Deuteronomy · Chapter 21

If a slain person is found in the land that Hashem your God is giving you to inherit, fallen in the field, and it is not known who killed him —

"If a slain person is found." Having mentioned the war against the enemy, [the Torah] now speaks of a case where a man fights with another and a slain person is found in the land of Israel and it is not known who struck him.

כי ימצא חלל, “if someone unidentifiable is found slain,” after the Torah discussed certain aspects of war between nations, it now turns to the result of individuals who had apparently fought one another and the victor had escaped as there had not been any witnesses. כי ימצא חלל, “he had been found dead, the killer not having buried him;”. נופל בשדה, “lying in the field;” he was not hung from a tree; it is not customary for a murderer to take the time to hang his victim as he is busy hiding his identity as quickly as he is able to. An alternate interpretation of the words: נופל בשדה: not floating on the surface of a body of water. There was no indication of where he might have come from.

כי ימצא חלל באדמה, “If a slain person is found lying on the earth, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text the legislation about breaking the neck of the עגלה ערופה, the calf the Torah commands to be killed publicly and to be thrown into a virgin valley, is supposed to be a great trick designed to reveal the identity of the murderer. Maimonides in Moreh Nevuchim 3,40 writes as follows: “the people killing this calf are from the town nearest where the murdered person has been found. In most instances the murderer is a local resident. The elders of that town testify that they had not been negligent in maintaining all the services which are part of a civilised town. It is hoped that the publicity which this procedure attracts will lead to information disclosing the identity of the culprit.” The sages are already on record that even an unsubstantiated statement by a lowly slave-woman claiming that a certain person is the murderer is sufficient to halt these proceedings (Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 9,1). If the identity of the murderer was known but the townspeople were part of a conspiracy of silence, and they have the audacity to testify in front of their Creator that they did not know the identity of the murderer, this is a great sin and anyone (from outside) who acquires knowledge is called upon to make public what he knows, so that the guilty party will be dealt with either by a court of law, the king, or the relative who is the blood-avenger. The whole incident assumes additional significance in that the site where the calf was killed will forever have to remain virgin earth so that people who observe that this earth is not being used for anything will make inquiries about this. Thus far Maimonides. The expression וערפו means that they are to remove the neck of this calf (Ibn Ezra). The reason why all of this has to take place in the town nearest the slain person is that in our estimation the murderer comes from that city, or that people of that town had been guilty of a similar crime; otherwise such a disaster would not have happened near their town. Some explain the words נחל איתן, as a place of דשן ושמן, a very fertile valley. Now that this tragedy has occurred, the Torah forbids us to again make use of that land. Our sages in Sotah 15 also understand the words אשר לא יעבד בו ולא יזרע as referring to the future; after the calf has been killed there, this site is to be treated as if out of bounds completely. The Mishnah in Sotah 45 says that although this site is forbidden to be sown, one is allowed to comb flax on that site or to chisel stones there seeing that these activities are not performed with the actual soil. According to this latter explanation every one of us must be careful to maintain roads in such a condition including security patrols, so that murder cannot occur and the murderer escape. Once a property owner knows that if such a murder has occurred nearby they may all forfeit use of their property as a result he will cooperate in supervising his town and what is around it (Based on the father of R' David Kimchi in the Sefer Hashoroshim). A Midrashic approach to the subject of עגלה ערופה, based on Sotah 46: G’d said: “let the yearling calf whose neck is broken serve as a symbol and have her neck broken in a place which will not produce fruit (any produce) in order to atone for the slain person whose life has been cut short so that he will no longer be able to produce “fruit.” Other commentators dealing with the legislation surrounding the עגלה ערופה claim that the reason the calf in question must be one that has never born a yoke or performed labor for man, and that it has to be brought to a valley which has no traces of ever having been worked by man is so the calf will not recognize the site. There is to be no paved path through that valley so that the calf is not tempted to leave that area. The priests would hit it on its neck in order to encourage it to escape that valley and show us the way to the murderer. This is the meaning of the words (verse 4) וערפו שם את העגלה בנחל. Prior to that the elders of the town washed their hands over the calf, saying: ”our hands have not spilled this blood.” The priests would then respond: “grant atonement for Your people Israel.” The expression כפר in this instance includes a request for the facts to come to light, for the murderer to be found. If the Israelites of that generation were generally Torah-observant, the calf would walk to the house of the murderer, stop, and the priests would proceed to kill the calf at that spot. This is the meaning of the words: “and the blood shall be atoned for them.” If the people of that generation were generally not Torah-observant, and therefore entitled to identify and deal with the murderer, and as a result the calf would not seek out a specific house before coming to a halt, the priests would hit the neck of the calf with an axe, severing the neck. This is the meaning of ונכפר להם הדם, “the blood (guilt) will be atoned for them.” G’d would have to do the atoning then. A rational approach to this legislation: the calf which is being killed, עגלה ערופה, is a similar phenomenon to the שעיר לעזאזל, the scape-goat, which is killed after it (symbolically) carries the sins of the entire Jewish people (Leviticus 16,10). Both wind up in a totally barren environment. Something similar happens to one of the birds offered by the person who has been declared cured of the dreaded skin disease tzoraat. It is released into the air after its partner has been slaughtered and the surviving bird’s blood has been dipped in the blood of the bird which has been slaughtered (Leviticus 14,51-53). The surviving bird is perceived as carrying the guilt of the person for whom it atones into certain nether regions inhabited by demons and the like. All of the three phenomena we listed have as their purpose to blunt possible accusations by spiritually negative forces which abound in the world and which look for any excuse to assume the role of prosecuting attorney against the Jewish people. From a technical point of view it would have been enough for the Torah to write that the valley in question should be one which has neither been worked nor sown, i.e. לא יעבד ולא יזרע. Why did the Torah add the extra word בו (verse 4)? The Torah wanted to make clear that not only the valley but also the calf itself must not have performed any kind of work. By being so totally undomesticated, the animal is perceived as (still) belonging to the domain of the forces appointed by G’d to rule in the desert and similar inhospitable places (as we explained on other occasions). When the calf’s neck is broken then it occurs in the domain of these demonic forces. The very word איתן implies that the valley is very harsh, hard, tough. The reason that the Torah spelled the word שפכה with the letter ה at the end, instead of the letter ו which we would have expected, may be an allusion to the fact that if one kills a person one deprives him of his five senses. By doing so, the murderer has destroyed an entire world. The world had been created with the last letter ה of the tetragrammaton (Bereshit Rabbah 12,9). The reason for this somewhat exaggerated sounding description of the murder of a single individual is the fact that G’d created only a single human being at the beginning. If he had been killed prematurely, the human race would have been exterminated as the result of such a single act of killing. The reason for the words כפר לעמך ישראל אשר פדית ה', “provide atonement for Your people Israel, whom You have redeemed o Lord” (verse 8), is simple. The procedure of killing this calf resulted in our providing these demonic forces with a delight. This enhances the power of these forces to act as advocates for the prosecution against Israel. As a result, we have to ask forgiveness, כפרה, from Hashem for having been forced to make use of this legislation. Similar considerations are valid in connection with the שעיר לעזאזל. In Leviticus 16,33, at the conclusion of the whole procedure, the Torah writes: “He shall bring atonement upon the Holy of Holies, and upon the Tent of meeting and the Altar; he will bring atonement for the priests and all the people.” In other words, after the whole Yom Kippur service has been dealt with the Torah had to write these words to show that having somehow caused satisfaction to the Azzazel, the people and all concerned are in need of atonement for this. There is yet another aspect embodied in the procedures of the עגלה ערופה, and that is that the procedures teach us something about the nature of a murdered person. The procedures leading to atonement of this crime comprise three elements. 1) the breaking of the calf’s neck; 2) the location where this has to take place, i.e. a totally barren area, one which has never been useful. 3) the recital of a confession by the priests: “our hands did not spill this blood. Please atone for Your people of Israel.” Every intelligent person realizes that the murderer achieved his objective only by means of separating, detaching his victim from three “souls,” life-forces. He separated him from the animalistic soul, from the soul which enables vegetable matter to grow, and, finally, he separated him from the נפש השכלית, the abstract life-force we call “soul.” We know that the first soul which departs from the slain person is the animalistic soul. This is why the Torah selected a calf for this procedure, seeing that it (the mother) symbolizes animalism. Killing it removes that “soul.” The location, i.e. one that does not produce any growth, symbolizes the “vegetable” soul, i.e. its absence. Finally, the confession and request for atonement symbolise the loss of the abstract soul of the slain person. I have heard that the carcass of the calf generates worms which will attack the murderer wherever he is. This is a mystery of nature related to the barren valley, the domain of the demons we mentioned. A Kabbalistic approach: the whole procedure of “sacrificing” the עגלה ערופה to the attribute of Justice in its most severe manifestation aims at preventing this attribute which is poised to strike the community in whose proximity the murder occurred from causing harm. The reason the neck of the animal was chosen as the point of death is that it represents the “hardest,” most unbending part of the personality. Seeing that at this time G’d, as it were, turns His back (neck) on us, this calf does not have its throat slit as do the animals which are ritually slaughtered. The reason why this whole legislation is described in such detail is that the murder has occurred in Eretz Yisrael, on holy soil. The reason the Torah added the word בקר to the word עגלת בקר (a calf is always a junior בקר) is that this animal symbolises the חיה with the face of an ox in the prophet’s vision in Ezekiel 1,10. Sometimes the חיה described there as on the ”left,” does appear on the right, i.e. represents the attribute of Mercy. Although the calf must not have been worked, borne a yoke, it may impose such a yoke, burden on others (symbolically speaking). As to the words והורדו, “they shall bring it (the calf) down” (verse 4), this means that the elders shall drag the calf down to that valley. The words וערפו שם, reminds us of Genesis 49,24 משם רועה אבן ישראל, [if I understand correctly a reference to Joseph dragging down his family to Egypt, Joseph representing the “ox,” בכור שורו. Ed.]. The words את העגלה בנחל, mean that the calf is to be submerged in the waters of the brook of that valley. These waters are called נחלי אל, a reference to the emanations. The reason the Torah refers to the murdered person as חלל, usually understood as an empty space, is that he has been deprived of his souls, thus effectively making him “empty,” חלול. The word is also related to חולין, something profane, devoid of sanctity. The procedure is designed to eliminate the spirit of impurity outside the town in the field. This is why the Torah emphasizes נופל בשדה, “fallen in the field” (verse 1). The word חלל is an allusion to orbit, i.e. the revolving planets in their orbits; the slain person is perceived as having been on earth before in a different body. This may be the reason the Torah speaks of חלל באדמה instead of חלל בארץ. This whole procedure was performed by the priests, the Levites, seeing it is their function to settle strife and plague (verse 5). The words ריב and נגע refer to strife both in the terrestrial regions and in the celestial regions. The waters with which the elders wash their hands (verse 6) represent the waters of the attribute חסד which have their origin in a domain above that of the עגלה. The washing of the hands is to ensure that the elders will not be harmed by the attribute of Justice.

“When a slain person is found on the land, etc.” Rabbi Yitzchak Abarbanel raised a difficulty regarding this section, questioning why it is placed here among the four sections dealing with matters of war. The Rabbi gave a weak reason for this, and other commentators who approached this to explain the connection did so with forced explanations. Now lift up your eyes and see what our Sages said (Sotah 46a): “It was taught: Rabbi Yochanan ben Shaul said: Why did the Torah command to bring the heifer whose neck is broken? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: ‘Let the heifer which has not produced fruit come and have its neck broken in a place that does not produce fruit, and atone for the one whom they did not allow to produce fruit.’” The Gemara questions: “If this refers to procreation, then would we not perform this ceremony for someone who was castrated or elderly? Rather, it refers to [the inability to perform] commandments.”And in the previous section it states, For you may eat from it, but you shall not cut it down; only a tree that you know is not a food tree, and our Sages said in the Tractate Ta’anit (7a), “If he is a worthy Torah scholar, from it you may eat and you shall not cut it down, but a tree that you know is not a food tree refers to an unworthy Torah scholar, etc.”Thus, any intelligent person can see with their mind’s eye that the connection between these two sections is self-evident: If the reason for the heifer whose neck is broken is because they did not allow him to produce fruit through procreation, then it is appropriately connected to the previous section which is particular about not cutting down a fruit-bearing tree. What difference is there between the fruit of man and the fruit of the ground? They share the same law, as it says, For man is a tree of the field. And if [the reason is] that they did not allow him to produce the fruits of commandments, as per the conclusion, behold, in the previous section as well, there is concern not to cut down the Torah scholar who produces fruit — the tree of life according to its kind. I am surprised at all the commentators that such a simple matter was hidden from their eyes. And what our Sages of blessed memory interpreted (Taanit 7a) the verse from it you shall eat and it you shall not cut down as referring to the Torah scholar, it seems that they never intended to remove the verse from its simple meaning. Rather, they wanted to explain why the Torah was so strict about cutting down a fruit tree. It must be to derive a fortiori reasoning regarding a person who produces fruit — a righteous person is a tree of life — for man is a tree of the field producing righteous fruit and sprouting righteousness. And if the Torah was strict about a fruit-bearing tree that has no knowledge or understanding, how much more so regarding the fruit of a complete righteous person. Therefore, it immediately follows with the passage of the heifer whose neck is broken [eglah arufah], which also demonstrates great concern for the fruit of the righteous, the tree of life.

your elders and your judges shall go out and measure to the towns that surround the slain person.

ויצאו זקניך THEN THE ELDERS [AND THE JUDGES] SHALL GO FORTH — i.e. the distinguished amongst thy elders, these are the Great Sanhedrin (Sotah 44b). ומדדו AND THEY SHALL MEASURE — from the place where the corpse lies, אל הערים אשר סביבת החלל UNTO THE CITIES WHICH ARE ROUND ABOUT HIM THAT IS SLAIN — in every direction, in order to ascertain which is the nearest.

"Your elders." The elders of the nearby cities, and the judges.

ומדדו, ”they (the authorities) will measure;” even if it clear how far he is removed from the nearest habitation, the act of performing the measuring will draw the attention of the public to what has happened in their vicinity; the people of the neighbouring towns or villages will institute searches for any resident not accounted for so that the identity of the slain person may be established. If someone in the neighbouring towns has not been accounted for, the family members will come to inspect the carcass to determine if he was related to them. Through these searches it may be determined who might have kept company with the slain man, and if there was a woman in the vicinity whose husband had disappeared and who was therefore an agunah, an abandoned woman unable to remarry until proof would forthcoming that her husband had died, and who could be able to remarry once the identity of the slain main was determined as having been her husband.

