Leviticus 23:3  [For] six days, work may be performed, but on the seventh day, it is a complete rest day, a holy occasion; you shall not perform any work. It is a Shabbos to the Lord in all your dwelling places

Gemora Yerushalmi Shabbos, Chapter 15, Halacha 3 – We learned in a Beraita: one posuk says “It is a Sabbath to the Lord” and [yet] another posuk says (in Parshat Pinchas, Numbers 29:35) “It shall be a convocation for you.” How can this be possible? Give a portion to Torah and a portion for eating and drinking.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #10:

[At first glance] this Gemora is difficult to understand because one posuk is dealing with Shabbos and the other is discussing Yom Tov (Jewish holiday). [Therefore the fact that there is an inconsistency between them would not be surprising.] It is well known, for example, that the holiness of Shabbos is greater than the holiness of Yom Tov. [This would explain why it says that Shabbos is for God but Yom Tov is for you.] However, in fact, this Gemora can be explained if we consider what it says in Gemora Pesachim 68b, as follows: Rabba said “everyone agrees that Shabbos must also contain an aspect of ‘For you’ because of the posuk that says “You shall call Shabbos a pleasure.” [Isaiah 58:13] This being the case, the Gemora’s question is based on “a fortiori” logic as follows –  “Yom Tov, which has a commandment to be ‘for you’, even though it has no commandment for it to be a ‘pleasure’ THEN Shabbos which DOES have a commandment that it should be a pleasure certainly must also have a requirement that it be “for you’”.

Also, keep in mind that, at first glance, the expression “It is a Shabbos for the Lord” would seem to imply that it should be completely for the Lord.

Look more deeply into the disagreement that is recorded in this section of the Jerusalem Talmud. One rabbi stated that Shabbos and Yom Tov were only given for the sake of eating and drinking. Another rabbi states that Shabbos and Yom Tov were only given for the sake of studying Torah. Clearly the use of the phrase “only” in this disagreement should not be taken literally. It would not make sense to say that Shabbos should only be for studying Torah without eating at all because everyone admits that it is forbidden to fast on Shabbos and Yom Tov. Rather the word “only” here is used to emphasize which aspect should have the vast majority of emphasis. In other words, for example, the one who says “only eating and drinking” really means “the majority of the time should be spent eating and drinking…” In the Midrash Tanchuma it seeks a sort of “compromise” between these two rabbinic opinions. The only who thinks that the time should be spent primarily on eating and drinking is discussing Torah Scholars who toil all week long studying Torah. These scholars need to enjoy Shabbos and Yom Tov even more than the average person [because of the way they spend their week.] On the other hand, the rabbinic opinion that states that Shabbos and Yom Tov should be spent studying Torah primarily are dealing with the average workers and the general populace who spend their time during the week earning a living. They should spend their Shabbos and Yom Tov involved in studying Torah.

Further, it appears that the Tanchuma relies on the phrasing in our posuk for this observation. In our posuk it says, “six days you shall work, on the seventh it will be for God, don’t do any work”. The inference in the posuk is that if you work for six days, then the seventh day should be for God. Additionally note that the phrase “don’t do any work” is out of place. The proper place for it is in Parshat Yitro [with the ten commandments including ‘observe Shabbos’] and in fact in Parshat Yitro it does clarify and explain there the law about resting [and not doing work] on Shabbos. Rather, here in our posuk it mentions not doing work to hint to the fact that these people who work all week long at their jobs, they should make the Shabbos day holy [almost] entirely for God and make it a day of study.

Look also at the Beit Yosef on the Tur Orach Chaim at the beginning of section 288 and in the Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim section 290. See also what I write regarding this in Parshat Yitro.

Editor’s Note: I think that the Torah Temimah is often discussing the issues relating to the ‘common man’. In fact, I think he wrote his book for the common man who wants a deeper understanding of the Bible, which often is as far as the common man had time to study. This note is directed to the common man and how he should spend his Shabbos.

Leviticus – 19:11  You shall not steal. You shall not deny falsely. You shall not lie; one man to his fellow.

