israelites] to make over the ark the form of two

angels. The belief in the existence of angels is thus inculcated into

the minds of the people, and this belief is in importance next to the

belief in God’s Existence; it leads us to believe in Prophecy and in

the Law, and opposes idolatry. If there had only been one figure of a

cherub, the people would have been misled and would have mistaken it

for God’s image which was to be worshipped, in the fashion of the

heathen; or they might have assumed that the angel [represented by the

figure] was also a deity, and would thus have adopted a Dualism. By

making two cherubim and distinctly declaring “the Lord is our God, the

Lord is One,” Moses clearly proclaimed the theory of the existence of a

number of angels; he left no room for the error of considering those

figures as deities, since [he declared that] God is one, and that He is

the Creator of the angels, who are more than one.

A candlestick was then put in front of the curtain, as a sign of honour

and distinction for the Temple. For a chamber in which a continual

light burns, hidden behind a curtain, makes a great impression on man,

and the Law lays great stress on our holding the Sanctuary in great

estimation and regard, and that at the sight of it we should be filled

with humility, mercy, and soft-heartedness. This is expressed in the

words, “And ye shall reverence my sanctuary” (Lev. xix. 30), and in

order to give these words more weight, they are closely joined to the

command to keep the Sabbath.

The use of the altar for incense and the altar for burnt-offering and

their vessels is obvious; but I do not know the object of the table

with the bread upon it continually, and up to this day I have not been

able to assign any reason to this commandment.

The commandment that the stones of the altar shall not be hewn and that

no iron tool shall be lifted up upon them (Deut. xxvii. 5), has been

explained by our Sages as follows: It is not right that the tool that

shortens man’s life should be lifted up upon that which gives length of

life. As an Agadic explanation this is good; but the real reason is

this: the heathen used to build their altars with hewn stones; we ought

not to imitate them. For this reason we have to make an altar of earth:

“Thou shalt make unto me an altar of earth” (Exod. xx. 24); if it

should be impossible to dispense altogether with stones, they must not

be hewn, but employed in their natural state. Thus the Law also

prohibits from worshipping over painted stones (Lev. xxvi. 1), or from

planting any tree near the altar of the Lord (Deut. xvi. 21). The

object of all these commandments is the same, namely, that we shall not

employ in the worship of God anything which the heathen employed in the

worship of their idols. In general terms this is repeated in the

following passage: “Take heed, that thou inquire not after their gods,

saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do

likewise” (Deut. xii. 30); the Israelites shall not do this, because—as

is expressly added—“every abomination unto the Lord, which he hateth,

have they done unto their gods.”

The mode of worshipping Peor, then very general among the heathen,

consisted in uncovering the nakedness. The priests were therefore

commanded to make breeches for themselves to cover their nakedness

during the service, and, besides, no steps were to lead up to the

altar, “that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon” (Exod. xx. 23).

The Sanctuary was constantly guarded and surrounded [by Levites] as a

mark of respect and honour; and at the same time the layman, the

unclean, and mourners, were prevented from entering the Sanctuary, as

will be explained. Among other things that tend to display the

greatness and the glory of the Temple and to inspire us with awe, is

the rule that none shall approach it in a state of drunkenness or

uncleanness, or in a disorderly state, i.e., the hair undressed and the

garments rent; and that every one who officiated as priest should first

wash his hands and his feet.

In order to raise the estimation of the Temple, those who ministered

therein received great honour; and the priests and Levites were

therefore distinguished from the rest. It was commanded that the

priests should be clothed properly with beautiful and good garments,

“holy garments for glory and for beauty” (Exod. xxviii. 2). A priest

that had a blemish was not allowed to officiate; and not only those

that had a blemish were excluded from the service, but also—according

to the Talmudic interpretation of this precept—those that had an

abnormal appearance; for the multitude does not estimate man by his

true form but by the perfection of his bodily limbs and the beauty of

his garments, and the Temple was to be held in great reverence by all.

The Levites did not sacrifice; they were not considered as being agents

in the atonement of sins, for it was only the priest who was commanded

“to make atonement for him” (Lev. iv. 26) and “to make atonement for

her” (Lev. xii. 8). The duty of the Levites was the performance of

vocal music; and a Levite became therefore disabled for service when he

lost his voice. The object of the singing is to produce certain

emotions; this object can only be attained by pleasing sounds and

melodies accompanied by music, as was always the case in the Temple.