ומדדו אך הערים, “and they shall measure unto the cities;” Rabbi B’chor Shor said that G–d commanded all these details in order to publicise the fact that an unidentified person had been found murdered so that witnesses who might be able to identify the slain man and to thus prevent his widow from becoming an agunah, a woman who is unable to remarry due to our not knowing if her husband had really died. When our sages in the Talmud tractate Yevamot folio 120, stated that the only valid identification is recognising the carcasses’ face, including his nose, this is meant when the identification is only based on facial features including the nose. When we can hear from the way the witnesses speak about the deceased that he must have been familiar to them, this testimony is definitely sufficient to allow the deceased’s widow to remarry, even if this identification occurred several weeks after the slain person had been found. In fact, even identification from a distance may be sufficient. The example quoted in the Talmud there on folio 121, is that a Rabbi Yehudah ben Baba, performed a wedding ceremony for a woman five days after her husband had drowned and been identified. The Talmud justifies this due to decomposition of a corpse in water taking much longer that decomposition of features on dry land.

The town that is nearest to the slain person — the elders of that town shall take a heifer of the herd with which no work has been done, which has not drawn a yoke.

"A heifer of the cattle that has not been worked with" — for plowing. "And has not pulled with a yoke" — for hauling stones, as is the custom of heifers.

והיה העיר, “and it shall be that the city, etc.;” it will be up to the elders or inhabitants of the site closest to where the slain person was found to take a female heifer of the herd, etc.;” the inverted use of the male pronoun for a female i.e. עבד “he was worked,” instead of: “she was worked,” is also found in Genesis 24,13, with the word: הנערה

and the city which is nearest to the dead man, being the suspected one, let the chief court of justice take means for absolution (or disculpation). Let the sages, the elders of that city, take an heifer from the herd, not commixed, an heifer of the year, which hath not been wrought with nor hath drawn in the yoke:.

The elders of that town shall bring the heifer down to a rugged wadi that is neither tilled nor sown, and they shall break the heifer's neck there in the wadi.

אל נחל איתן UNTO A VALLEY WHICH IS איתן — which is hard; i.e. one that has never been tilled (Sifrei Devarim 207:2; Sotah 45b). וערפו AND THEY SHALL STRIKE OFF [THE HEIFER’S] NECK — i.e. one breaks its neck with a hatchet. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, as it were, Let a heifer which is only one year old and which therefore has brought forth no fruits (no offspring) have its neck broken at a spot (the untilled valley) which has not brought forth fruits, to expiate for the murder of him whom they did not permit further to beget children (Sotah 46a).

AND THE ELDERS OF THAT CITY SHALL BRING DOWN THE HEIFER UNTO A VALLEY ‘EITHAN’ — “which is ‘hard,’ one that has never been tilled.” This is Rashi’s language. And our Rabbis have said that the field becomes forbidden from ever being tilled or sown. If so, [the words which is neither tilled nor sown] are admonitions that he who sows or cultivates [a rough valley in which a heifer’s neck has been broken] transgresses this negative commandment. The meaning of the verse is thus that the elders should take forth the heifer to [what will forever become] “a rough valley” because it will never again be tilled or sown. The meaning of the expression And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near is in order to recite Forgive, O Eternal, Thy people Israel, whom Thou hast redeemed etc. And the purport of the verses is as follows: And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; and all the elders of that city, who are nearest unto the slain man, shall wash their hands; and they shall speak and say: ‘Our hands have not shed this blood.’ The washing of hands is to be done only by some of the [elders] mentioned; so also their speaking [‘Our hands have not shed etc.’] is done by some of them, similar to what is stated, And thou shalt eat before the Eternal thy G-d etc. the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herd etc. [meaning “he who is fit to eat,” for it cannot mean that all are to eat, for the Second Tithe may be eaten by all ritually clean Israelites, while the firstlings are eaten only by the priests; here, too, the washing of hands and speaking are done only by some, but not all, of the elders].Now on the matter of breaking the heifer’s neck Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained that G-d commanded it to be done for the city which is nearest unto the slain man because had they not committed a similar sin, it would not have happened that a man be killed near them, and G-d’s thoughts are infinitely profound to us. But the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said in the Moreh Nebuchim that the reason for the breaking of the heifer’s neck is to discover the murderer and to cleanse [the guilt for the innocent] blood. In most cases the murderer comes from the place which is round about him that is slain, and when the elders go out and engage in the measuring of the cities, and the elders of the nearest city then bear witness before the Creator that they were not negligent in maintaining and guarding the roads, and that they do not know who killed this man, and as the matter is investigated, the elders gather and bring the heifer, people increasingly speak about it. Then perhaps the matter [of the murderer’s identity] will be solved. The Rabbis have already said that even if a maidservant comes and declares that a certain person committed the murder, the heifer is not killed [despite the fact that such testimony is not sufficient to convict]. And if the murderer is known and they are silent about him, yet call upon the Creator as thei...

"Eithan" — strong, firm. "And they shall break its neck there" — they remove the nape of the heifer.

אל נחל איתן, where people do not normally walk. וערפו, a discreet death, not one drawing attention to itself. The animal does not experience pangs of death, not knowing of its impending fate. Naturally, people knew even less about this impending procedure. This procedure parallels what the murderer had done when he ambushed an unsuspecting victim in a location which was isolated so that the court never found out who the murderer was. Had the court known of the identity of the murderer they would have dealt with him instead of this heifer having to be killed.

אל נחל איתן, “to a virgin piece of land of ancient origin;” we find this same expression also in Psalms 74,15: אתה הובשת נהרות איתן, where the psalmist credits G-d with both drying up rivers, and with providing the driest parts of nature suddenly producing torrents of water. According to Ibn Ezra, איתן means: hard as rock. If we needed proof, perhaps it can be found in verse 6 where the elders suddenly wash their hands in that driest of regions. Where did they take the water from to do so ?. אשר לא עבד בה, “which has never been made to work;” there had never been water holes in that vicinity from which it could have been irrigated.” ולא יזרע, “it had never been sown;” nor had the adjoining soil ever been sown. We have read about similar pieces of land in Leviticus 16,22, ארץ גזרה, “a land completely cut off,” the final resting place of the scapegoat that carries the sins of the Jewish people on the Day of Atonement. וערפו, “they shall break the neck;” this symbolises what had been the method by which the slain person had died. את העגלה, “the heifer;” the entire procedure symbolises that just as the slain person had been deprived of what a human being can accomplish in life, so the animal that takes its place is one that had never been allowed to fulfill its function in life. It had died in a state of virginity and had been consigned to virgin earth that also never fulfilled its function, the reason for its existence, to be the source of nourishment for man. The simile of “virginity,” also applies to the people who perform these rites and who profess to be totally innocent, (virginal) of any guilt in the death of the slain person

אל נחל איתן, “to a harsh valley.” Our translation is based on Rashi, who translates the word איתן as קשה, hard, tough, unyielding. Nachmanides writes that our sages say that the word signifies that this piece of earth may henceforth never be sown or ploughed to grow anything thereon. If so, the Torah here reveals a new negative commandment that a person using such earth agriculturally would have transgressed by doing so. (Sotah 46)

The priests, the sons of Levi, shall approach — for Hashem your God has chosen them to minister to Him and to bless in the name of Hashem — and according to their word every dispute and every plague shall be settled.

"The priests, the sons of Levi" — for they are the select among the sons of Levi. "And by their word shall be" — the penalty in every dispute and every affliction.

לשרתו ולברך, the (Temple) service of the priests is instrumental in attaining expiation for the innocent blood spilled, and in securing blessing for the land. ועל פיהם יהיה כל ריב וכל נגע, so that they are familiar with the psyches of the people and their norms, as they observed already by watching their fathers deal with such matters. Perhaps, due to such cumulative empirical knowledge they have some knowledge of whose character has been tainted by sin so that such intuitive knowledge will help them bring the truth to light. (in the investigation of the murder)

ונגשו הכהנים, “and the priests will approach;” they as well as all the elders of the town nearest the slain person; the Torah resumes the narrative interrupted in verse 2. The priests are often identified with the judges of Israel, and have been referred to as such in that verse as colleagues of the elders. בני לוי, the Levites, who are not subject to having to have unblemished bodies in order to fulfill their normal functions related to the Temple. (Sifri) ולברך בשם ה, ”and to pronounce the blessings using the name of The Lord;” we learn from here that the priests may pronounce the priestly blessings even if they have blemished bodies. [Although they may, of course, not perform service on consecrated ground. Ed.]

ונגשו הכהנים, “The priests will draw near, etc.” they do so in order to intone the prayer asking for atonement, written down in verse 8. The meaning of the whole verse is as follows: the priests, and all the elders of the nation, as well as all the people residing within a narrow radius from where this murder had occurred, will wash their hands and intone the prescribed formula, i.e. some of the assembled will wash the hands of the others. Concerning the procedure of killing that heifer, Ibn Ezra writes that G’d imposed the duty to perform these rites on the city closest to where the murdered person had been found, for if people in that city had been free from all other sins as well, G’d would not have embarrassed them by a murder having been committed in their vicinity. Maimonides writes in his Moreh Nevuchim 3,40 that the reason for the procedure is to assist in apprehending the killer, who most likely resides in that vicinity. The publicity that the killing of the heifer in such circumstances attracts, as well as the fact that the reputation of the city near which it occurs suffers a decline of its good image, is hoped to involve more people in the active search for the perpetrator of this crime. Anyone who can make a contribution to finding out who the guilty party was will be liable to do so. Once the guilty party has been found out and located and convicted of whatever penalty is appropriate, exile or death, this will serve as a deterrent to others who had planned to commit a similar crime. The event will long be remembered as the piece of earth on which the heifer has been killed is no longer allowed to be farmed and people will want to know the reason why this is so. Nachmanides writes that while it is true that the procedure prescribed by the Torah will help to find this murderer and will possibly frighten off future murderers, but what did it do to reconcile G’d with the fact that innocent blood was spilled in the Holy Land? In order to achieve maximum effect this procedure should have been performed on a field that is under cultivation, not one that had never been under cultivation, and therefore is not often visited by people. Nachmanides therefore feels that this procedure has more in common with that of the scapegoat and the burning of the red heifer for the sake of getting its ash, which when mixed with spring water, purifies people who had become ritually impure through contact with a dead body or being under the same roof with such a body. These three procedures have one thing in common; neither one of them is performed on sacred ground. They therefore fall under the heading of חוק, decree, legislation the reason for which G’d has not seen fit to share with us.

ונגשו הכהנים בני לוי וענו ואמרו כפר לעמך ישראל, in order to facilitate our understanding of these 4 verses the author summarises the principal parts of the verses in question without including what is only in parenthesis.

All the elders of that town who are nearest to the slain person shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the wadi.

"And all the elders of the city" — this refers back to "your elders shall go out."

ירחצו את ידיהם, “they shall wash their hands;” a symbolic gesture, as if to say: “just as our hands are clean from dirt, so our bodies are free from sin.”

They shall speak up and say: 'Our hands did not shed this blood, and our eyes did not see.'

ידינו לא שפכה [AND THEY SHALL ANSWER AND SAY,] OUR HANDS HAVE NOT SHED [THIS BLOOD] — But would it enter anyone’s mind that the elders of the court are suspect of blood-shedding?! But the meaning of the declaration is: We never saw him and knowingly let him depart without food or escort (if we had seen him we would not have let him depart without these) (Sifrei Devarim 210:2; Sotah 45b). The priests thereupon say (next verse): כפר לעמך ישראל FORGIVE UNTO THY PEOPLE ISRAEL.

"Shafkhah" [feminine form]. This is in place of the plural indicator, as in "Assyria poured out" (Ezek. 23:8) — and by way of derash, it returns to the singular, because "the hand" (יד) is grammatically feminine in most cases. "And our eyes did not see." It is possible that Hashem commanded this [concerning] the city nearest [to the slain], because had they not committed a sin of a similar kind, it would not have come about that a man was killed nearby them. But the thoughts of Hashem are deep and exalted beyond all our reckoning. "And they shall speak and say" — like "and you shall speak and say" [elsewhere in Deuteronomy], and I will explain it there.

ידינו לא שפכו את הדם הזה, we have not left a stone unturned in (making public) locating the murderer in the land. ועינינו לא ראו, we are certain that the murderer did not commit this act where he could be seen. Had he been seen, he would have been challenged and prevented from committing the deed. At the very least, such witnesses would have come forward.

וענו ואמרו, “and they shall speak and say:” this verse addresses the elders who are taking leave from the ritual;. ידינו לא שפכה את הדם הזה, “our hands have not spilled this blood;” it is unusual for the last letter in the word שפכה to be the letter ה instead of the appropriate letter ו, for the plural ending plural. According to our sages, a host is duty bound to provide his guest with five amenities: food, drink, accompany him a short distance when he leaves, provide with a bed for the night if he wishes to stay for the night, and to give him an ever so minimal gift on his departure. The letter ה would therefore be a veiled reference to that law. You may well ask if the Torah really thought that the priests and elders who lived many kilometers distant from where this murder occurred, had really been suspected of having had a hand in this foul deed; why should they need to have to declare that they were innocent of this crime? Rashi explains that the declaration by the elders and priests refers to the murdered person not having been seen by any of them and not having been denied anything he had asked for. The Rabbis felt also that possibly the murdered person, after having been denied his needs in the last city he visited, turned to the first person whom he encountered who had some food on him and snatched it, as a result of which a fight developed during which he was killed. He may even have acted in selfdefense, and have become a victim. ועינינו לא ראו, “and our eyes have not seen;” i.e. have not seen this individual while he was alive so that we could have become guilty of not performing our duty toward him. The duty hinted at, according to Rashi, is to give him safe conduct. An alternate interpretation; there is a saying in the Talmud, according to which when someone accompanies a person he has to remain where they parted until that person is no longer within his field of vision.

וענו, “they shall respond;” the priests, speaking in Hebrew. ואמרו, they shall say ידינו לא שפכו את הדם הזה, “our hands did not spill this blood.” The prayer of the priests was addressed to the attribute Hashem, the attribute which had orchestrated the Exodus from Egypt. This is why the words אשר פדית ה', “which You, the attribute of Hashem have redeemed,” are appended to the priests’ prayer for atonement. When they continue: ואל תתן דם נקי בקרב עמך ישראל, “do not place innocent blood in the midst of Your people of Israel,” is an appeal to the attribute of Mercy not to allow the attribute of Justice to go into action on account of this murder.