Gemora: Baba Metziah 61b: What is the need of the injunction, ‘Ye shall not steal’,which the Divine Law wrote? [Couldn’t I have deduced this from other laws?] — For that which was taught: ‘Ye shall not steal,’ [even] in order to [just] cause pain to someone; ‘Don’t steal,’ [even] in order to repay with a double fine.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation Of Comment #60: [In the Gemorah] when it says “in order to just aggravate someone” it means as the Rambam states in the book Sefer HaMitzvot (Lo Taaseh #144) that [the intent of the thief] was just to cause distress to the owner [and the thief actually intended to return it, but just stole it in order to cause pain to the person.]   (See the source of the word ומיקטfrom Job, Chapter 10, Verse 1)

Also note that in the Shittah M’Kubetzet  he brings this opinion [of stealing the object to create emotional distress yet fully intending to return it] in the name of “Some commentators explain” [rather than mentioning Rambam explicitly]. Further the Shittah M’Kubetzet  says that the explanation of [only intending to cause pain] does not make sense since this is something that (people in the observant community) do regularly (without any sense of guilt). Rather, the Shittah M’Kubetzet  explains the phrase “to cause pain” as meaning that the thief did intend to cause pain AND did NOT intend to return the stolen object.

However, in my opinion what Rambam writes is totally appropriate and accurate. The reason [I think this] is because if the intention of the thief is to keep the stolen object, why would you think to not make the thief obligated to pay if he [only] intended to cause emotional pain (rather than having a real interest in obtaining the object)? Isn’t it true that the victim still ends up with a monetary loss? If this is the case, then the Shittah M’Kubetzet’s statement that this is something that happens every day is [basically] irrelevant; and stealing with this intent is still completely forbidden.

Regarding the topic of stealing “in order to repay with a double- fine”, this case relates to a situation where the thief [actually] wants to help the victim but he knows that the victim won’t accept help [charity]. Therefore, the thief would steal something of the victim’s knowing full well that he will then be required to pay back the original item plus a fine of two times or more the value of the object.

In the book Ketzot HaChoshen, Section 348, the author wonders whether the usual law of a onsin would apply to the case of one who steals only to cause pain. [This is the law that states that in a normal case of theft, if the object breaks or is lost while in the possession of the thief, even through no fault of his, he still has to pay back the monetary worth of the item to the original victim. The Ketzot HaChosen contemplates that since the thief did intend to return the object [after some time had elapsed] and his intent was not really to steal the object, perhaps this law of onsin does not apply. After all, the thief did do something wrong, but since it is not ‘pure’ theft maybe he would not be liable for the additional burden of onsin. Further, the Ketzot HaChosen brings support for this possibility from the   Shittah M’Kubetzet (at the end of the Chapter “Hamakpid”).   

It seems to me that [the Ketzot HaChosen is wrong and] the thief, even in this case, would be obligated in onsin. The reason for this is the well-known fact that the reason why a regular thief is not punished with lashes is because he is also obligated to return the object. Because of this additional obligation [to return or pay restitution] the law is also that even in a time when the original stolen object is missing [such as it was stolen from the thief] we still do not punish the thief with lashes, since the thief is liable to replace the object under all circumstances including onsin. All of this being the case, how could you think that a thief who only intended to aggravate the victim is not obligated in onsin? If that were true, then this type of thief who even lost the object that he stole would then be obligated in lashes! This would be the case since he is no longer subject to the obligation to return the object. Yet no one has ever argued that the law for these unusual theft cases is that the thief should receive lashes. Further this would not be the type of detail that the Gemora or later legal authorities would inadvertently leave out, and it would be a forced explanation to say that such thieves are not liable for lashes simply because the Torah chose not to deviate from the standard rule in those potentially exceptional cases. This topic merits further investigation.

 DBS Note: This complex note illustrates a fundamental point of the Torah Temimah. I think that he does not engage in complex legal reasoning separate from his pursuit of justice. I think that the injustice of the robbery victim not receiving restitution in all cases, even a case of onsin, motivated the Torah Temimah to illustrate why such a view was untenable and to include this note in his book.

Leviticus 15:24 – If a man cohabits with her, her menstruation shall be upon him, and he shall be unclean for seven days, and any bedding he lies upon, shall become unclean.

Gemora Yevamos 49b: “Her menstrual period shall be upon him”: We learn in a braita as follow – “from where do we know that if a man marries a woman while she is a niddah [during her menstrual cycle] that the marriage is still valid? From the above biblical verse ‘her menstruation period will be on him’” [implying that the marriage is valid because it will be on him]

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #93:

This phrase of “it is/will be” (   הווייה) is according to the text of the Gemora Kidushin 68a, however in our Gemora Yevamos 49b the text used is “kidushin” [marriage]. (VERIFY THIS TRANSLATION). It appears that the textual wording of “kidushin” is the proper wording. Since the main teaching is from the phrase “her menstrual period will be on him”, even in this time of it happening, still his acquisition and her domain will be his [in other words the marriage is still good even though, actually, having relations with her at this time is subject to the very severe punishment of “excision”, or being cut off spiritually from one’s people.]