Again, the priests, even when fit for service, and actually officiating

in the Temple, were not allowed to sit down, or enter it whenever they

liked; the Most Holy was only entered by the high-priest four times on

the Day of Atonement, and on no other occasion. The object of all these

rules was to raise the estimation of the Sanctuary in the eyes of the

people.

Since many beasts were daily slaughtered in the holy place, the flesh

cut in pieces and the entrails and the legs burnt and washed, the smell

of the place would undoubtedly have been like the smell of

slaughter-houses, if nothing had been done to counteract it. They were

therefore commanded to burn incense there twice every day, in the

morning and in the evening (Exod. xxx. 7, 8), in order to give the

place and the garments of those who officiated there a pleasant odour.

There is a well-known saying of our Sages, “In Jericho they could smell

the incense” [burnt in the Temple]. This provision likewise tended to

support the dignity of the Temple. If there had not been a good smell,

let alone if there had been a stench, it would have produced in the

minds of the people the reverse of respect; for our heart generally

feels elevated in the presence of good odour, and is attracted by it,

but it abhors and avoids bad smell.

The anointing oil (Exod. xxx. 22–33) served a double purpose: to give

the anointed object a good odour, and to produce the impression that it

was something great, holy, and distinguished, and better than other

objects of the same species; it made no difference whether that object

was a human being, a garment, or a vessel. All this aimed at producing

due respect towards the Sanctuary, and indirectly fear of God. When a

person enters the Temple, certain emotions are produced in him; and

obstinate hearts are softened and humbled. These plans and indirect

means were devised by the Law, to soften and humble man’s heart at

entering the holy place, in order that he might entrust himself to the

sure guidance of God’s commandments. This is distinctly said in the

Law: “And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which he

shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy

wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy

flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always” (Deut.

xiv. 23). The object of all these ceremonies is now clear. The reason

why we are not allowed to prepare [for common use] the anointing oil

and the incense (ibid. ver. 32, 38) is obvious; for when the odour [of

the oil and incense] is perceived only in the Sanctuary, the desired

effect is great; besides [if it were allowed for every one to prepare

the anointing oil], people might anoint themselves therewith and

imagine themselves distinguished; much disorder and dissension would

then follow.

It is clear that when the ark was carried on the shoulder, and was not

put on a waggon, it was done out of respect towards it, and also to

prevent its being damaged in its form and shape; even the staves were

not moved out of the rings, for this reason. In order that the form of

the ephod and the breastplate should not be spoiled, they were never

separated. The garments were also entirely woven and not cut, in order

not to spoil the work of the weaving.

Those that ministered in the Temple were strictly prohibited to

interfere with each other’s work; for if in public duties and offices,

each one would not have assigned to him his particular task, general

carelessness and neglect would soon be noticed.

It is evident that the object of giving different degrees of sanctity

to the different places, to the Temple mount, the place between the two

walls, to the Hall of women, to the Hall, and so on up to the Most

Holy, was to raise the respect and reverence of the Temple in the heart

of every one that approached it.

We have thus described the reason of all precepts of this class.

CHAPTER XLVI

The precepts of the eleventh class are enumerated in the Section on

Divine Service (Sefer ʻabodah) and the Section on Sacrifices (Sefer

ha-ḳorbanot). We have described their use in general terms (chap.

xxxii.). I will now proceed to give the reason of each precept

separately.

Scripture tells us, according to the Version of Onkelos, that the

Egyptians worshipped Aries, and therefore abstained from killing sheep,

and held shepherds in contempt. Comp. “Behold we shall sacrifice the

abomination of the Egyptians,” etc. (Exod. viii. 26); “For every

shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians” (Gen. xlvi. 34). Some

sects among the Sabeans worshipped demons, and imagined that these

assumed the form of goats, and called them therefore “goats” [seʻirim].