ידינו לא שפכה, “our hands have not spilled this blood;” it is peculiar that the last letter in the word ושפכה is the letter ה when we would have expected it to be the plural ending ו. [It is read as if it had been spelled with the letter ו. Ed.] Our sages drive from this spelling that there are five items=ה, that must be provided by a host worthy of that name. They are: food, drink, overnight lodging, accompanying the guest at his departure for a certain distance, and providing him with some food for the journey. (Talmud Sotah, folio 45) The Talmud raises the question of how could anyone have thought that the members of the elders of the town near which the body had been found could have been responsible for the death of the person described in our paragraph? Why would they have to publicly declare their innocence? What these Elders really declared was that they had never been remiss in providing the five items mentioned in the Talmud to anyone who had been their guest. In other words, if that person had been a guest in their houses, they could state categorically, that he would have been treated in the manner that is appropriate. We have a saying by Rav Yehudah who quoted in the name of Rav, that anyone who has enjoyed as little as even four cubits of accompaniment from his host on his way out will not come to harm on the journey on which he set out. This saying has been illustrated by an actual occurrence. The scholar Ravinah accompanied Rava bar Yitzchok, when he became involved in a dangerous, potentially fatal situation, and he was saved from it (Talmud, Sotah folio 46) The Talmud sets the distances that a guest has to be accompanied by the host on his departure, commencing with a relatively short distance when a teacher had hosted a student, and a much greater distance when the student had hosted a teacher. (1200 meters in the latter case) Rabbi Meir considers the subject of such accompaniment one that the host can be enforced by a court to observe. [Naturally, the assumption is that the host is able-bodied. Ed.] According to Judges 1,24 there is no fixed limit for this, and the Israelites who had been in the process of conquering parts of the Holy Land that had not yet been conquered while Joshua had been alive showed a Canaanite gratitude for his showing them the way, similar to the spies promising Rahav of Jericho complete protection including her family for having protected them while on their mission. [The prophet explains how many parts of the land of Canaan remained unconquered on account of this for hundreds of years. Ed.] [If I understand correctly, when gentiles, even those under decree of death by the Torah unless they left the land, saved Israelites, our gratitude takes tangible form. In the example quoted from the Book of Judges, the Canaanite had not even personally accompanied the Israelites in question but had merely showed them the way. Ed.] In verse 26 of the incident quoted, the person whom they saved went forth to another part of the land of the Canaanites and successfully built a new city which he named Luz, [the name of Beyt El, before Yaakov had renamed it in Genesis 28,19. [Yaakov had been totally exposed there and had been saved miraculously. Ed.]. According to Rabbi Yoshua, Mitzrayim, (Pharaoh, in Genesis chapter 12,20, who gave Avraham a military escort to protect him, since he had become so wealthy) who accompanied Avraham for a distance of only 4 cubits beyond the border was rewarded, so that the Israelites had to wait four hundred years before being redeemed from Egypt. (Compare Talmud, tractate Sotah, folio 46) According to another view in the Talmud, when mention is made of לוויה, escorting someone, without any further detail, the distance meant is approx 1,2 km. This is also supposed to be the meaning of Psalms 91,11: כי מלאכיו יצוה לך לשמרך בכל דרכיך, “for He will order His angels to protect you wherever you go.” The distance of 1,2 k.m. equal to the Hebrew word מיל, is based on the first letters in the three words מלאכיו יצוה לך. When enjoying this level of escort one is certain to be successful in all one’s undertakings. Nonetheless the sages said that giving a departing guest money without also giving him some bread, is not sufficient. They base themselves on Proverbs 28,21: ועל פת לחם יפשע גבר, “sin sometimes originates from the lack of a piece of bread.” Solomon means that having not ensured that a departing guest has access to some food immediately, may become the cause of his suffering from an attack of בולמוס, “ravenous hunger,” which if not dealt with immediately may result in the death of the afflicted person. Rabbi Yochanan went as far as to say that anyone who fails to escort a departing guest is guilty of bloodshed. He based himself on the fact that if the people of Jericho had escorted the prophet out of their city and provided him with basic necessities, he would not have caused the bears to kill 42 young people of that town. (Kings II 2,23) Rabbi Elazar in dealing with that incident, claims that the word ונערים in that verse should not be understood as teenagers, but as מן עורים persons who abstain from performing G–d’s commandments, and the word קטנים which follows, means as being “small” in that they had little faith in G–d. Elisha was supposed to have seen through prophetic insight that the mothers of all of these youngsters who had made fun of him had all become pregnant with them on Yom Kippur, on a day when having marital relations is strictly prohibited. This is why he felt free to curse them in the name of the Lord, as described there. Furthermore, the subject of escorting departing guests is of greater significance than handing out a gift. Handing out gifts is not something involving one’s body, whereas escorting a departing guest involves a physical effort, showing that one is personally involved. In fact the performance of this commandment is of such significance that the benefits promised for the recipient are also applied to the host who performs this act, who will be protected until he comes home again. This is based on Isaiah 57,19: שלום שלום לרחוק ולקרוב, “welcome, welcome both to the one as yet distant and to the one already closer to us.” The one described as “distant,” is the departing guest, and the one described as “near” is the host, who is on his way home. [Our author concludes with one or two additional blessings that is in store for people performing this commandment, which I have decided not to bother with. Ed.]

The priests shall say: 'Grant atonement for Your people Israel whom You have redeemed, Hashem, and do not place the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of Your people Israel.' And atonement shall be granted to them for the blood.

ונכפר להם הדם AND THE BLOOD SHALL BE PARDONED THEM — Scripture announces to them that when they have done this (the ceremony prescribed) their sin will be forgiven (Sotah 46a).

"Atone for Your people" — who acted unwittingly and did not guard the dangerous roads. "And atonement shall be made" — [the word] is missing a tav, like "and all the women shall be chastised" (Ezek. 23:48); both are two constructions — the hitpa'el form together with the nif'al form. The meaning of "remember whom You redeemed" is: just as You redeemed them from Egypt for the sake of Your lovingkindness, so redeem them from this bloodguilt and its punishment.

כפר לעמך, Please Lord, grant atonement to Your people, on behalf of the one who has spilled the blood. This is a veiled request to bring the murderer to justice as it is not given to man to do this. Compare Ketuvot 30 “if someone is guilty of judicial execution (and human justice did not reach him) he will either be killed by the secular authorities (for something else he is accused of) or terrorists will attack him.” ונכפר להם הדם, it will be atoned through heavenly judgment, the heavenly agent spilling the murderer’s blood accomplishing this. It will appear in the eyes of man as if the matter had taken care of itself independently. [one cannot pinpoint why the party concerned died a violent death, not knowing what he had been guilty of. Ed.]

כפר לעמך ישראל, “forgive Your people Israel!” They ask forgiveness for not having provided adequate security on the roads leading to their town so that this kind of murder could not have occurred and the perpetrator escaping with impunity. (Ibn Ezra)... אשר פדית, “just as You have liberated the people of Israel from Egypt in spite of their shortcomings, exonerate us from any responsibility in the killing of this unknown individual.” Do not burden Your people with the guilt of shedding innocent blood.

כפר לעמך, “grant atonement for Your people.” According to Pessikta (and Sifri) on our verse the word כפר refers to the living who can attain atonement by means of their money. The words פדית, “whom You redeemed,” refer to the already dead who will achieve their atonement by charity given by the living (in their name). The verse teaches that the donations made to the Temple treasury by the living on behalf of their dead accomplish something. This is so in an increased measure if the son donates in his father’s name; it is considered a merit for the departed father. The same applies to the recital of Kaddish by the son for his father. The concept is based on the fact that the son “eats” the “fruits” of his father. The same applies to the son acting as reader in the synagogue during his year of mourning. There is a Baraitha in Massechet Kallah Rabbati chapter 2 involving Rabbi Akiva rescuing the soul of a departed from purgatory through the son becoming pious, etc., although the father of that child had been the worst kind of sinner.

אשר פדית, “whom You have redeemed.” This is a reference to the Exodus from Egypt. The reminder of this event may be in place, Moses reassuring the people that just as G’d had redeemed them from Egypt, although they had been burdened with many sins, so He will, in His loving kindness, forgive them for any negligence on their part which might have facilitated this foul deed by a person unknown.

And you shall remove the shedding of innocent blood from your midst, for you will do what is right before Hashem.

ואתה תבער BUT THOU SHALT PUT AWAY [THE GUILT OF INNOCENT BLOOD FROM AMONG YOU] — This teaches that if the murderer is found after the heifer’s neck was broken he must nevertheless be put to death, — and this is what Scripture describes as הישר בעיני ה׳ RIGHT IN THE EYES OF THE LORD (cf. Sotah 47b; Ketubot 37b and Tosafot on Ketubot 37b:16.1 ואח"כ נמצא ההורג).

"And you shall purge the innocent blood." Its meaning is: you shall purge the punishment [due] for the innocent blood; or, "the blood" means the blood of the innocent. And some say: you are obligated to purge bloodshed [from the land]. What seems correct to me is what I have stated — "so that no innocent blood be shed in your land" if you do what is right in the eyes of Hashem — in keeping with the principle that the reward of a sin is [further] sin, and the reward of a commandment is [another] commandment.

ואתה תבער, when you are aware of someone’s guilt it is up to you to sentence the party and to carry out the sentence and not to rely on heaven to intervene. When you are unaware of the identity of the guilty party, and you have made exhaustive attempts to find him without success, you may rest assured that G’d Himself will take care of the problem.

ואתה תבער, “So You shall remove, etc;” Rashi explains here that the reference here is that in the event that the murderer is found after the eglah arufah, the heifer that was supposed to atone for the deed, had already been put to death, the people who had killed that beast should not be held responsible for wasting its life, and the murderer will be dealt with judicially. Although Rashi says that he will be executed, seeing that there were neither witnesses nor warning how can that be? [Rashi, of course quoted the Talmud, Sotah folio 47 to that effect. Ed.] If you were to ask that we have learned in the Talmud in tractate Ketuvot, folio 37, that the meaning of the verse in Numbers 35,33: ולארץ לא יכופר לדם אשר שופך בה, “but no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein (of innocent people)”, so why was this verse necessary at all? The answer is in order to give us guidance for the scenario described by Rashi, as quoted in the Talmud Sotah 47. Why do we need the request that G-d should remove the innocent blood? It is to teach that all murderers are basically compared to the paragraph dealing with the heifer discussed in our chapter. Just as that heifer’s death is caused by breaking its neck, the neck of all murderers is broken as part of the execution, [Cutting off his neck with a sword. Ed.] On the other hand, that leaves the problem with the sage who holds that the death penalty for murder is strangulation. That death penalty is rated as harsher than the death penalty by cutting off one’s head with the sword. [The reader must remember that whereas the two death penalties by stoning or burning have been spelled out in the Torah, the other two types of death penalties have not been spelled out. Ed.] If not for the verse in the Talmud in tractate Ketuvot folio 37, we would have thought that the sin of murder warrants a more severe penalty that cutting off the head. Our author pursues these details; I have decided that they are not of great interest to either a potential victim or an innocent bystander. Ed. כי תעשה הישר, “when you will do what is right in the eyes of the Lord.” The word כי in this verse is to be understood as if the Torah had written: אם, ”if.” or “when.” In practice the essential part in carrying out this commandment is the measuring of which is the nearest inhabited location to the site where the body of the slain person was discovered. Without determining this, the whole procedure leading to atonement cannot even commence. As mentioned previously, the “measuring” is far more than a mere technicality. The publicity connected to the taking of these measurements sets in motion a search for the killer.

ואתה תבער הדם הנקי, “and you shall remove innocent blood from your midst.” You are to remove the threat of punishment for innocent blood having been spilled. Alternatively, ”you are to destroy the one who has spilled innocent blood if possible.” 'כי תעשה הישר בעיני ה', ”when you do what is right in the eyes of the Lord.” In the eyes of the Lord Who took you out of Egypt on condition that you do not allow innocent blood to be spilled, and generally do what is right in His eyes. We encounter here again the absence of the expression ה' אלו-היך as the redemption from Egypt took place under the aegis of the attribute of Mercy, i.e. Hashem (only). It is also possible to interpret this verse as a promise for the future. G’d is saying: “if you do what is right in the eyes of the Lord there will not be any murders of innocent people.” This in turn will serve to hasten the arrival of a period when murder, warfare, etc., will be banished from this earth. At that time the prophecy of Isaiah 2,4: ”and they beat their swords into plowshares,” will be fulfilled. People will no longer teach the art of warfare; no nation will raise a hand against its neighbor. There will be an abundance of peace and serenity, as alluded to in Song of Songs 7,1. People will offer their sacrifices to the attribute Hashem which is also known as שלום as we know from Genesis 32,18 ויבא יעקב שלם. The author cites a few more verses implying that G’d’s name is שלום.

ואתה תבער הדם הנקי, “You are to remove innocent blood;” Ibn Ezra adds the word עונש, “guilt,” which Moses did nor spell out here. Such guilt existed as in the Holy Land, especially, innocent blood is not to be shed, G’d does not tolerate this for long. By participating in the procedure of eglah arufah one fulfils a positive commandment wiping out the guilt of murder.

(1) YOU WILL REMOVE THE BLOODGUILT. If the murderer is found afterwards, he will be killed. (2) FOR YOU WILL BE DOING that which IS RIGHT IN THE SIGHT OF ADONAI.

ואתה תבער את הדם נקי מקרבך, “and you will remove the innocent blood from your midst.” Rashi explains that in the event the murderer is found after the heifer had already been killed, the murderer is not going free. This sounds strange seeing that we learned in the Talmud, tractate Ketuvot folio 37, that the meaning of the word in our verse is that we use the wording in our verse to learn that administering the death penalty by the sword must be performed by severing the vital arteries of the neck, just as the neck of that heifer was broken by its fall. Rabbeinu Moshe offers a different interpretation of the wording in our verse: the paragraph cited by Rashi deals with a murderer who is sentenced to death and according to the opinion that the death penalty by strangulation is more severe (Compare Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 49) than the death penalty by having one’s throat cut. This is also reasonable as the wording of the death penalty both in Exodus 21,12, and in Leviticus, 26,25: i.e. “he must surely be avenged,” and “I will bring a sword upon you that shall execute the vengeance of the covenant;” these lines refer to execution by the sword. The verse in Exodus quoted speaks of the penalty for killing a slave. If this is the penalty for killing a slave, it is logical that the penalty for killing a free man can certainly not be milder. This “logic” makes sense when we assume that the penalty by strangulation is milder than the penalty of cutting the victim’s throat. How can that logic be applied according to the scholar who holds that the penalty of strangulation is harsher than having one’s throat cut? Whence do we derive the law that murdering a free man is punishable by having one’s throat cut? The answer given is that we derive it from a baraitha which compares the law applicable to our portion, i.e. the killing of the heifer as a symbolic action by which the people near the town where the slain person was found declare that they had not been remiss in sending that person out of their town without escort or without basic provisions. If the murderer is found after that procedure has already been performed, according to the opinion that strangulation is a milder penalty than having one’s throat cut by comparing it to the penalty of the killer of a slave being executed by the sword, by reason of the logic we mentioned earlier. If one then would argue what is the meaning of the words in Numbers 35,33:כי לארץ לא יכופר, “but no expiation can be made for the earth” (that absorbed the blood of the slain)? We would have to say that this applies for a case in which the murderer is found only after the Yom Kippur following his having committed the deed. If no atonement had been made by that time it cannot be atoned for retroactively anymore.

When you go out to wage war against your enemies, and Hashem your God delivers them into your hand, and you take captives from them —

כי תצא למלחמה WHEN THOU GOEST FORTH TO WAR — Scripture is speaking here of a war that is not obligatory upon the Israelites (Sifrei Devarim 211:1), for in regard to a war that was waged against the inhabitants of Erez Israel, Scripture could not possibly say, “and thou hast captured captives”, since it has already been stated regarding them, (Deuteronomy 20:16) “[But of the cities of those people ...] you shall not allow any soul to live”. ושבית שביו AND THOU HAST CAPTURED CAPTIVES — These apparently redundant words are intended to include Canaanite people living in it (in a city outside Canaan), that it is allowed to capture them although they belong to the seven nations (Sifrei Devarim 211:4; Sotah 35b).