 The great teaching from this is that even though having relations with a menstrual woman is punishable by excision and [the general principle is] marriage is not valid if it is with someone with whom you are liable excision (sister, etc) as is explained in the end of parsha Acharei Mot, nevertheless marrying a menstrual woman is not included in this general principle. The logic behind making an exception here is [probably] because other relations that are liable for excision are permanent prohibitions while the prohibition of having relations with a menstrual woman is temporary. Therefore, the ramifications of this prohibition are more lenient than for other relations that are also punishable by excision.

Look into what the Pnei Yehoshua writes in his halachic responsum, Chapter 3, regarding the detail of whether the marriage took place through a) a legal document b) giving money to the woman c) having relations with the woman [which is precisely what is biblically forbidden]. In my opinion, it is simple and clear that the whole point of this teaching is that even if the marriage occurred through having relations [which is forbidden] nevertheless the marriage is still valid and the prohibition is not like the prohibition with having relations with other women for whom the punishment is also excision. There would clearly be no point to the teaching if the marriage took place through the exchange of a document or money since in that case the marriage itself occurred in a permitted fashion, so of course the marriage is valid. The teaching only makes sense if it is understood to teach that even if the marriage occurred through having relations with the woman. This logic seems clear and simple to me.

However, one should note that this teaching appears not to be a clear biblical deduction from the posuk; rather the rabbis used the posuk as a “hook” for their logical deduction. This can be seen from the fact that the posuk isn’t actually about marriage at all. Rather, this teaching is one that the rabbis deduced from their logic since this woman is, in general, permitted to this man; except for the fact that there is a temporary prohibition in place [because of her menstrual status]. Therefore, the prohibition of having relations with her is not strong enough to prevent marriage. They then “hooked” this teaching onto this posuk as is their holy method.

Look also at Rambam, Chapter 18, Halacha #1, in the Laws of Prohibited Relations where he discusses the definition of a “zonah” [prostitute] who is forbidden to marry a Cohen. He answers that any woman is in a category of zonah and prohibited to the Cohen if he is prohibited from having relations with her [such as his sister, for example. Which, by the way, explains by “zonah” cannot be accurately translated as prostitute”] However, Rambam explicitly exempts a menstrual woman from this general category since the Cohen is, in fact, permitted to marry her.

According to our explanation above, Rambam’s words make perfect sense. However the הה”מ toils hard [in his commentary on Rambam] to find the source for Rambam’s ruling. According to our way of thinking, the source for Rambam’s opinion is precisely this Gemora above that marriage with a menstrual woman is halachically valid and she is not considered as being forbidden to marry. Look further above what I write concerning these rulings of Rambam at the beginning of parshat Emor on the posuk regarding a “zonah” and also in parshat Ki Tetzeh on the posuk of לא מביא אתנן זונה

Editor’s note: This note is a good illustration of rabbinic latitude and the use of a verse in the bible as a “hook” for their teaching. Also, note again that the Torah Temimah will write an explicit contrary opinion or critique of earlier teachers. In this case, the Pnei Yehoshua predated him by about 300 years.

Leviticus 12:3 – And on the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Gemora Niddah 31b: And why did the Torah ordain circumcision on the eighth day? In order that the guests  shall not enjoy themselves while his father and mother are not in the mood for festivities [Lit., ‘sad’, on account of the prohibition of intercourse which remains in force until the conclusion of the seventh day.]

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #22:

Rashi explains that everyone would be eating and drinking at the meal, but the father and mother would be sad on account of the prohibition of intercourse. The explanation of this matter is according what we explain shortly that all the blood that a woman sees [soon after] the seventh day would be pure blood and she would be permitted to her husband [from the seventh day on].

It is already well knows the [famous] statement of the Vilna Gaon who uses this point to demonstrate that any [rabbinic] decree that has been made for a particular reason will continue to remain in force even if the reason is no longer in force. In this example here, where it gives one of the reasons for having the circumcision on the eighth day be related to the prohibition on intercourse. However, in our day this reason is no longer applicable [because of the rabbinic degree of waiting an additional 7 days after clean blood]. This being the case, the reason for have the circumcision on the eighth day no longer applies, but nevertheless the law still stands.