This worship was widespread. Comp. “And they shall no more offer their

sacrifices unto demons, after whom they have gone a whoring” (Lev.

xvii. 7). For this reason those sects abstained from eating goats’

flesh. Most idolaters objected to killing cattle, holding this species

of animals in great estimation. Therefore the people of Hodu [Indians]

up to this day do not slaughter cattle even in those countries where

other animals are slaughtered. In order to eradicate these false

principles, the Law commands us to offer sacrifices only of these three

kinds: “Ye shall bring your offering of the cattle [viz.], of the herd

and of the flock” (Lev. i. 2). Thus the very act which is considered by

the heathen as the greatest crime, is the means of approaching God, and

obtaining His pardon for our sins. In this manner, evil principles, the

diseases of the human soul, are cured by other principles which are

diametrically opposite.

This is also the reason why we were commanded to kill a lamb on

Passover, and to sprinkle the blood thereof outside on the gates. We

had to free ourselves of evil doctrines and to proclaim the opposite,

viz., that the very act which was then considered as being the cause of

death would be the cause of deliverance from death. Comp. “And the Lord

will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come unto

your houses to smite you” (Exod. xii. 23). Thus they were rewarded for

performing openly a service every part of which was objected to by the

idolaters.

To the above reason for the exclusive selection of the three kinds of

animals for sacrifices, we may add the following, namely, that these

species are animals which can be got very easily, contrary to the

practice of idolaters that sacrifice lions, bears, and wild beasts, as

is stated in the book Tomtom. As, however, many could not afford to

offer a beast, the Law commanded that birds also should be sacrificed,

but only of those species which are found abundantly in Palestine, are

suitable, and can easily be obtained, namely, turtle-doves and pigeons.

Those who are too poor to offer a bird, may bring bread of any of the

kinds then in use: baked in the oven, baked in a pan, or in a

frying-pan. If the baking of the bread is too much trouble for a

person, he may bring flour. All this concerns only those who desire to

sacrifice; for we are distinctly told that the omission of the

sacrificial service on our part will not be reckoned to us a sin: “If

thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee” (Deut. xxiii.

22). The idolaters did not offer any other bread but leavened, and

chose sweet things for their sacrifices, which they seasoned with

honey, as is fully described in the books which I named before; but

salt is not mentioned in any of their sacrifices. Our Law therefore

forbade us to offer leaven or honey, and commanded us to have salt in

every sacrifice: “With all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt” (Lev.

ii. 13). It is further ordained that the offerings must all be perfect

and in the best condition, in order that no one should slight the

offering or treat with contempt that which is offered to God’s name:

“Offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee?” (Mal.

i. 8). This is the reason why no animal could be brought that was not

yet seven days old (Lev. xxii. 26); it is imperfect and contemptible,

like an untimely birth. Because of their degraded character it was

prohibited to bring “the hire of a harlot and the price of a dog”

(Deut. xxiii. 18) into the Sanctuary. In order to bring the offering in

the best condition, we choose the old of the turtle-doves and the young

of the pigeons, the old pigeons being less agreeable. The oblation must

likewise be mingled with oil, and must be of fine flour (Lev. ii. 1),

for in this condition it is good and pleasant. Frankincense is

prescribed (ibid.) because its fumes are good in places filled with the

odour of burnt flesh. The burnt-offering was flayed (Lev. i. 16), and

its inwards and legs, although they were entirely burnt, had to be

previously washed (ibid. ver. 9), in order that due respect should be

shown to the sacrifice, and it should not appear despicable and

contemptible. This object is constantly kept in view, and is often

taught, “Ye say, The table of the Lord is polluted; and the fruit

thereof, even his meat, is contemptible” (Mal. i. 12). For the same

reason no body uncircumcised, or unclean (Lev. xxii. 4), was allowed to

partake of any offering; nor could any offering be eaten that had

become unclean (Lev. vii. 19), or was left till after a certain time

(ibid. vii. 15–17), or concerning which an illegal intention had been

conceived; and it had also to be consumed in a particular place. Of the

burnt-offering, which is entirely devoted to God, nothing at all was

eaten. Those sacrifices which are brought for a sin, viz., sin-offering

and guilt-offering, must be eaten within the court of the Sanctuary

(ʻazarah), and only on the day of their slaughtering and the night

following, whilst peace-offerings, which are next in sanctity, being

sacrifices of the second degree, may be eaten in the whole of

Jerusalem, on the day they have been offered and on the following day,

but not later. After that time the sacrifices would become spoiled, and

be unfit for food.

