💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ramban%20on%20Leviticus%20… captured on 2024-05-12 at 17:08:39. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Ramban on Leviticus 20:17:1

Home

Torah

17 ‎[1] AND IF A MAN ‘YIKACH’ (SHALL TAKE) HIS SISTER. Scripture mentions the term *kichah* [“taking,” which generally denotes the taking of a woman as a wife] in the case of a sister, although betrothal to her is not valid, because a brother and sister sleep together in one house, and when his desire overpowers him, he takes her and draws her to himself, and he does not have to come to her as one does to a woman who is a harlot. Similarly it is the way of Scripture to use the term “taking” in the case of all those with whom one remains alone, for a wife and her mother, [a wife] and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter, a wife and her sister, and a brother’s wife are all [found] with him in one house [hence Scripture uses the term “taking” in each of these cases]. For a similar reason Scripture uses this expression in the following verse, *A man shall not ‘take’ his father’s wife*. The expression *and he see her nakedness* is an euphemism, since Scripture modifies its expression in speaking of forbidden relationships. Sometimes it calls sexual intercourse “uncovering of nakedness,” as it says in the case of most of the forbidden women, *thou shalt not uncover her nakedness*, for it is the way of those who commit fornication to uncover her skirts, similar to that which is said, *and I will uncover thy skirts upon thy face;* and at times it calls it “entering,” thus: *If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her;* *to come in unto us;* *and he came in unto her, and she conceived by him*. Many times Scripture calls it “lying,” and here it refers to it as “seeing,” since brother and sister lodge together and there is no need for uncovering of skirts. Similarly Scripture uses the euphemism “knowing,” as in the following expressions: *And the man knew Eve his wife;* *and he knew her again no more;* *a virgin, neither had any man known her*. And Scripture states [here in the verse before us] *and she see his nakedness*, meaning to say that she too desired his nakedness in her heart and consented thereto. Now it mentions these expressions only in the case of a sister, because in all forbidden relations when a man approaches a woman for the purpose of uncovering her nakedness, it is generally with her consent, and otherwise she can remove herself from him and cry for help, but in the case of a brother [and sister] who lodge together, it may be that it was done without her knowledge, and therefore Scripture mentioned that she too “saw his nakedness.”

‎[2] IT IS ‘CHESED.’ In the opinion of the commentators *chesed* here means “shame,” because all people will naturally be ashamed of this ugly sin, this being used here as in the Aramaic language, for Onkelos translated, *for that were ‘a disgrace’ unto us*, “for that were *chisudo* unto us.” Yonathan ben Uziel also translated *and I will lay it for ‘a reproach,’* “[and I will lay it for] *chisudo*.” And in the language of the Sages [we find]: “Because *shechasdo* (he shamed him) in public.” Similarly, *lest he that heareth it ‘y’chasedcha’* means “lest he cause you shame upon your revealing the secret of another.”

And they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people*. The intention thereof is as follows: “You have done this secretly, but G-d will reveal your sin by bringing upon you a punishment before all the children of your people.” He mentioned this with reference to a sin which is done in utmost secrecy, but it applies as well to all [sins punishable by] excision, as I have mentioned. *He hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity*. This means that if he had uncovered his sister’s nakedness against her will, he alone shall bear his iniquity, as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented. But in my opinion the expression *he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity* means that each one of those mentioned [will bear the iniquity], just like the expression *for he hath made naked his near kin; they shall bear their iniquity*.

