Leviticus 20

Sugya Map

• Issue: The opening phrase of Leviticus 20, "ואל בני ישראל תאמר" (And to the children of Israel you shall say), and its implications for the scope and application of the ensuing arayot (incestuous/forbidden relations) and avodah zarah (idolatry) laws, particularly concerning akum (gentiles).
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Applicability to Akum: Do the severe prohibitions and punishments detailed in this chapter (Molech, arayot, ov and yidoni) apply to akum? If so, what are the differences in their application and consequences compared to Yisrael?
  • Derashic Methodology: How do specific grammatical structures and changes in lashon (language) within the Torah serve as indicators for derashot (exegetical derivations) that expand or limit the scope of mitzvot? This involves the interplay between ribbuyim (inclusions) and miyutim (exclusions) and the principle of diberah Torah k'lashon bnei adam (the Torah speaks in human language).
  • Thematic Structure of Kedoshim: The placement of Chapter 19 (Kedoshim Tihyu) between Chapter 18 (arayot prohibitions) and Chapter 20 (arayot punishments) – what is its pedagogical or theological significance?
• Primary Sources:
  • Leviticus 20:1 ("ואל בני ישראל תאמר")
  • Leviticus 18:21 ("ומזרעך לא תתן להעביר למלך")
  • Leviticus 18:26 ("ולא תעשו מכל התועבות האלה האזרח והגר הגר בתוככם")
  • Leviticus 24:15 ("ואל בני ישראל תדבר איש איש כי יקלל אלקיו")
  • Sifra, Acharei Mot, Parasha 13:18
  • Sanhedrin 56a-57a (Seven Noachide Laws, arayot for akum)
  • Chagiga 11b (arayot for akum)
  • Zevachim 108a (diberah Torah k'lashon bnei adam)

Text Snapshot

The initial lines of Leviticus 20 set the stage for a series of severe prohibitions and their corresponding punishments, beginning with the worship of Molech and transitioning into arayot and other forbidden practices.

וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃ וְאֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ תֹּאמַ֔ר אִ֥ישׁ אִ֛ישׁ מִבְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וּמִן־הַגֵּ֣ר הַגָּ֣ר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִתֵּ֧ן מִזַּרְע֛וֹ לַמֹּ֖לֶךְ מ֣וֹת יוּמָ֑ת אַ֚בְנֵי עַם־הָאָ֔רֶץ יִרְגְּמ֖וּ אֹתֽוֹ׃ And G-d spoke to Moses, saying: And to the children of Israel you shall say: Any person (איש איש) among the children of Israel, or among the strangers residing in Israel, who gives any offspring to Molech, shall be put to death; the people of the land shall pelt them with stones. (Leviticus 20:1-2)

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance

The immediate grammatical anomaly that demands attention is the opening phrase, "וְאֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ תֹּאמַ֔ר" (And to the children of Israel you shall say). This deviates from the standard Biblical Hebrew construction where the verb precedes the subject, such as "וְדַבֵּ֥ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל" (And speak to the children of Israel) or "אֱמֹ֥ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל" (Say to the children of Israel). Here, the prepositional phrase "אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙" (to the children of Israel) precedes the verb "תֹּאמַר" (you shall say). This inversion of the typical word order, placing the object/recipient before the verb, is frequently flagged by Chazal and later mefarshim as a linguistic indicator for a derasha, implying a special emphasis or a specific limitation/expansion of the preceding subject or the ensuing command. The Malbim, as we shall see, hones in on this specific leshon shinnui (change in language) as the foundation for a profound halachic and exegetical principle.

Readings

Malbim: Grammatical Anomalies as Derashic Triggers

The Malbim, in his commentary on Kedoshim 88:1, initiates a deeply insightful lomdishe discussion rooted in the seemingly subtle grammatical construction "ואל בני ישראל תאמר." He posits a fundamental rule of Biblical Hebrew: typically, the verb precedes the subject or its recipient (e.g., "וידבר ה'", "דבר אל בני ישראל"). When the subject or recipient is placed before the verb, as in "ואל בני ישראל תאמר," it signals a deliberate deviation from the norm, thereby compelling a derasha (exegetical interpretation).

