The Honor of Yaakov and Amram
וַיִּקַּח עַמְרָם אֶת יוֹכֶבֶד דֹּדָתוֹ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה:
Amram took his aunt, Yocheved, as a wife (Shemot 6:20)
Two Missing Punishments
Commenting on this pasuk, the Baalei HaTosafot write:
Since Moshe was born from his father’s aunt, therefore the punishment of kareit was not written in connection with the ervah of an aunt, out of respect for him.
The Baalei HaTosafot are responding to the following question that was raised by the Gedolei HaRishonim (the Ibn Ezra, Rabbeinu Bachye). In Parshat Acharei-Mot (Vayikra perek 18) we have the parshah detailing which arayot are forbidden. Paralleling this, in Parshat Kedoshim (perek 20) the Torah writes the punishments for all the arayot which were forbidden in perek 18. However, there are two arayot missing from that second parshah, namely, the punishment for marrying two sisters, and for marrying one’s aunt, even though both were mentioned as issurim in perek 18, and we know — through Torah SheBaal Peh — that the punishment for both of them is also kareit.
Regarding this matter, the Ibn Ezra writes (20:19):
(The pasuk) did not mention the punishment for a father’s sister, nor did it mention the punishment for two sisters; the discerning individual will understand, also the words of the tradition (“kabbalah”)[1] are true.
These words of the Ibn Ezra are somewhat cryptic. Rabbeinu Bachye elaborates (Vayikra 20:21):
All the arayot which are mentioned here (regarding their punishments) have already been mentioned above in Parshat Acharei-Mot, except there the Torah mentioned the lo taaseh and did not mention the punishment, while here it wrote them again in order to mention the punishment, and it mentioned all of them except for that of two sisters out of respect for Yaakov.
Rabbeinu Bachye has thus explained that when the Ibn Ezra said “hamaskil yavin — the discerning individual will understand,” the meaning is that it was on account of the honor of Yaakov (and Amram) that the Torah did not mention those punishments explicitly.
The Abarbanel’s Objection
The Abarbanel has a difficulty with this approach:
The Ibn Ezra’s intimation that “(The pasuk) did not mention the punishment for an aunt, nor that for two sisters, and the discerning individual will understand,” means that it was out of respect for Yaakov and Amram, since Yaakov married two sisters and Amram married his aunt, therefore those two punishments were not mentioned in the Torah. But there is no reason for this, for prior to the giving of the Torah, these things were not yet forbidden!
The Abarbanel does not see any need to protect the honor of Yaakov and Amram, for they did nothing wrong that would require such a measure. Although their marriages would, in time, become forbidden by the Torah, nonetheless, at the time they were completely permitted![2]
These words of the Abarbanel will require us to try and understand on a deeper level the idea of “the honor of Yaakov and Amram,” referred to by the Ibn Ezra and Rabbeinu Bachye. Let us begin by asking:
1. In essence, how did the Torah help protect the honor of these two great figures by not mentioning the punishments for these arayot in the text of Torah Shebichtav, when the issur itself is mentioned explicitly in perek 18! Why are we not concerned for their honor in that perek? We must answer — as indeed the Abarbanel did — that prior to Matan Torah these things were not forbidden, so that there is actually no real slight to their honor! Why, then, does this become an issue in perek 20?
2. Moreover, anyone who learns perek 18 will inevitably ask what the punishment actually is for anyone who violates these two issurim, and he will be told that such a person is chayav kareit. In what way did the Torah really succeed in protecting the honor of Yaakov and Amram? Ultimately, any Torah-learner knows that they had marriages that after Matan Torah would be forbidden on pain of kareit.
Essentially, we are asking the following question: What difference does it make if the punishment is mentioned in pshuto shel mikra or is known through Torah SheBaal Peh? At the end of the day it is known, and the issue of the honor of Yaakov and Amram has not really been resolved!
Building Beit Yisrael
It appears that the explanation of the matter is as follows. In order to establish the House of Yisrael in the manner that was required, Hashem allowed the Avot of the nation certain things that would subsequently become forbidden at Matan Torah. These issurim were things that the Avot nonetheless voluntarily accepted upon themselves, as Yaakov says (Rashi to Bereishit 32:5) “ותרי"ג מצוות שמרתי — And I kept the six hundred and thirteen mitzvot.” However, this level of fulfilling the mitzvot was in the category of “אינו מצווה ועושה.” It was voluntary, and therefore could be more easily set aside for a higher purpose.
Moreover, perhaps we could even say that to a certain degree the Avot were also in the category of “מצווים — commanded,” after all, Hashem says regarding Avraham (Bereishit 26:5) “וַיִּשְׁמֹר... מִצְוֹתַי — and he kept…My mitzvot,” which, according to Rashi, refers to Taryag Mitzvot. Nonetheless, to whatever degree they were considered “commanded” by Hashem at that stage, ultimately, they received a special dispensation for these marriages from the One who was commanding them.
The Heter Reflects the Madreigah
However, we will appreciate that even if some dispensation is required, it should be in an area which is relatively less severe, if possible. Moreover, we may say that the level of stringency of the “aveirah” where the person receives a dispensation reflects the madreigah of the person himself. The higher the madreigah of the person, the less severe will be the aveirah that Hashem will allow him to override, even though at that time it is permitted, for engaging in a severe aveirah — even before it has been forbidden as an aveirah — will nonetheless adversely affect the madreigah of the person.