"When you go out." This passage is connected to "when you besiege a city," but the passage of the broken-necked heifer was inserted between them on account of the slain person found in the land of Israel — which is not the case outside the land, and certainly not in wartime.

כי תצא, beyond the boundaries of your land.

כי תצא למלחמה על איביך, When you go to war against your enemies, etc. Why did the Torah need to write this whole introduction when it would have sufficed to write: "when you see an attractive woman amongst the prisoners, etc." The whole of verse one seems extraneous to the subject matter under discussion! Furthermore, seeing the Torah did decide to write: "when you go out to war against your enemies, etc.," why did we need the words "against your enemies?" Against whom does one go to war if not against one's enemies? Perhaps the reason is to be found in halachic relaxations which apply to troops in wartime. A woman such as the attractive woman prisoner mentioned here would be totally out of bounds if not for the fact that she was captured in war; the same applies to other relaxations of the halachah such as the prohibition of eating the hind parts of a pig, etc, (compare Chulin 17). This gave rise to the Torah using a different style in this instance. Seeing that the Jewish soldier was aware of the halachic relaxations which are applicable even to Torah law under conditions of war, the Torah was concerned lest some of the soldiers would actually look forward to the battle in order to avail themselves of these relaxations of Torah law. The Torah was keenly aware of this and reminded the soldier that when he goes to war his only purpose should be to avenge himself on the enemies of the Jewish people, not in order to have an excuse to indulge in things which are normally forbidden. The words כי תצא, "when you go out," are a reminder that although you depart from the normal rules of halachic restrictions when your life is at stake, למלחמה, your mind must concentrate only on the war, on the battle, not on what you consider the fringe benefits. The reason the Torah adds the words על איביך, "against your enemies," is to remind you that your enemies are G'd's enemies as we have been told by David in Psalms 139,21: "O Lord, You know I hate those who hate You, and I loathe Your adversaries." Your entire reason for going to war must be for this sole purpose. If that will be the case, then the Torah's assurance: "and the Lord your G'd will deliver them into your hand" will be fulfilled. From our verse (verse 1) you may deduce therefore that unless your motivation is the one the Torah expects of you, your success will not be assured. ושבית שביו, "and you take a prisoner." This is a commandment, as otherwise you create the impression that you belittle gifts G'd gives you. Alternatively, the Torah emphasises the negative when writing the positive, i.e. you are forbidden to marry such an attractive Gentile female unless she has first been your captive. Under no circumstances must you exploit the Torah's permission to wed such a prisoner by engaging in the pursuit of a woman who catches your fancy with the intention of making her your wife or your concubine if she had not previously happened to be your captive. This is the reason that the Torah writes the sequ...

כי תצא, “when you go forth;” the introductory words of this paragraph are intended to teach that what follows are rules that apply only outside the boundaries of the Holy Land, and that they are not comparable to those that apply in the Holy land. The paragraphs that we have read prior to this, generally applied to conduct of Israelites in the Land of Israel. כי תצא למלחמה, “when you go forth to do battle;” the Torah refers only to what are known in the Talmud as milchemet r’shut, wars that have been sanctioned by G-d after consultation with Him through the High Priest. The reason that this is clear beyond doubt is that the Torah permits you to take prisoners. ושבית שביו, “and you carry away prisoners you have taken.” This includes Canaanites, who might have emigrated from their land during the wars conducted by Joshua. (Rashi, based on Sifri)

תנה בני לבך לי ועיניך דרכי תצורנה, “Give your heart to me my son, and let your eyes observe my ways.” (Proverbs 23,26) In this verse Solomon warns that we should devote our hearts to the service of the Lord, and distance ourselves from the allurements of this world, the ones to which the heart and eyes are so attracted. This is why he says: “give your heart to Me:, i.e. to the part of the world which concerns service to your Creator and not to the alternative, the transient pleasures of terrestrial earth. Seeing that we do possess these urges, we are asked to channel them into permissible paths, i.e. service of the Lord. When we do this (wholeheartedly, not merely ‘giving to religion its due’) then our service to the Lord will be received with goodwill, seeing it reflects true reverence and love for G’d. Use of the pleasures of this world should be designed only to better serve the Lord and to better understand His Torah, at least the מושכלות, the laws accessible to our intelligence. Since many of the pleasurable experiences in this world are directly connected to the performance of commandments, what matters is the intent which governs the use one makes of these pleasures. David summed up his own lifestyle and what prompted it in these words: ה', נגדך כל תאותי, “Lord, all my (natural) desires are focused in Your direction.” He complimented himself that he had been able to sublimate the enjoyment inherent in partaking of the pleasures of this world so that they became religious experiences for him. It is a well known fact that the various organs, limbs, in our body are agents of the heart and the eyes. They merely carry out what the eyes and heart desire. Of the two, the heart is the primary element. If one’s heart is whole with Hashem, everything is wholehearted. If the heart is not wholly devoted to G’d everything one does is blemished. This is the meaning of רחמנא לבא בעי, ‘G’d requires one’s heart’ (Sanhedrin 106). A Midrashic approach understands the verse in Proverbs as an admonition by G’d to the people of Israel. G’d says to Israel: “if you will give me your heart and your eyes, I will know that you are truly Mine. If not, you are not Mine.” The essence of all this is that the heart and the eyes are the true root which determines either our rapprochement to G’d or vice versa. They are the “brokers” of the sins We know this from Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 1,8: “proof that the heart and eyes are the “brokers” of sin is what the Torah writes in Numbers 15,39: “do not explore after your hearts and after your eyes which you tend to stray after.” The expression זונים , “straying,” is the same as זונה, a harlot, a woman who strays after men not her husband. By using this term the Torah makes it plain that whoever is motivated in his actions by the dominance of his heart or his eyes is equated with a harlot. He allows himself to be seduced by his evil urge, as does a harlot. When Solomon follows up in Proverbs 23,27 with “for a harlot is a deep pit, a forbidden (alien) woman is a narrow well,” he suggests that he who approaches the entrance of the house of a harlot will not escape the trap and damage which harlotry entails, just as someone who falls into a narrow well will not escape some damage. The same happens to anyone who gives in to the dictates of his hearts and eyes. The simile of the alien woman being compared to a narrow deep well means that even if the alien woman is not engaged in promiscuous sexual activity, the fact is that if someone has his eyes on that well (woman) all the time and draws water from it, it is in the nature of things that the water he draws will be replaced by other water, perpetuating the inquisitiveness of the person confronted with the narrow well. Solomon defines the allure of a woman as initially the making of conversation, שיחה, i.e. spelling the word שיחה (with the dot on the right side of the letter ש with a sin instead). Having engaged in conversation with such an alien woman, the next step is to look at her, followed by desiring her in one’s fantasies; this will eventually result in one’s touching such a woman, and the next step is the reversal of the sin again to a shin, i.e. שיחה, meaning “pit,” the pit of sin. Solomon wrote these two verses sequentially in order to drive home the point to the people that they should devote their hearts and eyes to the spiritual part of life, to G’d and not to the material part of life characterized by our cravings. It is these cravings, or rather our giving in to them, which result in people forfeiting both their life on earth and their hereafter. The brief enjoyment resulting from indulging one’s cravings is not worth what we have to give up in exchange. The Torah goes to great length in legislating against anything which could result in harlotry as the sexual promiscuity and perverseness of the Canaanites was proverbial. Even the army of the Jewish people had to maintain standards of sanctity in war, so much so that the Torah did not permit the converting of prisoners of war to Judaism (for the purpose of marriage) until after a whole string of special conditions had been met. כי תצא למלחמה על אויביך ונתנו ה' אלו-היך בידך ושבית שביו, “When you go into battle against your enemies and the Lord your G’d delivers him into your hand and you take as (its) prisoner.” We would have expected the Torah to write ונתנם, “and He will deliver them into your hand,” instead of “and He will deliver him into your hands.” The Torah means that the defeat of your enemies will be so drastic as if they had all been only one man. Alternatively, the word ונתנו refers to the protective angel of the enemy nation in the celestial regions. The words ושבית שביו refer to the enemies here on earth.

When you go out to war upon your enemies, etc. Your enemies is written with a yud [indicating plural], but afterwards it says and gives him — it should have said “and gives them.” [It says] upon your enemies [but] it should have said “against your enemies.” In the Yalkut, it concludes in the name of the Sifrei, saying: “Upon your enemies — against your enemies. And the Lord your God gives him into your hands — if you did everything mentioned in the matter, then in the end, the Lord your God will give him into your hands.”I do not understand his words [from the Sifrei] — what is “mentioned in the matter”? If this refers to and she shall shave her head, etc. — isn’t the enemy already given into his hands before he does what is mentioned in the matter? For how could he take captives from him if the enemy is not yet given into his hands? Even if you would say there’s no proof from the captive, because sometimes they would take captives in war even when the enemy is not yet completely subdued, and proof [of this can be seen] from and took some of them captive mentioned in Parashat Chukat (21:1), still it is difficult [to understand]: how do we know to interpret and gives to mean that eventually He will give [the enemy] into your hands? Perhaps it means that He gives him into your hands immediately. It seems that the author of this midrash found it difficult [to understand why the verse says] “and He shall deliver him” when it should have said “and He shall deliver them,” Rather, it must be that it speaks of one particular enemy who was among the many enemies already mentioned. And who is this? It is none other than the internal adversary and enemy, which is Satan, which is the evil inclination [yetzer hara] that especially prosecutes in times of danger during war, as explained in Parshat Shoftim (Deuteronomy 21) on the verse When you go out to war. And about this [evil inclination] it says and the Lord your God shall deliver him into your hand. If so, it is difficult to understand how God promises to deliver it into his hand, since after this, the Torah discusses the beautiful captive woman, which the Torah permitted only as a concession to the evil inclination, etc. So we see that the impurity is still within him, as he lacks the strength to stand against his desire, leading him to stumble with this beautiful woman. So where is the fulfillment of the promise and the Lord your God shall deliver him into your hand?Therefore, he explains “v’natno” [and He shall deliver him] to mean that eventually He will deliver him into your hand. For if you follow all that is stated regarding shaving her head and making her unattractive, what is written afterward? And it shall be, if you do not desire her. Rashi explains that the Torah informs you that you will eventually hate her, and then certainly his desire will be under his control when he hates her. The main strategy here is similar to what is said It is better to go to a house of mourning (Ecclesiastes 7:2), because through this one remembers the day of death, and then the evil inclination certainly departs. And when she weeps and mourns for her father and mother, he is constantly sitting in a house of mourning, and through this, he will remind his inclination of the day of death, and then it will certainly depart, his desire will be calmed, and he will come to hate her. Since the Torah informs you that you will eventually hate her, it therefore states that eventually the Lord your God will deliver him into your hand. And for this reason, it was necessary to explain “upon your enemies” as “against your enemies,” because the [understanding] “upon” is only accurate in a standard war that comes from above, from heaven, for in a standard war from heaven the stars fought from their courses (Judges 5:20). However, since it says and He will give him in the singular form, you are forced to interpret this as referring to the evil inclination. And if so, when it says when you go out to war upon your enemies in the plural form, it certainly includes two types of enemies: both the external enemy and the internal enemy [the evil inclination] which accuses at times of danger. There is evidence for this: in the Judges section, it is written when you go out to war upon your enemy without a yud [after] the bet [making it singular], speaking only about a standard enemy, while here it says your enemies with a yud, indicating multiple enemies, certainly including both the external and internal enemies together. And it says and He will give him — one of them He will give first, and this is certainly the evil inclination, for if one’s inclination is not given into his hand first, he cannot defeat the external enemy as long as he is soiled with sin. Therefore, it was necessary to explain upon your enemies as “against your enemies,” because the war against the evil inclination does not come from above, but rather the person must be the initiator and God will complete it for him. This is what it means when it says “eventually, the Lord your God will give him into your hand” — “eventually” meaning after all the actions you take regarding victory and strategies against your inclination, and God will send His help in the end. But in a standard war, it is the opposite, because before you prepared your heart to go out to war, heaven had already fought against him, and you merely complete it so that it may be attributed to you. “When you go out to war, etc.” What is [the meaning of] when you go out? It should have said “when you go” or “when you fight.” And what is [the meaning of] to war? It should have said “to fight,” because to war implies that you are not fighting, but rather you came to see the war. [And it should have said] “against your enemies” rather than upon your enemies. And you take captive his captive is a repetition of language. And even though our Rabbis of blessed memory said (Sotah 35b) that this comes to include Canaanites who are among them, nevertheless, it should have said “and you take captive a captive.” Why do I need [the phrase] his captive? And behold, I have the opportunity to interpret this in two ways. The first is, as Ramban explained this passage on the verse When you go out as a camp against your enemies, you shall guard against every evil thing [devar, which can also mean word] — meaning evil speech, which is slander, so that there should not be division among them, causing them to strike against each other with a very great blow, more than [what they would receive from] their enemies. And it is clear that when there is no peace among the combatants, they will be defeated, as happened to the rebellious Israelites during the Second Temple period. Therefore it says When you go out using the language of “going out” to exclude internal warfare within the city, saying that only when you leave the city should you extend your hand to war, but within the city there should be peace among you. And specifically you should go out to war and not “from war,” and specifically against your enemies you should go out, and not against your friends whom you should love as yourself, and you shall take his captives refers to the enemy’s captives, not that you should seek to trap your fellow in your net. For all these are things that cause harm in war, and if you do all these things, then the Lord your God will deliver them into your hand, but not otherwise. The second approach is to nullify the thoughts of your evil inclination, which will persuade you to say, “Hasn’t this captive woman come into my possession through my strength and power, and I entered the dangers of war until I was victorious, so why should God impose all these conditions of shaving and disfigurement [of the captive woman] upon me?” Therefore, He preemptively says to you that you are making a false claim, because no man prevails by his own strength and only what the Lord has granted you shall you inherit. You are not the fighter — rather, when you go out from your house to observe the war which has already preceded you from the heavens, the stars in their courses fought for you. This is what it means by to war [literally, to that war] — to that war which had already begun against your enemies, truly upon him from the heavens above, not from you directly, because the Lord has already sent forth His arrows and scattered them. And you have captured His captive — the Holy One’s captive — because they were already captured through that war. And since God desires to give you a name of glory throughout the entire land so that the war should be called by your name, therefore the Lord your God delivers them into your hand, because it appears to all the nations as if your hands accomplished and prevailed over them. But the truth is not so, because it is the hand of God that has done this, and to glorify [you], He gave them into your hand.

כי תצא למלחמה, “When you will go out to war;” according to the plain meaning of the text, Moses advises the people that instead of waiting till the enemy invades their land that they should pre-empt him and meet him beyond their borders to avoid part of their land becoming destroyed.