The Malbim elaborates on this principle in his Ayelet HaShachar 111:1-4, stating that such an inversion — "יקדים את השם אל הפעל" (preceding the noun to the verb) — aims to either "לבאר איזה גדר בהשם" (explain some definition in the noun), "איזה סתירה והפוך בין שם זה להשם שלפניו" (some contradiction or reversal between this noun and a previous one), or "איזה מיעוט ודיוק" (some exclusion or precision). This establishes a hermeneutical framework where grammatical irregularities are not mere stylistic choices but pregnant with halachic significance. In our context of "ואל בני ישראל תאמר," the Malbim, referencing Kedoshim 88:1, specifically states it comes "למעט עכו"ם" (to exclude gentiles) – a statement which, upon initial glance, seems counter-intuitive given his broader argument, but will be clarified later.

The Malbim's core chiddush in Kedoshim 88:1 revolves around reconciling this grammatical anomaly with R' Yose's shitta (view) regarding the phrase "איש איש" (any person). R' Yose, in Sanhedrin 56a, famously holds that akum are included in many mitzvot from the Torah through derashot, including arayot and avodah zarah. However, R' Yose also maintains (as cited by the Malbim from Zevachim 108a) that where the Torah uses "איש איש" without a specific lashon shinnui to force a derasha, it often means diberah Torah k'lashon bnei adam (the Torah speaks in human language), implying that "איש איש" is merely an emphatic expression, not an inclusionary ribbuy for akum.

This creates a tension: if "איש איש" alone isn't always a ribbuy according to R' Yose, then how does he derive the applicability of these laws to akum? The Malbim argues that the preceding anomalous phrase "ואל בני ישראל תאמר" is precisely what forces the derasha on "איש איש" to include akum. The Malbim explains:

1. Standard vs. Anomalous Language: The standard phrasing is "דבר אל בני ישראל" or "אמור אל בני ישראל." These are regular linguistic constructions, and had the Torah used them here, R' Yose would have considered "איש איש" as derech lashon bnei adam, thus not including akum.
2. The Role of "ואל בני ישראל תאמר": By switching to the anomalous "ואל בני ישראל תאמר," the Torah signals that a derasha is indeed intended. This lashon shinnui acts as a meta-linguistic key, unlocking the derasha potential of the subsequent "איש איש." It forces us to ask: why the emphasis on "בני ישראל" if the laws are meant for everyone?
3. The Specific Derasha for Akum: Having established that a derasha is warranted, the Malbim explains that the very precision implied by "ואל בני ישראל תאמר" (specifically "Bnei Yisrael") highlights a distinction. The phrase "איש איש" following this precision then serves to include akum in the issur (prohibition) itself, even while distinguishing their dinim (laws/punishments) from those of Yisrael. For instance, regarding arayot, akum are judged according to dinei akum (e.g., mitat seif - death by sword) even if Yisrael are judged by mitat beit din (e.g., stoning). The phrase "ואל בני ישראל תאמר" thus qualifies the Yisrael component of "איש איש," implying that while the prohibition extends to akum, the specific mode of punishment (stoning) mentioned in the verse applies only to Yisrael.

The Malbim extends this logic to other contexts where R' Yose includes akum, such as berkat HaShem (blasphemy) in Leviticus 24:15, where the identical "ואל בני ישראל תדבר איש איש כי יקלל אלקיו" appears. In all these cases, the Malbim argues, the anomalous prefix forces a derasha on "איש איש" to include akum, while simultaneously emphasizing the distinct dinim for Yisrael. He specifically refutes the idea that "איש איש" might be including gerim, women, or slaves, as these categories are often explicitly included elsewhere (e.g., "הגר הגר בתוככם" for gerim, and Sifra on Acharei Mot for women and slaves derived from "בתוככם"). Thus, the unique grammatical construction is reserved for the akum inclusion.