It would seem that this yesod, which we are submitting as the basis for understanding the idea of “the honor of Yaakov and Amram,” may be found in the unique approach of the Maharal, both in his peirush Gur Ayreh as well his sefer Tiferet Yisrael, to our question of Yaakov marrying two sisters. In Gur Aryeh to Bereishit (46:10, s.v. v’Shaul), the Maharal writes:
It should not present a difficulty to you that Yaakov marrying two sisters is considered an embarrassment (“גנאי”), as we find in Masechet Pesachim (119b) that in the future Yaakov will not feel deserving of making the berachah (on the wine after Birkat Hamazon) since he married two sisters. This should not be difficult for you, for in reality, this is the embarrassment; for the only reason Yaakov was allowed to marry two sisters was because the Torah had not been given to him. Yaakov knew this, and since the only reason it was allowed was because he did not yet have a mitzvah in this area, even though he acted based on Ruach HaKodesh, (nonetheless) it is an embarrassment, for ultimately this is something that will become forbidden when the Torah is given, and had the Torah already been given, this would not have been permitted to Yaakov, for we do not find an issur of arayot overridden (once the Torah has been given).
The Maharal continues:
However, my explanation of the above Midrash is that the reason Yaakov did not want to make the berachah is due to the fact that he was congruous (מוכן) with something that would later be prohibited. For Yaakov knew through Ruach HaKodesh that marrying two sisters was appropriate for him, and this is something of an embarrassment, to be compatible with something that would become forbidden. This was not the case with Yitzchak, for even though it was permitted for him, as well, to marry two sisters, this was not something that he, as a person, needed to do. And this is what caused Yaakov to not want to make the berachah. This is a great matter, and this (explanation) is extremely clear, and is the definitive explanation of the matter when you examine it deeply.
The explanation of the Maharal’s words appears as follows. According to his first approach, the embarrassment lies in the very fact that Yaakov was not worthy of the Torah being given to him, something which allowed him to have a marriage that would become forbidden later on, once the Torah was given. According to the second approach, which the Maharal prefers, while it may have been permitted for Yaakov to marry two sisters, he would presumably have avoided doing so in the interests of “keeping Taryag Mitzvot,” but yet saw through Ruach HaKodesh that it was something he needed to do.
Kareit of Torah Shebichtav and Torah SheBaal Peh
What we see from this is that it is important to understand the level of severity of the (future) aveirot that Hashem permitted Yaakov to override for the sake of building the necessary foundations of Am Yisrael, for this tells us the degree to which Yaakov could override Torah matters without adversely affecting his essential madreigah.
This brings us back to the question of kareit for marrying two sisters (and one’s aunt) not being mentioned in Vayikra perek 20. The Netziv (Emek HaNetziv to Sifrei Parshat Beha’alotecha piska 12 informs us that there are different levels of kareit depending on the way they are phrased in the pasuk. He distinguishes between these two expressions:
1. הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא — That soul shall be absolutely cut off. This double expression refers to a twofold punishment of kareit, both in Olam Hazeh, as well as in Olam Habah.
2. וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא — That soul shall be cut off. This expression refers to kareit either in Olam Hazeh, or in Olam Habah.
Based on this yesod of the Netziv, let us take things one stage further and suggest that there are two additional lower levels of kareit:
3. We find kareit mentioned in Nevi’im, for example, Malachi (2:12)[3], “יַכְרֵת ה’ לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂנָּה — Hashem shall cut off one who does this.” Kareit that is mentioned in the Nevi’im is less severe than kareit mentioned in the Torah.
4. Kareit that is known or derived through Torah SheBaal Peh, and not mentioned in the Torah Shebichtav at all. This kareit is the relatively least severe.
With regard to these final two categories, we see elsewhere in halachah that we distinguish between something written in the Chumash and something written in Nevi’im, Kesuvim, or not at all. For example, the Rambam tells us that one does not receive malkot for transgressing an aveirah that is only known through Halachah L’Moshe MiSinai, even though it is d’Oraita, nor for an aveirah that is written in the Navi, even though that too could be d’Oraita.[4] The principle that emerges is that there is a direct correlation between the way[5] — and location[6] — in which an issur is written, and its level of severity.
Now we can appreciate the full significance of the penalty of kareit not being mentioned in the Torah with regard to marrying an aunt or two sisters, as well as its contribution to the honor of Yaakov and Amram. It is important to know the severity of the issurim that Yaakov and Amram were allowed to override, for through this we can gauge their true madreigah. Had it been necessary to permit something that would later carry the penalty of kareit written in the Torah, this would have affected their madreigah adversely — something that would not have been allowed to happen. In that case, we would say that Hashem, so to speak, would have had to find an alternative route to establishing Beit Yisrael, as it could not be at the expense of the madreigah of Yaakov or Amram.
Thus, by establishing that the issur that was permitted to them was one that would later on carry the penalty of “only” kareit on the level of Torah SheBaal Peh, this is the honor of Yaakov and Amram, for it thereby establishes the “red line” that they could not cross.
We suggest that this is what the Gedolei HaRishonim meant by referring to kareit not being mentioned in these two cases as “the honor of Yaakov and Amram.” Their honor comes not through “hiding” the fact that the penalty is kareit, but by establishing the essential spiritual level of these giants on the Torah’s scale of absolute truth. That is what gives them honor.
[1] This refers to the tradition Chazal received through Torah SheBaal Peh, that these two relationships also carry the penalty of kareit.
[2] We will note that for the Abarbanel, our opening question will return, namely, why then did the Torah not mention the punishments for these two arayot? See his peirush to Vayikra ibid., where he offers his own explanation.
[3] Referring to the din of בועל ארמית.
[4] As it is possible that it was Torah SheBaal Peh until the Navi wrote it, a concept known as “עד דאתא ואסמכיה אקרא.”
[5] Single or double expression.
[6] In Torah, in Nevi’im, or not at all.