In order that we may respect the sacrifices and all that is devoted to

the name of God, we are told that whosoever takes part of a holy thing

for common use has committed a trespass, must bring a sin-offering, and

restore what he has taken with an addition of the fifth part of its

value, although he may have committed the trespass in ignorance. For

the same reason animals reserved for holy purposes must not be employed

in work; nor is the shearing of such animals permitted (Deut. xv. 19).

The law concerning the change of a sacrifice must be considered as a

preventive; for if it were permitted to substitute a good animal for a

bad one, people would substitute a bad animal for a good one, and say

that it was better than the original; it was therefore the rule that,

if any such change had taken place, both the “original sacrifice and

the exchange thereof should be holy” (Lev. xxvii. 9). When a person

redeems a thing devoted by him to the Sanctuary, he must likewise add

one-fifth (Lev. xxvii. 13, 15); the reason for this is plain. Man is

usually selfish, and is naturally inclined to keep and save his

property. He would therefore not take the necessary trouble in the

interest of the Sanctuary; he would not expose his property

sufficiently to the sight of the valuer, and its true value would not

be fixed. Therefore the owner had to add one-fifth, whilst a stranger

paid only the exact value. These rules were laid down in order that

people should not despise that with which the name of God is connected,

and which serves as a means of approaching God. The oblation of the

priest was entirely burnt (Lev. vi. 16), because the priest offered up

his oblation by himself, and if he were to offer it, and at the same

time to eat it, it would appear as if he had not performed any service.

For nothing was offered upon the altar of the ordinary oblations of any

person except the frankincense and a handful of the flour or cake; and

if, in addition to the fact that the offering was small, he who offered

it were himself to eat it, nothing of a sacrificial service would be

noticed. It is therefore entirely burnt (Lev. vi. 16).

The reason of the particular laws concerning the Passover lamb is

clear. It was eaten roasted by fire (Exod. xii. 8–9) in one house, and

without breaking the bones thereof (ibid. ver. 46). In the same way as

the Israelites were commanded to eat unleavened bread, because they

could prepare it hastily, so they were commanded, for the sake of

haste, to roast the lamb, because there was not sufficient time to boil

it, or to prepare other food; even the delay caused by breaking the

bones and to extract their marrow was prohibited; the one principle is

laid down for all these rules, “Ye shall eat it in haste” (Exod. xii.

11). But when haste is necessary the bones cannot be broken, nor parts

of it sent from house to house; for the company could not wait with

their meal till he returned. Such things would lead to laxity and

delay, whilst the object of these rules was to make a show of the hurry

and haste, in order that none should be too late to leave Egypt with

the main body of the people, and be thus exposed to the attacks and the

evil [designs of the enemy]. These temporary commandments were then

made permanent, in order that we may remember what was done in those

days. “And thou shalt keep this ordinance in his season from year to

year” (Exod. xiii. 10). Each Passover lamb was only eaten by those who

had previously agreed to consume it together, in order that people

should be anxious to procure it, and should not rely on friends,

relations, or on chance, without themselves taking any trouble about it

before Passover. The reason of the prohibition that the uncircumcised

should not eat of it (Exod. xii. 48) is explained by our Sages as

follows:—The Israelites neglected circumcision during their long stay

in Egypt, in order to make themselves appear like the Egyptians. When

God gave them the commandment of the Passover, and ordered that no one

should kill the Passover lamb unless he, his sons, and all the male

persons in his household were circumcised, that only “then he could

come near and keep it” (ibid. xii. 48), all performed this commandment,

and the number of the circumcised being large the blood of the Passover

and that of the circumcision flowed together. The Prophet Ezekiel (xvi.

6), referring to this event, says, “When I saw thee sprinkled with

thine own blood I said unto thee, Live because of thy [two kinds of]

blood,” i.e., because of the blood of the Passover and that of the

circumcision.