In summary, the Malbim's chiddush is a multi-layered analysis:

• Grammar as Halacha: Grammatical irregularities are not arbitrary but signal derashot.
• R' Yose's Nuance: Reconciling R' Yose's view on diberah Torah k'lashon bnei adam with his derashot for akum.
• Hierarchical Derasha: The lashon shinnui acts as a trigger, making the subsequent "איש איש" a ribbuy for akum, rather than a mere linguistic emphasis.
• Distinction in Punishment: Even when akum are included in the issur, their mitot (death penalties) differ from Yisrael. The specific mention of "בני ישראל" in the anomalous phrasing serves to highlight these distinctions.

Rav Hirsch: The Sanctification of Life and the Arayot Laws

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch offers a complementary, yet distinct, chiddush concerning the structural placement of Leviticus 20. He views Chapter 20 not merely as a list of punishments, but as the culmination of the arayot legislation begun in Chapter 18. His primary insight is the profound significance of Chapter 19, Kedoshim Tihyu (You shall be holy), being strategically placed between the prohibitions of arayot (Chapter 18) and their corresponding death penalties and karet (excision) judgments (Chapter 20).

Rav Hirsch (Leviticus 20:1:1) explains that Chapter 18 lays down the prohibitions of arayot, while Chapter 20 details the penalties for violating them. The intervening Chapter 19, he argues, is not an interruption but a crucial interlude that imbues these laws with their ultimate meaning. Before the Torah pronounces judicial death or karet for arayot transgressions, and before it calls upon the community and its courts to enforce these penalties, it first establishes the profound importance of these laws for the entire national and individual task of the Jewish people.

His chiddush can be summarized as follows:

1. Thematic Linkage: Chapter 18 establishes the boundaries of family life, defining what is forbidden. Chapter 20 establishes the consequences of violating these boundaries, underscoring their severity.
2. Chapter 19 as the "Why": Chapter 19, with its overarching theme of "קדושים תהיו" (You shall be holy), elucidates why these arayot laws are so critical. It demonstrates that the fulfillment of these laws is intrinsically tied to the sanctification of all individual and national life. Only a nation whose sons and daughters emerge from a family life regulated by the arayot laws can truly be addressed with the command "קדושים תהיו" and be expected to actualize this demand in all its implications.
3. Holiness through Family Purity: The arayot laws, therefore, are not merely a set of ritual or moral codes, but foundational to the spiritual and ethical integrity of the nation. Any sin against arayot strikes at the very core of the individual's and the nation's moral future. This understanding, presented in Chapter 19, clarifies the absolute gravity of the laws and the severity of the punishments in Chapter 20.
4. National Responsibility: The placement highlights that the nation's spiritual well-being and its ability to fulfill its divine mission are directly contingent upon upholding these family purity laws. The severe penalties (death by court or karet) signify that those who transgress arayot forfeit their right to exist within the national sphere, and the nation itself is obligated to execute these judgments to preserve its holiness.

In essence, Rav Hirsch's chiddush shifts the perspective from a mere legal enumeration to a profound theological statement. The arayot laws are not just about avoiding sin; they are about actively constructing a holy life, individually and communally. Chapter 19 serves as the mussar (ethical instruction) and hashkafa (outlook) that precedes and undergirds the halacha of arayot, explaining their existential importance before the Torah specifies their deadly repercussions.

Friction

The most potent kushya arises from the Malbim's intricate derasha concerning R' Yose's position on "איש איש" and the phrase "ואל בני ישראל תאמר."

Kushya: The Redundancy and Contradiction of Derashot

The kushya is multi-faceted:

1. Why the elaborate grammatical derivation? R' Yose's position (Sanhedrin 56a) that akum are included in the arayot and avodah zarah prohibitions is well-established, rooted in the Sheva Mitzvot Bnei Noach. Furthermore, the Sifra (Acharei Mot, Parasha 13:18) explicitly derives the inclusion of "האזרח והגר הגר בתוככם" (the native and the stranger who resides among you) to include women and slaves for arayot. If these broad categories are already derived, and the fundamental applicability to akum is a halacha l'Moshe miSinai for Bnei Noach or derived from other verses like "לא ימצא בך מעביר בנו ובתו באש" (Deuteronomy 18:10) as R' Yose himself holds in Sanhedrin 56a, why does the Malbim need such a convoluted grammatical argument from "ואל בני ישראל תאמר" to include akum for "איש איש"? It seems like an over-derivation.