ושבית שביו, “and you take back some captives.” According to Rashi, this includes Canaanites that were in that land or city; [in spite of the commandment not to allow any Canaanite to survive, as per Deut. 20,6. Ed.] If you were to wonder how this could be, remember that the Torah speaks of an expansionary war, outside the borders of what used to be the Canaanite land that was promised by G–d to Avraham. If the prisoner had been captured outside those boundaries, the fact that she is now brought back to what used to be the land of Canaan does not make her subject to the commandment stated in Deut. 20,16.

and you see among the captives a woman of beautiful appearance, and you desire her and take her for yourself as a wife —

אשת [AND THOU SEEST AMONG THE CAPTIVES] A WOMAN — even if she be a married woman (Sifrei Devarim 211:7; Kiddushin 21b). ולקחת לך לאשה [AND THOU DELIGHTEST IN HER,] THAT THOU WOULDEST TAKE HER FOR THY WIFE) — Scripture is speaking (makes this concession) only in view of man’s evil inclination (his carnal desires) (Kiddushin 21b). For if the Holy One, blessed be He, would not permit her to him as a wife, he would nevertheless marry her although she would then be forbidden to him. However, if he does marry her, in the end he will hate her, for Scripture writes immediately afterwards, (v. 15) “If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, etc.” and ultimately he will beget a refractory and rebellious son by her (v. 18). It is for this reason that these sections are put in juxtaposition (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 1).

A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN. Scripture speaks of the common case. And in the Sifre it is stated: “Whence do we know that [the same law applies] even if she be ugly? From what Scripture states, and thou desirest her — even though she is not beautiful.” And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “A beautiful woman — in his eyes.” Thus the expression [a beautiful woman] is connected with [the first word in the verse] ‘v’ra’itha’ (and thou seest). Scripture mentions and thou desirest her, denoting that he is not to permit her to himself except because of lust — when his impulse overpowers him. However, if he discovers within himself that he has no lust for cohabitation with her, but he wants just to take a wife, he should not marry her. Thus the Rabbis have said in the Sifre: “And thou wouldest take her to thee to wife. You are not to say, ‘This one is for [my] father, that one for my brother.’” And in the Gemara we find that he is not to take two women — one for his son and one for himself, or one for his father and one for himself. Now the prohibition against taking one for his son [or for his father] applies even to her alone [i.e., if he has not taken one for himself].

"A woman." The Sages have already expounded this. "Of beautiful appearance" — in his eyes. "And you desire her" — that he should be seized with the urge to take her as a wife, for afterward it says "and you shall live with her as a husband," and similarly [we find] "and I took her to myself as a wife."

וראית בשביה אשת יפת תאר, "And you see in her captivity a woman of beautiful form, etc." The expression יפת תאר is to be understood literally, whereas according to Sifri the words וחשקת בה, "you will desire her," are understood to include even an ugly looking prisoner. This sounds somewhat strange; if it is true, why did the Torah bother to mention a good looking prisoner if even an ugly looking woman is permitted? All the Torah had to write was: "if you see a woman amongst the prisoners, etc.," and neither the words יפת תאר nor וחשקת בה are needed. In order to answer these questions we must understand why G'd altogether permits a Jew to defile himself by sleeping with a Gentile. This is even more problematical as the Torah permits this at a time when G'd has been busy performing miracles so that the Israelites were victorious in battle and suffered no casualties. We would have assumed that at such a time more than at any other the laws requiring ritual, i.e. sexual purity would have to be tightened rather than relaxed! How can a time when the Israelite has to cleave to his G'd be the very time when he is allowed to indulge his evil urge in such a fashion? We can understand the need to permit food for soldiers in war although the Torah has otherwise forbidden such food. In his treatise Hilchot Melachim chapter 8, Maimonides explains that when a soldier is hungry and must feed himself it is acceptable to permit him to eat whatever is available. After all, it may be a case of survival; however, no such reasons apply when a soldier wants to indulge his carnal lust. Our sages in Kidushin 21 explain the whole paragraph as addressed to the evil urge within man. If so, surely whatever the Torah legislates ought to be designed to subjugate that evil urge from the hearts of a holy people at a time when they are engaged in war and when they count on their King, i.e. G'd, to fight on their behalf. I believe the clue to understanding this whole legislation is to be found in the Zohar Chadash Balak page 53. We are told there that at the time Adam sinned many souls who originated in holy spheres were taken captive by the spiritually negative forces known as Sitra Achara. These souls are the ones of people who voluntarily converted to Judaism since that time. Many outstanding Jews have come from such conversions such as Ruth the Moabite, the scholars Shmayah and Avtalyon, as well as Onkelos the proselyte. I will reveal to you another mystery. There are occasions when a pure soul is very closely attached to an impure soul and the pure soul is unable to exert a spiritually positive influence on the impure soul. The latter remains as it is until the time comes to be freed from its body. We have an example of something like that in the soul of Rabbi Chaninah ben Tradyon whose soul [obviously long before it inhabited the body of that scholar, Ed.] reputedly was attached to that of Shechem, son of Chamor (who had raped Dinah). This is alluded to in the Torah by the...

אשת יפת תואר, “an attractive looking woman.” The term includes women that are married.” If you were to ask where the Midrash making that statement had its source, the fact that the word אשת instead of אשה, is in a construct mode, strongly suggests this. If married prisoners were excluded from the legislation about to follow, the Torah should have written: אשה יפת תואר. If you would query further by quoting the Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin, Tossaphot folio 52, that the term “marriage” as understood in Jewish law does not exist among gentiles, the Torah uses the term here only because you might have thought that if this woman had been “married,” i.e. in an exclusive sexual relationship with one partner, she could not be married by a Jewish soldier, at least not unless divorced, the Torah makes clear that this is not so. It is certainly remarkable that the Torah permits a Jewish soldier to marry such a prisoner of war even after she had undergone all the procedures which follow. ולקחת, “you will marry,” according to the plain meaning of the text this means that you, the captor, intend to marry her as soon as possible. We had been told already in Deut.20,14, that it is permissible to take women, children and livestock as loot in the expansionary war described in that paragraph.

אשת יפת תאר, “a woman of beautiful form.” The reason the Torah writes the word אשת i.e. the possessive form, is that even if the woman in question had been married already it is halachically permitted to marry her after proper conversion and marriage ritual; the reason is that sleeping with a Cannanite is not forbidden on account of her marital status which halachah does not recognize (Maimonides Hilchot Melachim 8,3). Her conversion is valid even if due to fear rather than a genuine love of Judaism. והבאת אל תוך ביתך, “and you will bring her into your house.” Our sages teach, based on this verse, that the soldier must not rape this prisoner as an act of war, but must conduct relations with her on a basis of mutual consent in a private location. Only the first such sexual relation is permitted. Any subsequent sexual relations with the prisoner may only take place after she has converted and become the soldier’s wife. (compare Kidushin 21 and 22) This is what is meant by 23,15 ולא יראה בך ערות דבר, “He will not see a shameful thing among you.” The reason the Torah did permit the first sexual encounter with the Gentile prisoner prior to her conversion is an accommodation to the evil urge. The Torah, the master psychologist, recognized that if it did not make this concession to the infatuation of the soldier he would ignore the prohibition and not pay attention to all the other strictures imposed by the Torah in the next several verses either. This is why the Torah prefaced these rules with the words: “when you bring her to your house.” [According to this view,] the Torah assumes that prior to the soldier bringing his prisoner to his house he had not slept with her. He is now permitted to sleep with her once, after which all the details about the woman in question shaving her hair, cutting her nails, mourning her parents for a month, etc., all take effect. During this entire period her captor is not allowed to touch her. This is the reason why Tamar was legally permitted for Amnon son of David to marry, seeing that her mother Maachah had become pregnant by David from a sexual relation prior to her becoming converted so that she was not really a sister or half-sister to Amnon. This is why she had said to Amnon (Samuel II 13,13) “speak to the king; he will not refuse me to you.” Unless her mother had not been Jewish at the time she was conceived, how could she have made such a statement! (compare Sanhedrin 21). Technically, she was a בת כותית, Gentile, and our sages have ruled that “the son of your son born of a Gentile mother is not considered your son but her son” (Kidushin 68).

“And you shall see among the captives, etc.” [The verse] emphasizes among the captives to highlight the extraordinary situation, for what is a woman doing in war? Certainly, they were brought there for prostitution, and therefore it would be appropriate to reject her, as the scepter of wickedness shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous. But if your desire persuades you nevertheless, and you desire her, then you shall take her for yourself as a wife. The word yourself is superfluous. Although our Sages interpreted (Kiddushin 22a) for yourself and not for your father or son, we can still explain according to the simple meaning: for yourself and not for your descendants. For this imagined benefit is only for you, but for your descendants, on the contrary, it is harmful, because eventually you will have unworthy children from her, namely a “wayward and rebellious son.” And you shall bring her into your house — that is, a room within a room, to cover the eyes from your disgrace, so that your evil will not be revealed in public. “And she shall shave her head and do her nails.” etc. Ramban explained that these are all matters of mourning, and the main purpose of this strategy is so that he will be in a house of mourning and will remind his desire [yetzer] of the day of death, as our Sages of blessed memory said (ibid. 40), “One who sees that his desire is overpowering him should wear black and wrap himself in black, etc.” and perhaps his desire will depart through the remembrance of mourning. And it says here that if after all these things he is not disciplined and he remains in his lustful desire, then you shall go to her and be her husband, and she shall be a wife for you. For you alone she is fit, and you are fit for her, because as she is, so are you. “And it shall be if you do not desire her.” The scripture informs you that you will eventually hate her. Some say the word and it shall be indicates certainty that this will happen. According to our interpretation, this certainty is derived from the words of our Sages, that by remembering the day of death, the evil inclination will certainly depart, and then naturally the desire will cease. It seems reasonable to suggest that Rashi derived this from the word desired, which is in past tense, for otherwise it should have said if you will not desire her in future tense. Rather, anything that is revealed before the Holy One, blessed be He, that will happen, is as if it has already been done from time immemorial. Therefore it says, if you have no desire for her. It is also possible to explain the expression and it shall be, which implies that the matter will remain in its state and not change. Through this, the scripture informs you that once you begin to feel hatred toward her, it will remain forever and your opinion will not change from hatred to love. This is what is meant by “you will eventually hate her.” This is from God, so as not to mix the grapes of the vine with the grapes of the bramble. This is an accurate interpretation of the word and it shall be, and it also resolves the use of the word if which [usually] indicates doubt, but according to our explanation, it is well resolved.

אשת יפת תואר, “a woman of beautiful form;” the Torah mentions an example that is likely, but an ugly woman is subject to the same legislation. Ibn Ezra understands the term יפת תואר as a subjective term, i.e. she looks attractive in that particular soldier’s eyes. The term יפת תואר, accordingly, refers to וראית i.e. what this particular soldier saw. וחשקת בה, “and you desire her;” the reason why the Torah adds these words is that the Torah’s concession for this soldier to marry such a woman is premised on the fact that he is unable to withstand the urge to marry her. If he only wants to indulge his libido and does not want to marry her, the following rules do not apply, and he must control himself.

you shall bring her into your home, and she shall shave her head and let her nails grow.

ועשת את צפרניה means, AND SHE SHALL LET GROW HER NAILS — She must let them grow, so that she should becomes repulsive to her captor (cf. Sifrei Devarim 212:4; Yevamot 48a; see also Rashi on Genesis 1:7 and our Note thereon).

V’ASETHAH’ HER NAILS. “She shall ‘let them grow,’ [the reason being] that she should become repulsive.” This is Rashi’s language which accords with the words of Rabbi Akiba, and so did Onkelos explain it [“and she shall let her nails grow”]. Now, according to their opinion the word v’asethah will be like ‘v’asath’ (and it shall bring forth) the produce, for “growth” is termed asiyah (doing). But in the Sifre there is stated a proof to the words of Rabbi Eliezer [who explains ‘v’asethah’ her nails — and “she shall cut” her nails] from the following verse, and he [Mephibosheth] had neither ‘asah’ (dressed) his feet [i.e., cut the nails] nor ‘asah’ (trimmed) his beard. And this is indeed a great proof!Therefore I say that these are all regulations of mourning, all connected with the expression, and she shall bewail her father and mother. Thus he commanded that she shall shave her head, similar to what is written of Job [when he heard of the death of his children], and he shaved his head, and so also, cut off thy hair, [and cast it away, and take up a lamentation]. So, too, the cutting of nails is a form of mourning like the shaving of the head. He states, and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, that is to say, she shall don the garments of mourning, and she shall remain in thy house like a widow and not go outside at all, and she shall bewail her father and her mother, doing all this a full month, for such is the custom of mourners. And in the opinion of our Rabbis who say that all [these regulations] were intended to mar her beauty [the sense of the verses is as follows]: He commanded that she remove her beautiful garments, for [among] the heathens — accursed ones — their daughters adorned themselves in wartime in order to entice [the enemy] after them. She is to shave her head, which is considered a great disgrace, and pare her nails, for the custom of women is to let them grow and paint them with forms of stibium or other tints. And Scripture denotes the paring of a thing with the term asiah [“making” — ‘v’asethah’ her nails] because people cut the hair of the legs and the upper lip, as well as the nails when they grow [thus “making” and putting them in order].It appears to me that [the term asiah in this connection] is an abbreviated expression, [Scripture] being accustomed to speak briefly concerning a self-evident matter. The sense of the verse, and he had neither ‘asah’ his feet nor ‘asah’ his beard is that he [Mephibosheth] had not “done” what was appropriate to be done to them, alluding to the shaving of the hair on the legs and the beard, or to the washing of the feet themselves. Such also is the opinion of Yonathan ben Uziel who rendered the verse, “he did not wash his feet nor trim his beard.” So also ‘v’asethah’ her nails means “and she shall do that which is done with the nails “[i.e., paring them]. And the commentators have said that the meaning of the term asiah is “setting in order.” And such is the meaning o...

"And you shall bring her into your house, and she shall shave" — some say, perhaps because of her hair he desired her, therefore she shaves it. "And she shall let grow" — her nails, so that she becomes repulsive in his eyes.

וגלחה את ראשה, “she is to shave off the hair of her head.” This is parallel to the rites observed by a person afflicted with the skin disease known as tzoraat prior to that person regaining a status of ritual purity. (Leviticus 14,9) Even Levites, prior to their appointment to their new status, had to do this, as it is a symbolic way of advancing to a level of holiness from the level of profaneness. (Numbers 8,7) [Whatever can be removed from that prisoner while she was still a gentile must be removed before she can become a member of a holy nation. Hence both hair and nails have to be removed.] ועשתה את צפרניה, “she must pare her nails.” When speaking of paring nails, the Torah does not use the term: “shave,” but uses a term which implies that the result will be an improvement in one’s appearance. We are familiar with a parallel to this from Samuel II 19,25: לא עשה את שפמו ולא עשה את רגליו, “he had not trimmed his mustache or pared his toe nails (as a sign of mourning or distress).” This is how Rabbi Eliezer in the Sifri interprets our verse.