Perhaps one can say that this general principle is alluded to in the Tanchuma at the beginning of Parshat Tetzaveh. There, the rabbis ask why the circumcision is on the eighth day. The answer given in the Tanchuma is that the circumcision is on the eighth day because that is when Yitzchak was circumcised. Apparently, neither the question nor the response in the Tanchuma makes sense. Behold, the commandment to do the circumcision on the eighth day is a well known, explicit commandment clearly stated in the Torah itself. Additionally, the time for Yitzchak’s circumcision is also well known and clearly stated. [So, how does the question and the answer of the Tanchuma actually teach us anything that we didn’t already know?]

But according to the Aggadic text of the Gemora Niddah quoted above, [perhaps] we can understand better the text of the Tanchuma and why it is asking about at what age a child should be circumcised in our day. Since the Tanchuma was aware that the reason given for waiting for the eighth day no longer applies, it instead responds that another reason exists that in still in force, namely basing it on when Yitzchak was circumcised. This is especially true since in the time of Yitzchak, prior to the giving of the Torah, there were no laws of Niddah. Therefore, it wasn’t even applicable to wait till the eighth day for the reason given in our Gemora. Nevertheless, they waited till the eighth day anyway for Yitzchak’s circumcision and that is why we also wait till the eighth day.

We should also be aware that the Rambam in his book, Guide for the Perplexed (Chapter 49, Section 2), writes that the reason why the circumcision is done on the eighth day is in order to give the baby’s strength time to grow after the birth. It is an amazing question for the Rambam why he left out mentioning what is written in the Gemora and instead wrote something based on his own logic. [However, we need to keep in mind], that actually the Rambam did not actually originate this idea. Look in the Midrash Rabbah at the beginning of the Parshat Ki Tetzei where it says as follows: “Why is the baby circumcised on the eighth day? Because God had mercy on him and gave time for his strength to grow [after the birth.]” Now you might ask why the Rambam chose this reason to record rather than the reason given in the Gemora, the answer is probably [exactly] because the reason given in the Gemora Niddah cited above is because that reason is no longer applicable due to our observance of the extra stringency of “clean blood”.

Even the reason of the Tanchuma requires further thought. Who set the timeframe of eight days as being sufficient for the baby to gather enough strength for the circumcision? Don’t we find that for an animal we wait seven days to declare him to be in a presumed state of good health while for a person we wait thirty days? This is explained explicitly in the Gemora Shabbos 131b. Perhaps in an aggadic manner one can say that the answer is because in waiting eight days, one is assured that at least one day of Shabbos will occur. Further, as is explained in [various] aggadas, Shabbos has the ability to increase a person’s strength and fortify his nature. This is also explained in other aggadas that before Shabbos was created the world was weak and shuddering, but when Shabbos came the world became strong.

[Parenthetically] keep in mind that we see from the fact that Rashi comments on our Gemora that everyone will be eating and drinking, we see a bit of a source for the obligation to have a festive meal to celebrate the circumcision. This is also alluded to in the Torah itself. The Gemora notes this when it uses the phrase “why does the Torah command the circumcision on the eighth day”. We also have further comments on this issue in Parshat Vaera on the posuk “on the day that Yitzchak was weaned”. Check out my note there.

 Editor’s note: I think it is wonderful that the rabbis in the Gemora ask why the Torah commands that a circumcision be done on the eighth day rather than just saying we have to do it because “it says so”. I believe the Torah Temimah is authentically continuing the wonderful Jewish tradition of questioning and challenging everything, even great previous authorities such as the Rambam.

Leviticus 10:3 – Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord spoke, [when He said], ‘I will be sanctified through those near to Me, and before all the people I will be glorified.’ “And Aaron was silent.

Gemora Zevachim 115b: And Aaron was silent: Moshe said to Aaron – Aaron, my brother, the only reason your sons died was to sanctify God’s name. Since Aaron knew that his sons were amongst those who knew God, he was quiet and he was rewarded for his silence, as we see from the posuk, “And Aaron was silent.”