2. R' Yose's Diberah Torah k'Lashon Bnei Adam: The Malbim himself states that R' Yose holds "איש איש" in certain contexts is merely diberah Torah k'lashon bnei adam (Zevachim 108a). If so, what makes this "איש איש" so special that it requires an external grammatical trigger ("ואל בני ישראל תאמר") to transform it from a linguistic flourish into a ribbuy for akum? This implies a fragility in the derasha itself, where the primary ribbuy term ("איש איש") cannot stand on its own in R' Yose's system, requiring an auxiliary lashon shinnui.

3. "למעט עכו"ם" vs. "לרבות עכו"ם": The Malbim's Ayelet HaShachar 111:1-4 states that "ואל בני ישראל תאמר" comes "למעט עכו"ם" (to exclude gentiles). Yet, in Kedoshim 88:1, the Malbim's main argument uses this very phrase to include akum in the issurim of arayot and Molech. This appears to be a direct contradiction in his interpretation of the phrase's function.

Terutz: Nuance in Ribbuy, Miyut, and Distinct Dinim

The Malbim's argument, while intricate, offers a rigorous and precise terutz that resolves these difficulties by drawing fine distinctions in the nature of ribbuyim (inclusions) and miyutim (exclusions) and the differing dinim (laws) for Yisrael and akum.

1. The Specificity of the Ribbuy: The Malbim's claim is not that "ואל בני ישראל תאמר" is the only source for akum being forbidden arayot or avodah zarah. Rather, it is the source for including akum via the specific "איש איש" that follows this particular grammatical anomaly. The Sifra's derivation of "האזרח והגר הגר בתוככם" (Leviticus 18:26) is for women and slaves, who are already part of the community or gerim (converts). The derasha from "ואל בני ישראל תאמר" is designed to bring in akum who are not explicitly mentioned as "gerim" in the same way, or to reinforce their inclusion in a context where their dinim (punishments) differ.

   The Malbim's argument for R' Yose is that while akum are certainly forbidden arayot and avodah zarah by Sheva Mitzvot Bnei Noach, the Torah she'b'k'tav uses specific linguistic cues to reiterate or specify this applicability, especially where the punishment mechanism for Yisrael is being delineated. The phrase "איש איש" could be derech lashon bnei adam, but the preceding grammatical anomaly elevates it. It's not about establishing the prohibition de novo for akum, but about demonstrating how this specific passage, despite its explicit focus on "בני ישראל" and their unique mitot, still encompasses akum through the derasha of "איש איש," albeit with their distinct mitot.

2. R' Yose's Sophisticated View of Lashon HaTorah: R' Yose's position on "איש איש" is not that it never serves as a ribbuy. Rather, it's that it doesn't inherently do so without an additional indicator. The Malbim's chiddush is that "ואל בני ישראל תאמר" serves as that critical indicator. It functions as a meta-rule: when the Torah deviates from its standard grammatical construction (verb-subject), it signals that subsequent potentially ambiguous phrases (like "איש איש") should not be dismissed as mere derech lashon bnei adam, but rather scrutinized for a derasha. This makes R' Yose's view highly consistent: "איש איש" by itself is often linguistic. "איש איש" preceded by an anomalous grammatical structure is a ribbuy. This is a powerful hermeneutical tool, transforming what might be seen as inconsistency into a finely-tuned system of interpretation.

3. Reconciling "למעט" and "לרבות": This is where the Malbim's precision shines. The Malbim in Ayelet HaShachar 111:1-4 states that "ואל בני ישראל תאמר" (the prepositional phrase before the verb) can imply a miyut (exclusion) or diyuk (precision). Indeed, in Kedoshim 88:1, the Malbim explains that the precision on "בני ישראל" means that the specific punishments (e.g., stoning for Molech) apply only to Yisrael. This is the miyut aspect: the dinim of Yisrael are exclusive to them.