וגלחה את ראשה, “he shall shave her head.” This may cool his ardor if he had been especially attracted by her hair. Other commentators consider this a ritual similar to the purification rites performed by someone purifying himself from the tzoraat disease when all body hair must be removed as part of the process. (Leviticus 14,8)

והבאת אל תוך ביתך, ”you will bring her inside your house.” According to the Talmud, tractate Kidushin folio 22, this means that after you had been intimate with her once, you must not do so again until after the procedures described in the verses that follow. Thus far the text in the Talmud as understood by Rashi. According to the version in the Jerusalem Talmud, however, even the first act of intimacy had been forbidden. The soldier cannot legally cohabit with her until all the details described in the Torah have been carried out. There are commentators who understand the words of Rashi, to not treat her harshly, to mean: “do not deprive her of the garments that she wore at the time of her capture.” [It is assumed that she had worn her best clothes so as to find favour in the eyes of any potential captor so that he would not kill her. Ed.] This is hinted at by the sequence of the verses here where she has been described as being brought into her captor’s house before undergoing a change of clothing in verse 13.

She shall remove the garment of her captivity from upon her, and she shall dwell in your house and weep for her father and her mother for a full month. After that you may come to her and marry her, and she shall be a wife to you.

והסירה את שמלת שביה AND SHE SHALL REMOVE THE RAIMENT OF HER CAPTIVITY — the reason is because these are fine clothes, for the women of the heathen peoples adorned themselves in time of war in order to lure others (the enemy) to unchastity with them (Sifrei Devarim 213:1). וישבה בביתך AND SHE SHALL DWELL IN “THY” HOUSE — [not in the women’s apartments, but] in the house which he constantly uses: when he goes in he stumbles upon her, when he leaves he stumbles upon her (i.e. he cannot avoid meeting her constantly and the novelty of her beauty wears off); he sees her endless crying, sees her neglected appearance — and all this in order that she should become repulsive to him (Sifrei Devarim 213:2). ובכתה את אביה AND SHE SHALL WEEP FOR HER FATHER [AND HER MOTHER A FULL MONTH] — Why all this? In order to make a contrast — that while the Jewish woman (the captor’s Jewish wife) is gladsome, she should be downhearted, while the Jewish woman adorns herself, this one should bear a neglected appearance (Sifrei Devarim 213:5).

AND AFTER THAT THOU MAYEST COME UNTO HER, AND BE HER HUSBAND. The Rabbis have commented in the Sifre: “You have no privilege in her except cohabitation.” By this the Rabbis meant to say that betrothal with money or a writ is not binding on her. Even the cohabitation is not for the purpose of betrothal, since her status is still that of an idolatress upon whom betrothal is not binding; however, Scripture permitted him to cohabit with her. And because Scripture states [at the expiration of the thirty-day mourning period], and she shall be thy wife, it indicates that she becomes his real wife, and if she commits adultery while living with him, she is to be tried as a married woman. Thus the Rabbis have said in the Gemara of Tractate Kiddushin: “And thou wouldest take her to thee to wife. You have possession of her [through legal marriage],” that is, after following these regulations. And in the Sifre the Rabbis have said, “And she shall be thy wife, similar to what is stated, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, he shall not diminish.” If so, she is his wife in all respects seeing that the Torah gave him possession of her. And in line with the simple meaning of Scripture it appears that he is prohibited from cohabiting with her at all until after he has gone through this entire procedure, this being the sense of the expression, and after that thou mayest come unto her, and be her husband. And that which Scripture stated, and thou desirest her, and thou wouldest take her to thee to wife, means that he would take her for his wife after [complying with] all these regulations which it will command. Similarly, so that I took her to be my wife [means that Pharaoh took her to his house to be his wife]. However, in the Gemara of Tractate Kiddushin the Rabbis have said that he is permitted to engage in the first cohabitation [even before the procedure prescribed in this section], this being the sense of the expression, and thou wouldest take her to thee to wife. They interpreted the expression, “And thou shalt bring her home to thy house — this teaches that he is not to coerce her during battle.” The Rabbis connected it with the verse above, and thou wouldest take her to thee to wife [stated in Verse 11] meaning, when thou shalt bring her home to thy house [Verse 12]. Thus he takes her captive in battle and brings her to his home and to his city, and he cohabits with her in order to bring his lustful heart under control, and after his first cohabitation she is prohibited to him until he follows through the entire procedure with her. This is the way of the Gemara in many places. But I have seen in the Yerushalmi of Tractate Sanhedrin: “Rabbi Yochanan sent to the Rabbis there [in Babylon], ‘You say two things in the name of Rav which are not so. You say in the name of Rav, a beautiful woman was permitted only for the first cohabitation [prior to the prescribed procedure].’ And I say neither the first cohabitation nor the second is permitted save ...

"And she shall remove the garment of her captivity" — perhaps he desired her on account of the beauty of her garments. "And she shall weep" — so as to remove his delight in her. "A month of days" — perhaps his desire will diminish. Some say: "and she shall shave" because she was impure, as is likewise the rule for the person with tzara'at. "And she shall do" — attending to [herself]. The [sense of] attending to [herself] is to trim what is excessive; so too "he did not attend to his moustache" (2 Sam. 19:25), and [similarly] "instead of hammered work" — and this attending to oneself is the core of every such act in Scripture, unless something unsightly follows it, in which case it too will be fully negative. "And she shall remove the garment" — for it is soiled. "And she shall dwell in your house and weep" — the meaning is: she shall dwell in your house for a month of days to weep. "For her father and her mother" — if they are nearby. Some say this weeping is for her father and mother who did not convert to Judaism. In my view, every person is obligated by right reason to honor his father and his mother, both in life and in death. And the meaning of "and she shall weep" is that she mourns for them according to the manner of an Israelite woman, since she is becoming Jewish — if they were killed when she was taken captive. There is no need to mention immersion, for she requires the waters of purification, since it is already written [concerning them], "you and your captives." The Sages said [she waits] until three months — even though there is no need to be strict about this, the proof is "and it was at the end of three months" (Gen. 38:24), which is the time when the fetus begins to move; and it is forbidden to lie with a woman when there is doubt whether she is pregnant, on account of the fetus — for there are those who are born two months premature, and likewise [some] with two months added, but these are the minority. "A month of days" is like "a month of time" — I have already explained this; the month is called ירח (yerach) because its basis is the moon (ירח, yareach).

ובכתה את אביה ואת אמה, to get her father and mother out of her system and reconciling herself to the fact that henceforth she would live in the Land of Israel, have no more contact with her parents. (whether they are dead or alive) Similar wording occurs in Psalms 45,11 שכחי עמך, the psalmist urging the Jewish people, compared to a princess, to forget their former environment and associates as she had been promoted to a loftier position. The prisoner of war described here as embracing Judaism has similarly been promoted to a far superior environment, severing her previous relationships completely. The weeping mentioned in our verse has nothing to do with the death of her parents for we do not kill mothers altogether. She weeps for having no longer a father and mother in the legal sense as these did not convert. Any other convert, not a prisoner of war, would similarly weep for this separation having occurred in her life as a result of her new status.

והסירה את שמלת שביה, “and she is to remove the outer garment she wore when taken prisoner;” this was a garment she wore while worshipping her idols. We have examples in the Bible of such garments having to be scrapped in Genesis 35,2, where Yaakov commands his family members to scrap the captured garments they were wearing, which had originated in the city of Sh’chem. Anything that she was able to remove, which was a reminder of when she worshipped idols, had to be removed and destroyed. There was no need for the Torah to add that her body too must undergo an immersion in a ritual bath, Such a rule had already been made plain in Numbers 31,19 where the Jewish soldiers returning from the penal expedition against Midian had to undergo bodily purification for seven days as they had been in contact with dead bodies of Midianites. ובכתה את אביה ואת אמה, “and she is to observe a period of weeping (mourning) for her father and mother.” Weeping helps a person release feelings that had been suppressed. This will help her get over the loss of her parents. She may have assumed that her parents had died during the fighting. (Ibn Ezra) ואחר כן תבא אליה, “after all this, her captor may join her and marry her.” He is not allowed to have carnal relations with her before this. It would be in very bad taste to indulge in carnal relations with such a prisoner while she was weeping for her parents, and you were enjoying her body.

ובכתה את אביה ואת אמה ירח ימים, “and she shall weep for her father and mother for a month.” According to the plain meaning of the text there are a number of advantages in the Torah setting aside a whole month for this mourning period. 1) During this period the prisoner may observe the mourning rites of the Jewish people if she heard that father or mother had been killed during that war while she was still of prisoner status (i.e. not Jewish). Any normal human being, Jewish or not, is supposed to observe the commandment to honor father and mother both while they are alive and after they have died. 2) The Torah hopes that during the period of 30 days the infatuation of the Jewish soldier for his prisoner will cool, especially when he observes her daily without the benefit of makeup, etc., deprived of her hair, finger nails, etc. [Some say that the nails have to be allowed to grow. Ed.]. Being dressed in mourner’s clothing also does not add to her allure for her captor. When he observes the woman cry and generally deport herself as unhappy in her new environment the ardor of her soldier-suitor may evaporate and he may send her home. 3) During that period her pagan mannerisms and expressions may be uprooted and she will gradually forget her past and adjust to her new environment and the fact that she has found a future. She will learn to appreciate her good fortune compared to her compatriots and resolve to become a dutiful wife to her captor. She will then be ready to immerse herself in a ritual bath and recite the appropriate benediction accompanying her conversion. As to why the Torah does not make any mention of this immersion in a ritual bath, this may be explained by Numbers 31,19 where the immersion of the prisoners in a ritual bath has already been standardized. A Midrashic approach found in the Sifri: the purpose of the line: “and she will weep for her father and mother,” is a reference to her saying good-bye to paganism. We find that pagan deities are referred to as “parents” in Jeremiah 2,27: “they say to wood and stone ‘you are my father, you have given birth to me.’” In Yevamot 48 Rabbi Akiva also said that these words refer to weeping for Avodah Zarah, the same verse in Jeremiah being quoted. I believe that the point the Midrash wanted to make was to account for the periodירח ימים a “lunar orbit.” This round number includes the various repetitive cycles. The sun orbits daily, the orbits of the seven fixed stars are counted in terms of each dominating one day of the week. The moon orbits in 30 days (approx.) All of these phenomena are reminiscent of one kind or another of idolatry based on celestial phenomena. The woman prisoner is given a month to divest herself of this philosophy. The word: “her father,” is a simile for the sun, whereas the word: “her mother,” is a simile for the moon. The word את each time includes the various stars-planets which also are part of these patterns of idolatry. According to this view, the woman has to observe this month of mourning and weeping even if her biological parents are known to be alive still. Her new status (impending) demands that she put a full stop to all previous connections with idolatry (including her biological parents). Seeing that as a member of the Gentile nations she had not been forbidden to acknowledge these intermediaries as her deities previously, she is allowed to take official leave of her former religion. A rational approach (allegorical philosophy): This whole paragraph contains distinct allusions to the evil urge. It is this urge which causes man to sin on an ongoing basis and it usually approaches him in the guise of some irresistible female. This allure is employed by the evil urge to lure men into satiating their various cravings for the forbidden. When our sages in Kiddushin 21 said לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע, “that the Torah (in this paragraph) addressed specifically the danger of being seduced by the evil urge,” this is what they had in mind. They perceive the אשת יפת תאר as the personification of the evil urge. The Torah provides the antidote to the lure of the evil urge in the manner it suggests it be treated. One way of ridding oneself of it is that man strips the evil urge of his physical power which is represented by his hair (as we know from Samson). This is why the Torah commands that we shave off the hair of the יפת תאר. The word גלוח suggests destruction of the hair so that it does not grow back again. Prior to Adam’s sin, his clothing consisted of nails (a tough skin). When the Torah speaks about the אשת יפת תאר having to “do her nails,” this is an allusion to man’s objective to regain the status of Adam who wore “nails.” The contrast is the removal of the garments of the אשת יפת תאר, read: “evil urge. One is not to indulge in any of the pleasures of this world, unless they are specifically permitted, gratifying only those urges that are condoned by the Torah. The words וישבה בביתך, “she will sit in your house,” are a simile for keeping tight control of these urges just as one keeps control of everything under one’s roof. The way to accomplish all this is to first weaken the urges, i.e. to “weep for father and mother for a whole month.” Having sufficiently weakened these cravings, the words ואחר כן תבוא אליה apply, i.e. you may then gingerly make use of these urges provided it is within the framework of what is permissible under Torah law.

ובכתה, “she shall weep, etc.;” all this is designed to cool her suitor’s ardor and make her look physically unattractive. Nachmanides writes that all the regulations listed in our paragraph stem from the fact that she undergoes a reluctant conversion on her part. It is quite possible that the local religious authorities forced her to undergo ritual immersion, and that the period of thirty days before the marriage and true conversion can be performed give her time to become reconciled to her new situation. Ibn Ezra writes that the Torah granted her all this time to mourn properly for her parents, who may be presumed to have died during the war. Alternatively, she weeps in mourning for her parents who because they did not convert are no longer considered her kin. Maimonides writes in his Moreh Nevuchim section 3, chapter 41 that the Torah decrees the weeping as an emotional outlet for her enforced situation. It is a psychologically recognized fact that an extended period of weeping brings about a catharsis enabling her to come to terms with unwelcome new facts of life. During that month she is not required to address the duties that her marriage now imposes on her vis a vis her husband. Personally, (Nachmanides writing) the weeping has nothing to do with the Torah expressing compassion for this woman, but it provides a period during which she shall be weaned form the idolatrous practices and convictions that she grew up with. She must learn to refrain from using the names of her deities in her daily conversation, etc., as our sages have said in connection with mamzerim, bastards, as it is most unseemly for even a “husband” to engage in sexual relations with his wife when she is forced to submit to this, or when she is in a state of mourning That time is set aside for her to come to terms with the loss she has experienced. This period of thirty days enables her to make the emotional transition, to adjust to her new husband, who has presumably saved her life by taking her under his protection during that war that preceded these various rites. This is why the Torah describes what follows as her new husband sleeping with her as an act of marrying her, and bringing her into his house. If she wanted to convert sooner and dissociate herself from her past completely, she is at liberty to do so. ואחר כן תבא אליה ובעלתה, “and after this period has elapsed you may come to her and sleep with her.” Nachmanides writes that the plain meaning of this verse is that her “husband, captor,” had been forbidden to have marital relations with her until all the procedures listed have been completed. Although with natural born Jewish women a binding marriage ceremony can be by means of a written contract or by the woman excepting some money or equivalent, according to Sifri these methods do not apply in the case of a prisoner of war of pagan background. Even sexual intercourse for a purpose other than to seal a marriage contract would not achieve this, as she was a gentile, and there is no such thing as marriage to gentiles, seeing the wedding includes a sacred, holy element, something that as long as she is not Jewish, this woman could not be capable of. The Torah had consented to the soldier sleeping with a prisoner with whom he was infatuated, but that does not make her his wife, not even to the exclusion of other suitors. Once she has converted, however, she is subject to Jewish law in all respects, and marital infidelity, for instance would be punishable by strangulation.

והסירה את שמלת שביה, in order to make her appear less attractive.

But if it is the case that you do not desire her, you shall send her away on her own, and you shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her as a commodity, because you have afflicted her.

