Leviticus 19:13 - On “fellow/neighbor”

(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation.)

The meaning contribution of the noun רֵעַ is unfortunately not clear, because in the Bible it is not used enough times in passages that show its scope. That being said, its denotation seems to be restricted by its semantics to something narrower than all human beings.

On one hand, its attribution seems to be (what today we would call) ethnic in nature. In Deut 15:2–3, it is contrasted with הַנָּכְרִי “the foreigner.” Likewise, in Lev 19:18, loving one’s רֵעַ is complemented in v. 34 by a separate command to love the (non-Israelite) stranger, suggesting that the latter is not included in the scope of רֵעַ.

On the other hand, in some usages it carries a nuance of physical proximity. In constructions that describe reciprocal relations, it is preferred (rather than אָח, literally “brother”) in contexts where proximity is a more salient factor than kinship (e.g., Gen 11:3, 7; 15:10; 31:49; 43:33; Exod 18:7).

Women are not excluded from view in these passages (vv. 13, 16, 18).

As for rendering into English, there is no warrant for rendering in gendered terms.

The 1985 NJPS pointedly distinguished between ‘neighbor’ and ‘fellow’, as Orlinsky's note on this verse (Notes on the New Translation of the Torah, 1970: 38–39) makes clear:

“The term has traditionally been rendered ‘neighbor,’ but this can sometimes be misleading. For the Hebrew term, strictly speaking, refers to any fellow Israelite rather than to a neighbor (who may or may not be Israelite). Thus the section at Lev. 19.13–18 will be considerably clarified by giving up Trad. ‘neighbor’ in the projected Hebrew-English edition in favor of ‘fellow,’ i.e., ‘fellow Israelite’ (vv. 13, 16, 18).”

For gender-sensitive rendering, we respected the NJPS choice. In CJPS (2006; and its 2005 predecessor), we borrowed from Orlinsky’s explanation and substituted ‘fellow [Israelite]’, understanding the adjectival form to feel less masculine than the noun “fellow.” (The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing (2001) held that “one can make a reasonable case that all forms of the word—with the exception of fellowman—can be used sex-inclusively” (p. 134).) However, that rendering seems somewhat awkward.

In 2023, the categorical, non-specific use of “fellow” does not seem to be widely perceived as lexically gendered (or only weakly so). The revised rendering now restores the NJPS ‘fellow,’ with a clarifying footnote.