   However, the prohibition (the issur itself) against Molech, arayot, etc., is not exclusive to Yisrael. The derasha on "איש איש" (triggered by the lashon shinnui) serves to include akum in the issur, even though their punishment for these transgressions is different (e.g., mitat seif as per dinei Bnei Noach, Sanhedrin 57a). So, the Malbim's "למעט עכו"ם" refers to the specific mode of punishment or the specific status of "בני ישראל" in the context of the halakha, while the "לרבות עכו"ם" refers to the applicability of the prohibition itself. The phrase "ואל בני ישראל תאמר" precisely highlights the distinction between Yisrael and akum, rather than implying a complete exclusion. It's a statement of "inclusion in the issur, but exclusion from the specific dinim of Yisrael." This sophisticated reading of the Malbim resolves the apparent contradiction, revealing a layered understanding of ribbuy and miyut based on the specific aspect of the mitzvah being discussed (prohibition vs. punishment).

Intertext

The Seven Noachide Laws and Akum Arayot (Sanhedrin 56a-57a)

The Malbim's extensive discussion of the applicability of arayot and avodah zarah to akum through the derasha of "ואל בני ישראל תאמר" directly intersects with the foundational discourse on the Sheva Mitzvot Bnei Noach (Seven Noachide Laws) in Masechet Sanhedrin. The Gemara in Sanhedrin 56a-57a enumerates these seven universal commandments given to humanity, including giluy arayot (forbidden sexual relations) and avodah zarah (idolatry).

The Gemara explicitly states that akum are liable for arayot, deriving it from various verses. For instance, R' Yochanan states: "תאמר מה עריות שבסיני לא נהגו בהן אלא ישראל אף עריות שבמרה לא נהגו בהן אלא ישראל? תלמוד לומר איש איש, לרבות את הנכרים" (Sanhedrin 57a), implying that "איש איש" serves to include gentiles. However, the exact scope and source of this inclusion are debated. The Malbim's contribution, focusing on R' Yose's shitta, provides a nuanced explanation for how this specific instance of "איש איש" is activated as a ribbuy.

Crucially, Sanhedrin 57a differentiates between the arayot applicable to Yisrael and akum. While Yisrael are forbidden a vast array of relations (Leviticus 18, 20), akum are primarily liable only for relations with a mother, father's wife, married woman, sister by the same mother, male, and beast. The Malbim's argument that "ואל בני ישראל תאמר" serves to distinguish the dinim for Yisrael from akum (e.g., mitat seif for akum vs. stoning/burning for Yisrael) perfectly aligns with this Gemara, emphasizing that while the issur applies, the mode of justice differs. The Malbim (Kedoshim 88:1, in brackets) explicitly references Chagiga 11b and Sanhedrin 57a, noting the distinction in cases like na'arah me'orasah (betrothed maiden) where the din for akum differs. This demonstrates his awareness of the broader Talmudic context and his precise placement of this derasha within it.

The Sifra on Acharei Mot: Sources for Inclusion (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Parasha 13:18)

Another significant intertextual parallel is found in the Sifra on Parashat Acharei Mot, specifically on Leviticus 18:26: "וְלֹא תַעֲשׂוּ מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵלֶּה הָאֶזְרָח וְהַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכְכֶם" (And you shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the stranger who dwells among you).

The Sifra (Parasha 13:18) famously derives from this verse the inclusion of women and slaves in the arayot prohibitions: "האזרח והגר הגר בתוככם – לרבות נשים ועבדים." This is a direct source for expanding the scope of arayot beyond just male Israelites.

The Malbim (Kedoshim 88:1) explicitly refers to this Sifra when clarifying why "איש איש" in Leviticus 20:2, despite the lashon shinnui of "ואל בני ישראל תאמר," cannot be interpreted as including gerim, women, or slaves. He states: "הלא כולם נאמרו בפירוש, ועל זה אמר 'ישראל' – אלו ישראל וכולי וכולי. רק שבא לרבות עכו"ם." (Behold, all of them [gerim, women, slaves] are stated explicitly, and concerning this it says 'Israel' – these are Israel etc. Only that it comes to include akum.)