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #3:

It is explained in the Gemora that Moshe knew beforehand that when the Devine Presence would rest on the tabernacle, that it would be sanctified in this manner. This teaching of the Gemora relies on the posuk in Parshat Ki Tetzei when it is telling about the building of the tabernacle, it says “’and I will be sanctified through my honored ones’. Don’t read the word ‘my honored ones’ but rather read it as though it stated ‘those who were honored through Me’”. It was not conveyed to Moshe the identity of those who “would be honored through Me” until Nadav and Avihu died. This is what is meant by the phrase here “the only reason your sons died was to sanctify God’s name”. Furthermore, it is clear from the phrase in our posuk “This is what the Lord spoke, [when He said], ‘I will be sanctified through those near to Me” that we don’t find this exact phrase in the Chumash because it is referencing the above mentioned posuk in Parshat Ki Tetzei. ודו״ק

 However, [even so] this whole teaching needs to be explored further. [What does it mean that Aaron’s sons died to sanctify God’s name?] Doesn’t in say in the previous drasha that they died because they committed the sin of [having the audacity] to teach [others] right in front of Moshe? Note also that in the Gemora and Midrashim other possible reasons are given for their death and all of them attribute their death to some sin that they did. If this is the case, then how can one possibly say that they died for the [holy] purpose of sanctifying God’s name? [Perhaps] the answer that one needs to give is that if it had not been for the purpose of sanctifying God’s name, they would not have died during these days of dedication of the Temple, which were [supposed to be] days of joy. They would not have died during this time, so as not to interrupt the joyous celebration. Additionally, they would not have died precisely inside of the tabernacle, as is shown by the posuk “and they died before HaShem”. Rather, it was precisely to sanctify God’s name that they died during this time and in this exact place [inside the tabernacle.]

Still, though, this issue is still very amazing [hard to understand]. What could have been God’s intent and purpose in dedicating the tabernacle through the death of holy individuals? This question is made stronger by the statement from the Gemora that Moshe knew ahead of time this event would occur. Further, what could it mean that [Moshe] said to Aaron that your sons did not die except to sanctify God’s name? What is the [meaning or] benefit of a sanctification of His name in this manner?

It appears appropriate to attribute a midrashic explanation for this as follows: Everybody knows from Scripture and from Talmud that the purpose of the tabernacle and the dwelling of God’s presence in it, and the bringing of [animal] sacrifices, was to atone for the sins of the Jewish people. Therefore, in order to prevent common people from thinking that since there is a temple [and all the atonement processes] we don’t have to worry anymore about being careful not to transgress and commit sins. [Behold we can  attain atonement in the temple/tabernacle!]  

Therefore, HaShem pro-ordained the event with Nadav and Avihu in order to prevent the common people from thinking this [and acting this way] that there is no longer a need to be careful about one’s behavior. The death of Nadav and Avihu teaches that the tabernacle does not atone for people who transgress on purpose. [The atonement of the tablernacle] only applies if one transgresses accidently or incidently or in a way that could not be prevented, etc.

Even though Nadav and Avihu were righteous and beloved before HaShem, nevertheless when they transgressed a commandment on purpose (and taught halacha right in front of Moshe, their teacher) the holiness of the tabernacle was not there for the purposes of protecting them. Furthermore, they were inside the tabernacle itself for the purposes of establishing the Awe of God in the tabernacle; and Moshe who knew all of the secrets of the ways of the Holy One, did know ahead of time what God would do to teach all inhabitants of the world that they should be careful and avoid transgressions. Moshe only did not know with which individual(s) this event would occur. Then, retroactively, with the death of Nadav and Avihu he saw how what God had planned had, indeed, come about.

With this explanation, all of the aggadas [midrashim] become clearly explained. Also, even though I already explained this in Parshat Ki Tetzei, due to the importance [נחיצת] of this topic in our way of thinking, I did not hesitate to mention it again here.

Note further that what we have explained here that a mourner who silently accepts, in love, what has occurred and does not publicly criticize the ways of HaShem receives a reward. This can explain what is mentioned in Gemora Berachos 6b: “R. Papa says: The merit of attending a house of mourning lies in the silence observed.” Many commentaries here explain that the meaning of this statement is that those who come to comfort the mourner will receive a reward [if they don’t talk too much] and allow for silence. That explanation is not clear, though. What reward should be due to the comforters if they keep silent? Rather, according to our midrash above, we should explain the Gemora Berachos 6b as referring to the one who is in mourning. [Thus the meaning would be:] when the comforters gather together to comfort the mourner and he does not complain about the circumstances and the events that have happened to him, but rather he just sits quietly and accepts freely God’s decree, he will receive a reward for this.