והיה אם לא חפצת בה AND IT SHALL BE, IF THOU ART NOT PLEASED WITH HER — Scripture tell you that you will in the end hate her (Sifrei Devarim 214:1). לא תתעמר בה means; THOU SHALT NOT USE HER AS A SLAVE. In the Persian language slavery and servitude is termed עימראה. I learned this from the work of R. Moses the Preacher.

[AND IT SHALL BE, IF THOU HAVE NO DESIRE FOR HER,] THEN THOU SHALT LET HER GO WHITHER SHE WILL. The Rabbis have said thereon in the Sifre: “But not to her fathers’ house.” Now, I do not know whether the intent thereof is to state that she is a Jewess and that we do not allow her to leave the law of Israel and go back unto her people, and unto her gods, or whether it means to state that he is not to send her to her father’s house with attendants, for in that case he would be assisting those who commit a transgression. Instead he is to send her out of his house to sojourn wherever she could find a place, for perhaps she will remain in the Land and follow the young men and be married to one of them. Now, since Scripture states that he is to let her go where she pleases, and warns that he not sell her for money and that he not treat her as a slave, we deduce that she needs no divorce from him. Rather, Scripture considered her to be a married woman as long as she was with him; when he hates her he may send her away like a rape victim. It is possible that the sense of the verse is to state that, if he cohabits with her and desires her, she shall become his wife. If he cohabits with her, however, and she is not enticing to him and he does not desire her, similar to the affair of Amnon with Tamar, he must let her go where she pleases, everything depending upon this cohabitation. For, if after he cohabited with her [the first time] she tarried with him for days and he cohabited with her, and then changes his attitude and hates her, like a man who hates his wife, she had already become his wife, and thus she is Jewish and can be sent away only with a bill of divorce. THOU SHALT NOT ‘THITH’AMEIR’ (DEAL AS A SLAVE) WITH HER. This is like the expression ‘v’hith’amer’ (and he deal with him as a slave), and sell him. Onkelos in both cases rendered it as an expression of “trading,” and our Rabbis in the Sifre and in the Gemara explained it as a term of “serving.” Thus it is an express negative commandment against making any use of her as a bondmaid, and if he did put her to such service he is to be scourged. It appears to me in line with the simple meaning of Scripture that thou shalt not ‘thith’ameir’ [spelled with an a’yin] is like “thou shalt not thith’ameir” [spelled with an aleph], as in the expression, all the workers of iniquity ‘yith’amru’ (bear themselves loftily). So also, Thou hast ‘he’emarta’ (acknowledged) the Eternal this day; and in their splendor ‘thith’yamaru’ (you shall gain grandeur) — exchanging the aleph for a yod — are all expressions of exaltedness and greatness. ‘He’emarta’ the Eternal this day means that “you have exalted and magnified Him to be thy G-d.” And the Eternal ‘he’emircha’ this day means that “He exalted and magnified you above all peoples to be His own treasure.” All of these expressions are derived from the phrase in the top ‘amir’ (of the uppermost bough). Thus the verse here states, Do not exalt yourself nor magnify you...

"And you shall let her go as she pleases" — you shall do her will. "And sell her for money you shall not sell her" — the Torah speaks in the manner of common practice; the meaning is: for anything whatsoever. "You shall not deal with her as a commodity" — like "and he dealt with him as a commodity and sold him" (Deut. 24:7); these two [verbs] have no third [form], and its meaning in context is the sense of deception.

לא תתעמר בה, [the Torah now addresses the soldier, Ed] “do not treat her as a slave;” this verb is used for treating merchandise. The Torah warns the husband, or ex husband, of this prisoner of war, not to treat that woman as if she were merely chattel to be sold; (verse 24) תחת אשר עניתה, “seeing that you have already humbled her.” These words still refer to the line: ושלחתה לנפשה, “you shall let her go her own way;”

לא תתעמר בה, “you shall not enslave her.” The meaning of this word with the letter ע is the same as the similar sounding word with the letter א, i.e. תתאמר. We find the word in a similar meaning in Deut. 26,17: את ה' האמרת היום, “you have enslaved yourself to the Lord this day.” It is not unusual for the letters א and ע to be used interchangeably. Not only in scripture but also in the language of our sages are the letters ע and א used interchangeably such as in עריס or אריס, both being given as “tenant-farmer.” The prisoner who originally was captured for the sake of becoming the soldier’s wife must not be demoted to be treated as a slave in his household once his infatuation for her has waned. It is morally not acceptable This is a basic moral lesson the Torah teaches us here. The next paragraph which describes a situation in the home of someone who has two wives one of whom he loves whereas he harbours hostile feelings towards the other, teaches that the Torah did not easily agree to permitting the אשת יפת תאר to the Jewish soldier, seeing it foresaw that introducing her into the soldier’s household was likely to result in friction in that home. Had it not been the Torah’s wish to help the soldier sublimate his carnal lust for that woman, the Torah would not have done so, seeing the chances that her husband will eventually hate such a woman are statistically quite high. Moreover, if he has a son from her, the chances that the son will become a delinquent (בן סורר ומורה), [even if not in the strictly halachic sense of the word. Ed.] are not insignificant. This is why the paragraph about such a delinquent follows in short order. We find that the Torah’s psychology was justified when we look at the life of King David (compare Tanchuma Ki Teytze 1). He had taken Maacha, the daughter of Talmai, the King of Geshur as one of his wives (Samuel II 3,3) after he had gone out to war against him. She bore Avshalom for David. Avshalom rebelled against his father and tried to kill him; he slept with David’s concubines. He murdered one of David’s sons, and generally became the focus of political strife in Israel and responsible for the death of tens of thousands of Israelites. The prophet Nathan was told to tell David that G’d would make evil arise against David out of his own house (Samuel II 12,11, see commentary by R' D. Kimchi). Another paragraph which is appended to the foregoing one because it is a warning, is verse 22 in which the procedure of preserving even the dignity of the body of someone who has been legally executed for a crime committed is discussed. The sequences of our passages in this chapter are reminiscent of Isaiah 24,18 where the prophet tells us that when one has managed to escape one kind of terror, one will find oneself entrapped by a different kind of trap. The sum total of the moral/ethical teaching of these verses is that even marriages which are permitted by the Torah are not necessarily suitable unions. The marriages to prisoners of war are a prime example of such unions. Even though the women in question have converted to Judaism, this is not considered a complete (ideal) conversion. It is assumed that the woman in question converted out of fear, i.e. physical fear of otherwise being executed. Even when someone volunteers to become a proselyte with no pressure from any causes which we can detect, the sages (Yevamot 47) have instructed the judges performing the conversion to carefully examine the prospective proselyte’s background to determine if he or she is converting for ulterior motives, i.e. not because of genuine religious conviction. Money, position, etc., may all be reasons which attract a Gentile to become Jewish. In the case of males more likely than not they have their eyes on a Jewish girl whom they wish to marry. Judaism is different from other religions which are soul-snatchers, missionary by definition. The reason is that we are a national religion, not one which wishes to embrace all of mankind. Some of the other religions, Islam in particular, are imbued with the fervor to ram their beliefs down the throats of people whom they perceive to be pagans. [In some editions the author refers to “two” religions, i.e. Christianity also. Ed.]. Sometimes all kinds of enticements, both material and spiritual, are offered to the potential convert in order to get him to embrace a particular new faith. This is what Daniel already prophesied about (Daniel 7,20) “and a mouth speaking haughty words.” Daniel 7,25 also deals with the same phenomenon describing efforts at converting others to one’s belief being made my leaders of religious cults. In Daniel 11,36 Daniel harps on the same subject once more. Once the prospective convert to Judaism has been checked out and no ulterior motives have been discovered which would make us doubt his sincerity, he is advised of the yoke of Torah legislation and what is implied by joining the Jewish people (Maimonides Hilchot Issurey Bi-ah 13,14). All of this is designed to make the prospective convert reconsider his plans to become Jewish. During the reign of David prospective converts were rejected as it was suspected that these converts were inspired by fear of the growing power of the Jewish state. In Solomon’s time they were also not accepted as it was suspected that they were motivated by the affluence and security offered by King Solomon’s empire (compare Maimonides Hilchot Issurey Bi-ah 13,14-15). Despite these rulings, there were many converts during the reign of David and Solomon, and once local courts had conducted such conversions and the converts had undergone ritual immersion the higher courts did not revoke these conversions. Although Solomon who married numerous women of pagan ancestry converted all them of them prior to marrying them, and Shimshon too did not marry until after the lady had been converted, seeing these conversions were due to ulterior motives, scripture continues to describe the women in question as if they had remained Gentiles and sleeping with them was forbidden. The outcome of these “marriages” testifies to the fact that they were flawed from the beginning. The Book of Kings accuses Solomon of building altars for the former deities his various foreign-born wives served, although he personally did nothing of the sort. The fact that he did not interfere with such goings on is placed at his doorstep (compare Kings I chapter 11). In view of all the above we can understand the statement of our sages in Yevamot 47 that converts are as serious a plague for the Jewish people as is the dreaded skin disease tzoraat. The reason for this attitude is that experience has shown that the majority of converts abandoned their former religion only because of material advantages to be attained by becoming Jewish. Not only that, these converts have a habit of leading natural born Jews astray. Once these people have become legal converts it is practically impossible to isolate them and to ostracize them. The first time such converts led the natural born Jews astray was during the episode of the golden calf, whereas a short time later the same thing occurred in Numbers 11,4 when a group of people described by the Torah as אספסף instigated the craving for meat as a result of which tens of thousands of Israelites died a miserable death. Sifri Behaalotcha 86 attributes all this to these converts. Time and again such fair-weather converts have become the bane of our people. Just as we learned from the order in which these last few paragraphs have been arranged that one sin brings in its wake another sin, we can learn from another sequence of paragraphs that one commandment meticulously observed will bring in its wake the fulfillment of other commandments. In 22,6 we read about the commandment to release a mother bird before taking her chicks, followed by the commandment to install a railing on the roof of a new house. Following this the Torah instructs us not to mix certain species of seed, etc., etc. The message is that once we observe one commandment it will be easier to observe other commandments.

ושלחתה לנפשה, “you will send her away on her own, etc.” Nachmanides views this instruction as indicating that the husband does not have to give that woman a formal decree of divorce. This is why the Torah has to warn him not to sell her as a slave, nor treat her as one treats a maidservant. As long as she is his wife she enjoys all the privileges a wife is entitled to. If he has started to hate her, he must release her to fend on her own as if he had raped her, [the victim of a rape cannot be forced to live with her rapist unless she consents as his wife, who is then protected by her husband not being allowed to divorce her, ever. Deut. 22. 28-29 Ed.] It is possible that the message of this verse is that if, when this captor sleeps with this woman as an expression of his wanting to marry her, all well and good. However, if he sleeps with her without commitment and she is no longer desirable for him, he must release her unconditionally. Her future relationship to her captor depends entirely on the nature of his sleeping with her once this had been permitted according to Torah law. If the relationship turns sour after she had become his wife, she is entitled to a decree of divorce just like any married woman. לא תתעמר בה, “you must not enslave her;” Nachmanides writes, referring to Onkelos on 24,7 where he understands the letter ו in the word ומכרו as ”and,” not ”or,” that the term תתעמר does not mean that the former husband now keeps her in his household as a slave, but that he sells her in the slave market for money, treats her as chattel. Our sages (Sifri on 24,7) state that selling is not culpable until the new owner has made personal use of the newly acquired slave. They see in the word התעמר a reference to ingathering of a harvest, for instance, converting a potential into an actual. Nachmanides, personally, feels that the word corres-ponds to its plain meaning, as if it had been written with the letter א instead of ע, as it appears in Psalms 94,4 where it portrays arrogant, haughty conduct that characterizes those that not only sin but boast about it. Nachmanides quotes instances when the letters א and ע are used interchangeably.

לא תתעמר, an expression used to describe slave trade, trade in human beings. (Compare 24,7) אשר עניתה, according to the plain meaning this refers to sexual intercourse for the purpose of marriage.

If a man has two wives, one beloved and one unloved, and both the beloved and the unloved have borne him sons, and the firstborn son belongs to the unloved —

"Beloved" — in his eyes, not for Hashem's sake. "Hated" — this is an adjective form [used as] a noun. This passage is juxtaposed [here] because of [the preceding verse], "and you desired her but did not want her."

כי תהיינה לאיש שתי נשים, after the victory in war the Torah addresses internal matters in the Jewish state. The most important ones are interpersonal relationships with wives, children, livestock, jewelry, hunting for food, building homes, tilling the soil and matters related to clothing.

והיה הבן הבכר לשניאה, "and the firstborn son is from the wife whom you hate." The Torah does not describe this as merely a possibility but assumes as a fact that the firstborn son from these two marriages will be that of the wife who is hated. It is similar to Genesis 29,31 where the Torah told us that G'd opened Leah's womb because she was hated by her husband. G'd always looks out for those who suffer from a broken heart.

כי תהיינה לאיש שתי נשים, “If a man has two wives;” this paragraph is appropriate here as we have just read of a union that is unsatisfactory to the husband, although it had commenced with mutual fondness of the parties. (verses 11 and 14) וילדה לו, “and she gives birth for him;” by any means, even by caesarean section. (Sifri)

כי תהיין לאיש שתי נשים, האחת אהובה, “When a man has two wives, one of whom he loves, etc.” This does not mean that he actually hates one of his wives, but it is inevitable that when one has two wives that one must love one better that the other, and the other is described as the one that “he hates.” Each of the two wives (in any marriage) employs devious means including sorcery to become her husband’s favourite.

When a man has. Thus [these] portions [of marriage to a captured maiden, of the loved/unloved son, and of the rebellious son] are connected to to teach that “a sin causes [one to commit] another sin,” that by taking the beautiful [captured maiden], he would have two wives and they would fight within the household and hate one another. And what is written afterwards [are the laws concerning] a man’s rebellious ad wayward son, and thus we find in the case of David who took [Maacah] the daughter of Talmi, the King of Gashur, at the end of their battle, and [together] they bore [a son] Absalom, who [as it would turn out] tried to kill David and slept with his wives (i.e. concubines), and because of his hand many Israelites were killed.

then on the day he bequeaths his property to his sons, he has no authority to treat the son of the beloved as firstborn ahead of the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn.