This highlights a critical distinction in derashic methodology. The Sifra's derasha from "האזרח והגר הגר בתוככם" covers specific categories (women, slaves) who are part of the Israelite household or polity. The Malbim, following R' Yose, argues that the lashon shinnui in Leviticus 20:1-2, preceding "איש איש," is specifically designed to include akum – those who are not necessarily "strangers residing among you" in the same sense as gerim (converts or resident aliens bound by Noachide laws) but rather gentiles in their broader capacity as human beings, liable under their own distinct set of arayot laws. This demonstrates a precise allocation of derashic sources for different types of inclusions, ensuring no redundancy and maximizing the explanatory power of each linguistic element.

Psak/Practice

The intricate derashic analysis surrounding "ואל בני ישראל תאמר" and "איש איש" in Leviticus 20:1 has several significant implications for halacha and meta-psak heuristics.

Halachic Implications for Akum

1. Applicability of Mitzvot to Bnei Noach: The core practical outcome of R' Yose's shitta, meticulously expounded by the Malbim, is the reinforcement of the applicability of arayot and avodah zarah (Molech) to Bnei Noach (gentiles). While the existence of Sheva Mitzvot Bnei Noach is fundamental, the Malbim's derasha provides a specific textual basis within the Torah's punitive chapters for these prohibitions extending beyond Yisrael. This is not merely an academic exercise; it underscores the universal moral framework embedded in the Torah.
2. Distinction in Punishments: Crucially, the Malbim clarifies that while akum are included in the prohibition (the issur), the specific modes of punishment detailed in Leviticus 20 (e.g., stoning for Molech, burning for certain arayot) apply exclusively to Yisrael. For akum, the punishment for these transgressions, when tried by a Jewish court, would be mitat seif (death by sword), as per dinei Bnei Noach (Sanhedrin 57a). The phrase "ואל בני ישראל תאמר" thus serves as a miyut (exclusion) regarding the type of death penalty, even as "איש איש" functions as a ribbuy (inclusion) for the prohibition itself. This distinction is vital for a Jewish court adjudicating cases involving gentiles.

Meta-Psak Heuristics: The Language of Halacha

1. Grammar as a Derashic Trigger: The Malbim's method establishes a powerful meta-psak heuristic: seemingly anomalous grammatical constructions in the Torah are not accidental but are deliberate signals for deeper halachic derashot. This principle extends beyond "ואל בני ישראל תאמר" to other linguistic variations (e.g., verb before subject, specific word choices like "אמירה" vs. "דיבור" as the Malbim himself notes in Kedoshim 88:1, referencing his work on Vayikra 3 and Tzav 1). A posek or talmid chacham must be attuned to these linguistic nuances as potential keys to unlocking halachic meaning.
2. Precision in Ribbuyim and Miyutim: The discussion demonstrates the immense precision with which Chazal and later mefarshim approach ribbuyim and miyutim. Not every "איש איש" is a ribbuy, and not every phrase means a complete miyut. The Malbim's analysis shows that a single phrase can simultaneously include one category (akum in the issur) and exclude another (akum from the specific mitah of Yisrael). This teaches us to analyze the scope of an inclusion or exclusion with extreme care, considering which aspect of the mitzvah (prohibition, positive command, punishment, reward) is being affected. This rigorous approach prevents oversimplification in halachic reasoning.

In essence, this sugya provides not only specific halachic details concerning akum but also a robust framework for understanding how the very structure and grammar of Torah she'b'k'tav encode complex legal and moral principles.

Takeaway

The grammatical anomaly of "ואל בני ישראל תאמר" serves as a profound derashic trigger, signaling R' Yose's unique inclusion of akum in the arayot and Molech prohibitions while precisely distinguishing their penalties; simultaneously, the chapter's placement emphasizes the foundational role of these laws in national sanctification.