Although blood was very unclean in the eyes of the Sabeans, they

nevertheless partook of it, because they thought it was the food of the

spirits; by eating it man has something in common with the spirits,

which join him and tell him future events, according to the notion

which people generally have of spirits. There were, however, people who

objected to eating blood, as a thing naturally disliked by man; they

killed a beast, received the blood in a vessel or in a pot, and ate of

the flesh of that beast, whilst sitting round the blood. They imagined

that in this manner the spirits would come to partake of the blood

which was their food, whilst the idolaters were eating the flesh; that

love, brotherhood, and friendship with the spirits were established,

because they dined with the latter at one place and at the same time;

that the spirits would appear to them in dreams, inform them of coming

events, and be favourable to them. Such ideas people liked and accepted

in those days; they were general, and their correctness was not doubted

by any one of the common people. The Law, which is perfect in the eyes

of those who know it, and seeks to cure mankind of these lasting

diseases, forbade the eating of blood, and emphasized the prohibition

exactly in the same terms as it emphasizes idolatry: “I will set my

face against that soul that eateth blood” (Lev. xvii. 10). The same

language is employed in reference to him “who giveth of his seed unto

Molech”; “then I will set my face against that man” (ibid. xx. 5).

There is, besides idolatry and eating blood, no other sin in reference

to which these words are used. For the eating of blood leads to a kind

of idolatry, to the worship of spirits. Our Law declared the blood as

pure, and made it the means of purifying other objects by its touch.

“And thou shalt take of the blood ... and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and

upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons

with him. And he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his sons,”

etc. (Exod. xxix. 21). Furthermore, the blood was sprinkled upon the

altar, and in the whole service it was insisted upon pouring it out,

and not upon collecting it. Comp. “And he shall pour out all the blood

at the bottom of the altar” (Lev. iv. 18); “And the blood of thy

sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the Lord thy God”

(Deut. xii. 27). Also the blood of those beasts that were killed for

common use, and not for sacrifices, must be poured out, “Thou shalt

pour it upon the earth as water” (ibid. ver. 24). We are not allowed to

gather and have a meal round the blood, “You shall not eat round the

blood” (Lev. xix. 26). As the Israelites were inclined to continue

their rebellious conduct, to follow the doctrines in which they had

been brought up, and which were then general, and to assemble round the

blood in order to eat there and to meet the spirits, God forbade the

Israelites to eat ordinary meat during their stay in the wilderness;

they could only partake of the meat of peace-offerings. The reason of

this precept is distinctly stated, viz., that the blood shall be poured

out upon the altar, and the people do not assemble round about. Comp.

“To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices,

which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto

the Lord.... And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar,

... and they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto the spirits”

(Lev. xvii. 5–7). Now there remained to provide for the slaughtering of

the beasts of the field and birds, because those beasts were never

sacrificed, and birds did never serve as peace-offerings (Lev. iii.).

The commandment was therefore given that whenever a beast or a bird

that may be eaten is killed, the blood thereof must be covered with

earth (Lev. xvii. 13), in order that the people should not assemble

round the blood for the purpose of eating there. The object was thus

fully gained to break the connexion between these fools and their

spirits. This belief flourished about the time of our Teacher Moses.

People were attracted and misled by it. We find it in the Song of Moses

(Deut. xxxii.): “They sacrificed unto spirits, not to God” (ibid. 17).

According to the explanation of our Sages, the words lo eloha imply the

following idea: They have not only not left off worshipping things in

existence; they even worship imaginary things. This is expressed in

Sifri as follows: “It is not enough for them to worship the sun, the

moon, the stars; they even worship their babuah.” The word babuah

signifies “shadow.” Let us now return to our subject. The prohibition

of slaughtering cattle for common use applied only to the wilderness,

because as regards the “spirits” it was then the general belief that

they dwelt in deserts, that there they spoke and were visible, whilst

in towns and in cultivated land they did not appear. In accordance with

this belief those inhabitants of a town who wanted to perform any of

those stupid practices, left the town and went to woods and waste

places. The use of cattle for common food was therefore allowed when

the Israelites entered Palestine. Besides, there were great hopes that

the disease would become weakened, and the followers of the doctrines

would decrease. Furthermore, it was almost impossible that every one

who wanted to eat meat should come to Jerusalem. For these reasons the

above restriction was limited to the stay of the Israelites in the

wilderness.