Editor’s note: I appreciated the Torah Temimah’s constant questioning here of the classic explanations for some midrashim and statements in the Gemora. He keeps inquiring and applying his knowledge to derive new explanations that are based on his broad knowledge of other texts.

Leviticus 11:4 – But these you shall not eat among those that bring up the cud and those that have a cloven hoof: the camel, because it brings up its cud, but does not have a [completely] cloven hoof; it is unclean for you.

Gemora Ketubot 60a: Why does it use the phrase “it is unclean”, “it” is unclean; human milk and blood, however, is not unclean but clean.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #18:

The phrase “those who walk on two feet” refers to humans. As for why it didn’t explicitly say “humans”, look at what I have written on note # 9.

It is probable that the comment on our posuk is made regarding the word “hu” [it]. In the adjacent sentences discussing forbidden items, it just says “tamei l’chem” [forbidden to you] which refers to what came before it, including the camel in our posuk. Additionally it does not say “it is forbidden to you”. Since it uses the word “it” here, we can learn that something else is excluded from being forbidden. Truthfully, also in Parshat Re’eh it also lists all the unclean animals together and says “forbidden to you”.

For all these reasons, the lesson is derived from here that milk and blood of humans is permitted. (And as our Sages mention, blood of a person is only permitted where it didn’t separate completely from the person, such as blood between one’s teeth. However, if it did separate [and one were to collect it] into a vessel, it would be forbidden because of “maarat ayin” [permitting something that could be easily misinterpreted] lest people might think that it is the blood of an animal.

Now, see that from this drasha that is permitting the milk and blood of a person to eat, we see a proof to the opinion of the Rambam that we mentioned above in note #9 that eating flesh of a person is a violation of a positive commandment [the commandment that stated explicitly what you should eat. Also, recall that the Ramban and Rashba said that there is no prohibition against eating people.]

Note that there is a general principle that something which derives from a forbidden thing is also forbidden. If eating people were permitted, why would there be a need for a posuk to tell you that it is permitted??!! Of course milk and blood of a person are permitted, behold, even eating people is permitted!

However, from the fact that there is a posuk teaching us that milk and blood are permitted, we can see that obviously it must be that eating people is prohibited. Thus the opinion of the Rambam is supported by our Gemora above.  

Further, the fact that eating human flesh is only forbidden as transgressing a positive commandment [less severe than transgressing a negative commandment], it makes sense that the prohibition would not be strong enough to include what derives from a person [such as a the milk and blood.]

Editor’s note: This note is basically a continuation of note #9. In our note here, the Torah Temimah again applies his creative deductive and rock solid reasoning to show that the Rambam’s opinion is correct.

Leviticus 11:4 – But these you shall not eat among those that bring up the cud and those that have a cloven hoof: the camel, because it brings up its cud, but does not have a [completely] cloven hoof; it is unclean for you.

Torat Cohanim: [Why does it use the limiting word “but”?] I might think that the meat of those who walk on two feet is forbidden, the [limiting word]“but” is used to teach otherwise [that it is permitted]

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #9:

The phrase “those who walk on two feet” refers to humans. It is not clear why it didn’t explicitly say that the “meat of humans” [is permitted]. Rather it chose a flowery phrase of “the meat of those who walk on two feet”. Maybe it is because with this phraseology it is coming also to include flesh of wild savages who lived in previous generations in countries far away, whose human [dignity] had so diminished from them that Yechezkel says (23, 20) “And she lusted for their concubinage, those whose flesh is the flesh of donkeys, and whose issue is the issue of horses.” Look also in Gemora Berachos 25b.

Also look at what the Rambam says in Chapter 2:3 of Forbidden Foods, where he writes that even though there is no prohibition against eating human flesh nevertheless eating people would be a transgression of a positive commandment [since the Torah describes what we are allowed to eat, as we see when the Torah describes the seven types of animals that we are allowed to eat. Then it adds the phrase “of these you should eat”. This shows that eating people is, according to the Rambam in the category of a transgression of a positive commandment since people are not including in the list of animals that one may eat. Thus such a transgression is a positive commandment transgression.

Note that the Ramban and the Rashba disagree with the Rambam. Their opinion is that there is no prohibition at all regarding eating people. Their view is that the Torat Cohanim quoted above is a “general hook” [asmakhta b’alma] rather than an actual source for this prohibition. Also, please look at what I [the Torah Temimah] write in footnote 18 of this chapter regarding a convincing proof that the Rambam is actually correct.