The correct interpretation of the word *chesed* [*it is ‘chesed’*] appears to me to be according to its plain sense [“goodness,” “kindness”]. So also is the opinion of our Rabbis. The verse is thus stating that the brother’s kinship is kindness, and it is not proper for the uncovering of nakedness. Thus in the case of other relations Scripture mentions that the reason [for the prohibition of sexual intercourse] is because they are next of kin, but in the case of a brother [and sister] it mentions as the reason the kindness which should be among them. The word *ish* [*and if ‘a man’ shall take his sister*] thus draws along with it a similar word [so that the expression *it is ‘chesed’* becomes “it is *ish chesed*,” meaning: “it is a man who should have acted kindly to her, but he did the contrary, and hence his punishment is severe”]. Or it may be that [the expression *it is ‘chesed’*] is like: *and I am prayer* [which means: “and I am ‘a man of’ prayer”*; for thou art precious things* [which means: “for thou art ‘a man of’ precious things”]*; Behold, I am against thee, O arrogance* [which means: “‘man of’ arrogance”], in all of which cases the word *ish* (man) is missing [and here too that word is omitted, as if it were to say: “it is *ish chesed*,” as explained above]. Or it may be that Scripture in these cases refers to these men by their qualities [as if to say, “kindness personifies the brother,” “I am all prayer,” “he is all preciousness,” or “arrogance personified”. Thus Scripture is stating, *And if a man shall take his sister … and see her nakedness … he is* [to have been] *the man of kindness, and they shall be cut off*, for *he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity*. Thus He mentioned that the brother should have been *the merciful man who doeth good to his own soul*, but *he was cruel and troubled his own flesh*. For he should have done the kindness to her that brothers do, to give her in marriage to a husband, but he blemished and troubled her. Scripture ascribes the fault in such cases to the male, just as it is said, *he hath uncovered his brother’s* [wife’s] *nakedness; they shall be childless* [and likewise here too it states, *‘he’ hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness*]. Similarly it is my opinion that the expression, *lest he that heareth it ‘y’chasedcha’* means “lest he that hears it will remove from you all kindness, because you have not shown kindness to your friend who entrusted you with his secret.” [The word *y’chasedcha* here meaning “remove *kindness*”] is like: *l’dashno* [the root of which *deshen* in its primary sense means “to *cover with* ashes,” but also has the opposite meaning of “*removing* the ashes”]*; and all mine increase ‘t’shareish’* [which, in its ordinary form, would mean “to take root,” but also has the opposite meaning of “rooting out”], and similar cases. [Likewise, *y’chasedcha* which is of the root *chesed*, kindness, means in the verse quoted “remove kindness,” and does not mean “shame.”] For it appears to me unlikely that the word *chesed* in the Sacred Language should bear such opposite meanings [as “kindness” and “shame”], when Scriptural texts abound in the praise of *chesed* and use it in prayers. The term *chisudo*, however, in Aramaic is another matter. Even that language differentiates between the two usages; “kindness” is translated *chisdo*, and “shame” is translated *chisudo*. Now Rabbeinu Chananel wrote that *‘chesed’ to any people is sin* means “reproach” [i.e., that sin is “a reproach” to any people]. But in my opinion this too is an expression of contrast [as will be explained]. For “righteousness” and *chesed* are mentioned in that verse [thus: *Righteousness exalteth a nation, but ‘chesed’ to any people is sin*], these being twin terms mentioned in all places, as for example: *he that followeth after righteousness and ‘chesed;’* *that I am the Eternal who exercises ‘chesed,’ justice, and righteousness in the earth*. Rather, the meaning of the verse in my opinion is as follows: “*Righteousness* if practiced *exalteth a nation*, but *‘chesed’* (mercy, kindness) *is a reproach to any people* if it fails to practice it.” Thus the verse is stating that upon righteousness and mercy depends the elevation or the decline of any people. Or it may be [that the verse is] stating: “Righteousness exalts any individual nation that practices it, while many nations sin by their failure to do mercy.” A similar example of such a verse is the one immediately preceding it: *In the heart of him that hath discernment, wisdom resteth; but in the inward part of fools it maketh itself known*, the meaning of which is that “it makes itself known that [wisdom] is not there,” for all who see them recognize by their deeds that they are fools *and there is no understanding in them*. These two verses [thus express their thoughts in their second half] in a negative manner.

Emor

Version Info

Version: Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976

Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108945/NLI

License: CC-BY

Jewish Texts