The greater the sin which a person had committed, the lower was the

species from which the sin-offering was brought. The offering for

worshipping idols in ignorance was only a she-goat, whilst for other

sins an ordinary person brought either a ewe-lamb or a she-goat (Lev.

iv. 27–35), the females bring, as a rule, in every species, inferior to

the males. There is no greater sin than idolatry, and also no inferior

species than a she-goat. The offering of a king for sins committed

ignorantly was a he-goat (ibid. vers. 22–26), as a mark of distinction.

The high priest and the Synhedrion, who only gave a wrong decision in

ignorance, but have not actually committed a sin, brought a bull for

their sin-offering (ibid. ver. 3–21), or a he-goat, when the decision

referred to idolatry (Num. xv. 22–26). The sins for which

guilt-offerings were brought were not as bad as transgressions that

required a sin-offering. The guilt-offering was therefore a ram, or a

lamb, so that the species as well as the sex were superior in this

latter case, for the guilt-offering was a male sheep. For the same

reason we see the burnt-offering, which was entirely burnt upon the

altar, was selected from the superior sex; for only male animals were

admitted as burnt-offerings. It is in accordance with the same

principle that luxury and incense were absent from the oblations of a

sinner (Lev. v. 11), and of a sotah, i.e., a woman suspected of

adultery (Num. v. 15). In these cases the oil and the frankincense were

not added; this luxury was absent, because the persons that brought the

oblation were not good and proper in their deeds, and they are, as it

were, to be reminded by their offerings that they ought to repent; as

if they were told, “Your offering is without any ornamental addition on

account of the wickedness of your deeds.” As the sotah acted more

disgracefully than any person who sins in ignorance, her offering

consisted of the lowest kind, viz., of barley flour (ibid.). Thus the

reasons of all these particular laws are well connected, and show that

the precepts are wonderful in their significance.

Our Sages say that the offering for the eighth day of dedication was “a

calf, a young bullock, for a sin-offering” (Lev. xi. 2), in order to

atone for the sin of the Israelites in making a golden calf. The

sin-offering, which was brought on the Day of Atonement (ibid. xvi. 3),

was likewise explained as being an atonement for that sin. From this

argument of our Sages I deduce that he-goats were always brought as

sin-offerings, by individual persons and also by the whole

congregation, viz., on the Festivals, New-moon, Day of Atonement, and

for idolatry, because most of the transgressions and sins of the

Israelites were sacrifices to spirits (seʻirim, lit., goats), as is

clearly stated, “They shall no more offer their sacrifices unto

spirits” (Lev. xvii. 7). Our Sages, however, explained the fact that

goats were always the sin-offerings of the congregation, as an allusion

to the sin of the whole congregation of Israel; for in the account of

the selling of the pious Joseph we read, “And they killed a kid of the

goats” (Gen. xxxvii. 31). Do not consider this as a weak argument; for

it is the object of all these ceremonies to impress on the mind of

every sinner and transgressor the necessity of continually remembering

and mentioning his sins. Thus the Psalmist says, “And my sin is ever

before me” (Ps. li. 3). The above-mentioned sin-offerings further show

us that when we commit a sin, we, our children, and the children of our

children, require atonement for that sin by some kind of service

analogous to the sin committed. If a person has sinned in respect to

property he must liberally spend his property in the service of God; if

he indulged in sinful bodily enjoyments he must weary his body and

trouble it by a service of privation and fasting, and rising early

before daybreak. If he went astray in respect to his moral conduct he

must oppose his failings by keeping to the opposite extreme, as we have

pointed out in Mishneh-torah Hilkot Deʻot (chap. ii.) et passim. If his

intellectual faculties have been concerned in the sin, if he has

believed something false on account of the insufficiency of his

intellect, and his neglect of research and proper study, he must remedy

his fault by turning his thoughts entirely away from worldly affairs,

and directing them exclusively to intellectual exercise, and by

carefully reflecting on that which ought to form the subject of his

belief. Comp. “And my heart hath been secretly enticed, but my hand

touched my mouth” (Job xxxi. 27). These words express figuratively the

lesson that we should pause and stop at that which appears doubtful, as

has been pointed out by us in the beginning of this treatise. The same

we notice in the case of Aaron. He had his share in the sin of the

golden calf, and therefore a bullock and a calf were brought by him and

his successors as an offering. Similarly, the sin connected with a kid

of goats was atoned for by a kid of goats. When this theory has been

well established in the minds of the people, they must certainly be led

by it to consider disobedience to God as a disgraceful thing. Every one

will then be careful that he should not sin, and require a protracted

and burdensome atonement; he will be afraid he might not be able to

complete it, and will therefore altogether abstain from sinning, and

avoid it. This object [of the laws under discussion] is very clear, and

note it likewise.