[Lastly] it is obvious that there is a universal ruling that there is a prohibition of deriving any benefit at all from the body of a dead person [so you couldn’t eat it!]. This law is learned from a textual parallelism from the laws of the decapitated calf (Deuteronomy 21:1-9. Also, look in the Gemora Sanhedrin 47b.

Editor’s note: The Torah Temimah emphasizes the importance of using the rules of Talmudic logic in a consistent fashion. He is not advocating eating people nor is his saying that any rabbi advocated such a thing. Rather, the Torah Temimah is explaining the legal reasoning behind the prohibition and various rabbis’ opinions. The Torah Temimah’s point of view derives directly from the Torat Cohanim.

[The Torat Cohanim is a midrash written down around the time of the Mishnah.]

Leviticus 5:1 And if a person sins and hears the demand for an oath, and he is [a] witness – has either seen or known of it – so that if he does not speak out, he shall bear his sin.

Gemora Baba Kama 56a: He shall bear his sin – vis-à-vis heavenly justice [he is guilty] but in terms of human courts he is not liable.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #27:

The reason why he is not liable in human courts is because [the witness who does not testify] is not directly causing the loss to the victim [by his not testifying]. The Gemora’s conclusion is that even a single witness is indeed still obligated to come forward and testify about what he knows. The commentaries explain that even though a single witness who does not come forward is exempt from the punishment of bringing a sacrifice [korban shavua] since, by himself, his testimony would not have been enough to convict the perpetrator; nevertheless he is still obligated to come forward and give testimony anyway. This is because his single testimony would be enough to cause the suspected perpetrator to have to undergo a biblical oath to protest his innocence. Sometimes, the suspected perpetrator would prefer to pay [the amount that the single witness claims is owed] rather than undergo such an oath. Therefore, we see that even a single witness could provide relief to the victim, even though failure to testify would not make him culpable for any punishment.

Nevertheless, this issue is still difficult to understand. The reason why this explanation above is difficult to understand is because the Gemora understands this posuk to refer to a case of two witnesses. This would include the whole posuk, even the second part that says “and he shall bear his sin”. (This is explained in the previous commentary that the whole posuk is dealing with a case of two witnesses.) If this is the case, then how could one possibly deduce from some type of forced logic that a single witness also has to testify since the perpetrator might not want to swear, etc. The commentaries have, in fact, toiled hard to explain this. See the notes of the Choshen Mishpat, Section 28.

[Consequently], it seems to me that the true obligation of a single witness to testify is not because of the section in our posuk where it says “he will bear his sin”. Rather the source of the requirement for a single witness to testify is actually from a different lesson in Torat Cohanim on Parshat Kedoshim on the posuk “do not stand idly by while your brother’s blood is spilt”. There the Torat Cohanim comments “from where do we know that if you have knowledge, that it is not appropriate for you to keep silent? [The source] is from this posuk: don’t stand idly by while your brother’s blood is spilt”.

The issue is that everyone is obligated to save his friend from any trouble that he may be in. This applies whether the trouble is physical danger or monetary trouble. Therefore, since even a single witness can bring some [relief] to the victim. As we explained above this would be through requiring the suspected perpetrator to take a biblical oath, and perhaps the person would rather pay than swear. It is therefore clear that even a single witness has some ability to assist a victim. Due to this fact, he is, [of course] required to testify.

Additionally, it is clear in my eyes that even though the Gemora doesn’t mention this posuk in Parshat Kedoshim, nevertheless I am practically positive that the main source for the single witness to testify is from the posuk in Parshat Kedoshim [about not standing idly by] and from the lesson learned from that posuk by Torat Cohanim. We already know about similar lessons derived from this same posuk in Parshat Kedoshim. For example, in Gemora Sanhedrin 73a where it asks “from where do we know that a person who sees his friend drowning in the sea or he sees that thieves are about to come upon his friend, that one is obligated to save him? The answer is: Don’t stand idly by while your brother’s blood is spilt.”

[Keep in mind] that the word “blood” also can mean “money”. This is how we know that our posuk of not standing idly by is also the source of the law requiring one to help if one sees someone attempting to steal from one’s friend through false statements.

Editor’s Note: The Torah Temimah takes this opportunity to bring a lesson from another parsha to remind us that the commandment to “not stand idly by” applies to every possible difficulty and issue in which you can perhaps assist your friend. You are guilty in the eyes of heaven if you could have assisted and you didn’t.