I will here call your attention to a very remarkable thing, although it

does not seem at first thought to belong to our subject. It is only the

goat brought on New-moon as a sin-offering that the law calls “a

sin-offering unto the Lord” (Num. xxviii. 15). The sin-offerings

brought on the three festivals (ibid. vers. 22, 30; xxix. 5, 11, etc.)

are not called so, nor are any other sin-offerings. The reason thereof

is, according to my opinion, undoubtedly this: The additional offerings

brought by the congregation at certain periods were all

burnt-offerings; only “one kid of goats to make an atonement” was

offered on every one of these exceptional days. The latter was eaten

[by the priests], whilst the burnt-offerings were entirely consumed by

fire, and are called “an offering made by fire unto the Lord.” The

phrases “a sin-offering unto the Lord” and “a peace-offering unto the

Lord” do not occur in the law, because these were eaten by man; but

even those sin-offerings that were entirely burnt (Lev. iv. 12, 21)

cannot be called “an offering made by fire unto the Lord,” as will be

explained in the course of this chapter. It is therefore impossible

that the goats which are eaten [by the priests], and are not entirely

burnt, should be called “sin-offerings unto the Lord.” But as it was

found that the kid offered on New-moon might be mistaken as an offering

brought to the moon, in the manner of the Egyptians, who sacrificed to

the moon on the days of New-moon, it was distinctly stated that this

goat is offered in obedience to God’s command, and not in honour of the

moon. This fear did not apply to the sin-offerings on the Festivals,

nor to any other sin-offering, because they were not offered on the

days of New-moon, or on any other day marked out by Nature, but on such

days as were selected by the Divine Will. Not so the days of New-moon;

they are not fixed by the Law [but by Nature]. On the New-moon the

idolaters sacrificed to the moon, in the same manner as they sacrificed

to the sun when it rose and set in certain particular degrees. This is

described in the works [mentioned above]. On this account the

extraordinary phrase “A sin-offering unto the Lord” is exceptionally

introduced in reference to the goat brought on New-moon, in order to

remove the idolatrous ideas that were still lingering in the sorely

diseased hearts. Note this exception likewise. A sin-offering which is

brought in the hope to atone for one or more great sins, as, e.g., the

sin-offering [of the Synhedrion or the high-priest] for a sin committed

in ignorance, and the like, are not burnt upon the altar, but without

the camp; upon the altar only the burnt-offering, and the like, are

burnt, wherefore it was called the altar of the burnt-offering. The

burning of the holocaust, and of every “memorial,” is called “a sweet

savour unto the Lord”; and so it undoubtedly is, since it serves to

remove idolatrous doctrines from our hearts, as we have shown. But the

burning of these sin-offerings is a symbol that the sin [for which the

offering it brought] is utterly removed and destroyed, like the body

that is being burnt; of the sinful seed no trace shall remain, as no

trace is left of the sin-offering, which is entirely destroyed by fire;

the smoke thereof is not “a sweet savour unto the Lord,” but, on the

contrary, a smoke despised and abhorred. For this reason the burning

took place without the camp. Similarly we notice that the oblations of

a sotah is called “an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to

remembrance” (Num. v. 15); it is not a pleasing thing [to the Lord].

The goat [of the Day of Atonement] that was sent [into the wilderness]

(Lev. xvi. 20, seq.) served as an atonement for all serious

transgressions more than any other sin-offering of the congregation. As

it thus seemed to carry off all sins, it was not accepted as an

ordinary sacrifice to be slaughtered, burnt, or even brought near the

Sanctuary; it was removed as far as possible, and sent forth into a

waste, uncultivated, uninhabited land. There is no doubt that sins

cannot be carried like a burden, and taken off the shoulder of one

being to be laid on that of another being. But these ceremonies are of

a symbolic character, and serve to impress men with a certain idea, and

to induce them to repent; as if to say, we have freed ourselves of our

previous deeds, have cast them behind our backs, and removed them from

us as far as possible.