LO YUCHAL’ [literally: “he could not” but rendered: HE MAY NOT] DECLARE THE SON OF THE BELOVED FIRSTBORN. This is an admonition against doing so. Likewise are all such verses as: ‘Lo thuchal’ (thou mayest not) eat within thy gates etc.; ‘lo thuchal’ (thou mayest not) put a foreigner over thee. And in all these cases, Onkelos translates “you have no right” [which proves that the verse before us, too, constitutes an admonition], and the purport of these expressions is, “you could not allow yourself the possibility of doing so,” emphasizing the importance of the admonitions. Similarly, But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion constitutes a positive commandment that he bequeath a double portion to the firstborn. Thus he who equalizes the firstborn with his brothers [i.e., he assigns him a share equal to theirs] violates both a negative commandment and a positive commandment, even though his words are not legally valid. He surely violates both [commandments] if, knowing he [the son of the hated one] is the firstborn, and did not wish to make it known that he is the firstborn and claimed that he is an ordinary son and caused him to inherit like any one of his sons. Now, these are newly-declared commandments. And from that which Scripture states [he may not declare the son of the beloved firstborn] in the face of the firstborn, the son of the hated it would appear to me that this commandment and this law are binding only during the lifetime of the firstborn. But, if the firstborn died during the life of his father, even though he [the deceased son] inherits his share as the firstborn in the grave and bequeathes it by law to his children, yet if the father wished [to deviate] and said, “My sons shall inherit such-and-such of my belongings, and the children of my [late] son, the firstborn, shall take such-and-such of my belongings,” his instructions are valid just as they would be valid in a case where there is no firstborn son. Similarly, the father would not be violating this negative commandment if he did not acknowledge the firstborn son only after his death, for I have never found the expression ‘al pnei’ (in the face of) except with reference to the living, such as: ‘al pnei’ (in the presence of) Aaron their father; ‘al pnei’ (in the presence of) his father Terah, and similarly all such expressions. [Therefore, in this case, since it states that the father may not do it ‘al pnei’ the firstborn of the hated, it follows that the prohibition is binding only during the lifetime of the firstborn and that the father had acknowledged him as such.].

"On the day he causes his sons to inherit" — while in full bodily health, or on the day of his death when he is a deathbed-ill person (shekhibh mera), or [alternatively] the court causes them to inherit. "To designate the firstborn" — in speech and in rank. The meaning of "he shall not be able" is like his counterparts [in other cases where the law limits a person's authority].

לא יוכל לבכר את בן האהובה על פני בן השנואה הבכור. The firstborn son’s entitlement to an extra share in his father’s inheritance must not be transferred on account of his father loving his mother more or “hating” her, i.e. loving her less than his second wife. If the reason the father wants to transfer the extra portion of the inheritance away from the chronologically entitled son due to that son’s misconduct¸ this is in order, as we know from Baba Batra 133 אם לא היה נוהג כשורה זכור לטוב, íf the chronologically oldest did not conduct himself properly his inheritance may be transferred to another better one. [opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel only, not accepted by codifiers. Ed.] It appears that this is what Yaakov did when he took birthright privileges away from Reuven (Chronicles I 5,1) transferring it to Joseph.

הנחילו את בניו, את אשר יהיה לו, when he allocates the inheritance to the sons he has, etc. The Torah did not write ביום אשר הנחילו את אשר יהיה, לו את בניו, "on the day he allocates his inheritance to the ones who are his, i.e. his sons," which would have been far more appropriate, because the Torah wanted the word הנחילו to appear next to את בניו. This is an allusion to what we learned in Baba Batra 130 that a father may allocate to one of his sons [because he is his natural heir. Ed.] more than would be his share if all the children would inherit equally when no special allocation has been made. לא יוכל לבקר "He cannot give preference (the status of being the firstborn), etc." If he did so, he violates a negative commandment. This rule answers a question raised by Tossaphot in Baba Batra 130 which commences with the words תלמוד לומר לא יבכר.

את אשר יהיה לו, “whatever he shall own.” From this formulation we learn that a son is entitled to inherit also what is owed to his father at the time of his death as well as what is on hand. על פני בן השנואה, “in preference to the firstborn son of the wife he dislikes;” [if he had literally hated her, he would have had to divorce her. We find that our matriarch Leah also considered herself “hated” by her husband, clearly an exaggeration; otherwise Yaakov would have kicked her out after the wedding night. (Compare Genesis 29,33) Ed.] We find the expression: על פני, meaning “preferable to” also in Exodus 20,3: לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים על פני, “you must not have other deities that you prefer to Me.” Compare also: Numbers 3,4: ויכהן אלעזר ואיתמר על פני אהרן אביהם, “he appointed Eleazar and Ittamar as priests (even) while their father was still alive.

לא יוכל לבכר, “he is not legally able to declare as firstborn, etc.” if the father of the preferred wife declares her son as the firstborn with the privileges the Torah accords the firstborn, although he is in fact not the firstborn, then he has also violated a negative commandment. על פני בן השנואה, הבכור, “ahead of the son of the hated one, the firstborn, etc.” Nachmanides, paying attention to minute grammatical nuances in our verse, concludes from the apparently superfluous words על פני in “the presence of,” that if the true firstborn has already died before his father, i.e. before the question of distributing an estate even became imminent, the father’s dispositions are legally effective, in spite of the general rule that a firstborn is entitled to his share of the inheritance even if he died before his father, if he left behind natural heirs. In every instance where the expression על פני occurs as referring to people, it means “during the lifetime of, etc.” (Compare Genesis 11,28, Numbers 3,4)

לא יוכל לבכר את בן האהובה, “he must not favour the son of his beloved wife, (over the son of the wife he has grown to hate,” (by treating him as his first born) Yaakov having treated Joseph as his firstborn is somewhat different as he had never meant to marry Leah, and when he did so in order not to shame her, she subsequently felt hated (having been guilty of deceiving him.). Yaakov “hated her” as she had deprived him of Joseph becoming the true first born from the wife he had worked for, for seven years. Yaakov should have brought Reuven to trial, if he had been guilty of a sin against him instead of depriving him of his rights as a firstborn.

Rather, he must designate the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he possesses, for he is the first of his strength — the right of the firstborn belongs to him.

פי שנים A DOUBLE PORTION — i.e. a portion equal to those of two brothers together (Sifrei Devarim 217:2-4). בכל אשר ימצא לו [BUT HE SHALL ACKNOWLEDGE THE SON OF THE HATED FOR THE FIRSTBORN, BY GIVING HIM A DOUBLE PORTION] OF ALL THAT SHALL BE FOUND WITH HIM — From here the Rabbis derived the law that the firstborn does not receive a double share of what is due to come after the death of the father (as, e.g., a debt or a legacy that were payable to his father on a certain date, before which, however, the father died — technically termed ראוי), as he does of what is actually held in possession by the father (מוחזק) (Sifrei Devarim 217:6; Bekhorot 51b).

"He shall acknowledge" — he shall grant him recognition, or he shall declare before others who it is that is the firstborn, if [they are in a place] where he is not known; or he is obligated from the outset to recognize who among his sons is the firstborn, if they are twins. "To give him a double portion" — that he takes two portions: if there are three [sons], they are reckoned as four and he takes two portions; if there are two sons, they are reckoned as three — and so in every case. In my view this is likewise the meaning of "let there be a double portion of your spirit upon me" (2 Kings 2:9), as I have explained there. "For he is the first of his vigor" — one speaks rightly with the upright, and all Israel are presumed to be upright.

בן השנואה יכיר, “he must recognise the son of the “hated” wife as his firstborn. The reason why the Torah chose the expression “recognise” here is that usually when someone wishes to deny a relative some favour that the latter claims he is entitled to, he behaves as if he does not even ”know” such a person. We find an example of this expression in such a situation when Joseph’s brothers came to Egypt to buy grain and he pretended not to know who they were, i.e. ויתנכר, (Genesis 42,7). The Torah there had told us that he had recognised them immediately. On the other hand, when Boaz treated Ruth, whom he had never even met, with kindness and consideration, (Ruth 2,10) she is so astounded that she asked him what prompted him to treat her as if he had known her for a long time, מדוע מצאתי חן בעיניך, “what caused me to have found favour in your eyes, ואני נכריה, when I am a complete stranger?”The Torah demands of the father of his biological and chronological firstborn to introduce him as such to anyone who does not know him. Moreover, Jewish law decrees that when a father introduces his son in such a way he is trustworthy and does not have to provide independent proof for his claim. (Talmud, tractate Kidushin, folio 74.) פי שנים, “a double portion,” (inheritance); I have already explained on Numbers 3,12 why this is so. ימצא לו, “of all that he actually owns and has control over at the time of his death.” (excluding receivables) לו משפט הבכורה, “the rights of the firstborn are his.” (not a female firstborn.)

כי את הבכור, the word כי means אלא, but. כי הוא ראשית אונו, for he is entitled to inherit the first of his father’s money. We find that the word און appears in this sense in Hoseah 12,9 מצאתי און לי, [clearly it cannot mean “I have found my virility there”, as it does in Genesis 49,3. Ed.] The word און also occurs in the sense of money in Job 20,10 וידיו תשיבנה אונו, “his own hands must give back his wealth.”

If a man has a wayward and rebellious son who does not accept the word of his father and the word of his mother, and they instruct him but he does not accept from them —

סורר (from the root סור to deviate) means, one who deviates from the proper path of life. ומורה means, one who is disobedient to the words of his father, of the same meaning as ממרים in the phrase (Deuteronomy 9:7) “ממרים הייתם”, “ye have been rebellious”. ויסרו אתו AND THEY SHALL CHASTISE HIM — admonish him in the presence of three people, and if he still remains refractory they cause him to be lashed through the court (Sanhedrin 71a; cf. Sifrei Devarim 218:11). The refractory and rebellious son is not liable to the death penalty until he proves to be a thief and eats at one meal a “tartemar” (a weight of half a Maneh) flesh and drinks half a Log wine, for it is said of him, (v. 20) זולל וסבא, and in another passage (Proverbs 23:20) it says: “Do not be among wine-guzzlers (בְסֹבְאֵי-יָיִן), among gluttonous eaters of meat” (Sanhedrin 70a; cf. Sifrei Devarim 219:4). — The refractory and rebellious son is put to death on account of the final course his life must necessarily take (not because his present offence is deserving death); — the Torah has fathomed his ultimate disposition: in the end he will squander his fathers property and seeking in vain for the pleasures to which he has been accustomed, he will take his stand on the crossroads and rob people, and in some way or other make, himself liable to the death penalty. Says the Torah, “Let him die innocent of such crimes, and let him not die guilty of them” (Sifrei Devarim 220:3; Sanhedrin 72a).

A STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON. In the opinion of our Rabbis he is not a minor, for a minor is not subject to any punishments ordained by the Torah or to [the observance of] any commandments. Rather, this verse applies to a boy who has grown two hairs [signifying puberty, and, therefore making the child subject to all the laws prescribed by the Torah]. Now, he is liable to two punishments: the first, because he dishonors his father and his mother and rebels against them, and the second, because he is a glutton, and a drunkard, transgressing that which we have been commanded, Ye shall be holy, and it is further stated, and Him shall ye serve, and unto Him shall ye cleave — as I have explained, we are commanded to know G-d in all our ways, and a glutton, and a drunkard does not know the way of G-d. In general, then, as of now he [this stubborn and rebellious son] has not committed a sin punishable by death, but is judged because of [what he is destined to become in] the end, just as our Rabbis have mentioned. This is the sense of the expression, and all Israel shall hear, and fear, for he was not executed due to the greatness of his sin, but in order to discipline the public, and so that he not become a menace to others. It is the manner of Scripture so to warn that when the death-penalty is imposed as a deterrent, the execution should serve as a benefit to others. Thus it mentioned the same in the case of the rebellious elder [who defies the decision of the Great Sanhedrin — And all the people shall hear, and fear] because, in his decision [contradicting that of the court] there is no sin deserving of death, but [the death sentence being imposed only to] deter dissension from the Torah, as I have explained there. Similar is the case of plotting witnesses who are executed [for scheming to condemn someone to death] although they have not caused his execution. Scripture also mentions it in the case of the beguiler because he is executed merely for his evil speech even though the beguiled has not worshipped the idols, nor hearkened to him; his [the beguiler’s] death is rather to chasten the survivors. This, too, is a newly-declared commandment — or it may be explanatory of the commandments, Honor thy father and thy mother, and Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father.

"Wayward and rebellious" — against Hashem and against the parents, if they were God-fearing. "Wayward" — like "a wayward heifer" (Hos. 4:16): he does not observe positive commandments. "Rebellious" — [in transgressing] prohibitions. "And they shall chastise him" — in the presence of witnesses; it is a commandment that they seize him and bring him out. And the words of the [oral] tradition are true.

סורר ומורה, his obstinacy removed all hope that he would change his lifestyle.

כי יהיה לאיש…איננו שומע, "When a man has a delinquent son…he refuses to listen, etc." Why does the Torah write איננו instead of אינו? Perhaps the Torah wanted to emphasise that when the evil urge dominates within man this deprives man of his normal ability to hear and to understand. The reason is that the evil urge takes up its position at the entrance of man's heart preventing words to get through to the soul. I have compared the matter to a king whose security guards were thieves and robbers. Can one imagine that these guards would permit their victims who want to complain to the king that they have been robbed to gain entrance to the king's palace and thereby to help incriminate themselves? Our situation is quite similar. בקול אביו ובקול אמו, "to the voice of his father or to the voice of his mother." Why did the Torah have to write the word: "his father," instead of merely writing "his voice," i.e. that of the man who has been described as having this son? The Torah wanted to emphasise that the rebellious son and those who have given birth to him of which the Torah speaks here are his original parents i.e. his Father in heaven and his Mother, i.e. community of Israel, G'd's partner (compare Zohar volume two page 85). This relationship between us and our Father in heaven, i.e. G'd, has already been formulated by Solomon in Proverbs 1,8: שמע בני מוסר אביך ואל תטש תורת אמך, "My son, hear the instruction of your father, and do not abandon the teachings of your mother." Solomon refers to G'd and the community of Israel respectively. If the son of a terrestrial union became a delinquent it was only because the parents failed to discipline him in time and did not give him proper guidance. This in turn caused him to rebel. The Torah tells us that "when a 'man' has a delinquent son, etc.," i.e. a son who rebels against G'd, remember that even if both his biological father and his biological mother discipline him he will not pay attention to them seeing that he does not even listen to his Father in heaven. In fact, the result of rejecting the laws governing our conduct between ourselves and G'd bring in its wake that we will also ignore the laws of conduct between man and his fellow.

כי יהיה לאיש וגו, “if a man has, etc.” the reason why the paragraph dealing with a wayward son is appended here is that if such a son is a firstborn, his rights as such are null and void, and the parent must deliver him to the court in order that he will be executed, i.e. he will inherit nothing, not only no double portion. בן סורר ומורה, “a son who is stubborn and rebellious.” We have learned concerning this in the Mishnah in Sanhedrin folio 70, that such a son does not become legally guilty of such treatment by his parents until he has consumed a certain amount of meat and drunk a certain amount of wine, both of which he had stolen from his parents. There is some discussion of what precisely is the amount of meat and wine described there. Either way, it is a relatively insignificant amount. Furthermore, according to the Talmud, this theft must occur while the son in question is between 13 years and three months, but before he has become thirteen and a half. Rashi explains that the law as it stands is not only not cruel, but is designed to preserve the afterlife for such a wayward son, for if, at such a tender age he were allowed to continue in this way, most likely he would become guilty of the kind of crime that would lead to his forfeiting his share in the world to come because he would have killed an innocent person. If you were to ask how it is that we punish someone for a sin never committed, or punishable merely by a fine, consider the law of the רודף, someone observed chasing a second person with clear intent to murder that person unless stopped in time. Jewish law not only permits, but expects us to kill this potential murderer before he can carry out his evil intention. Do not quote me Genesis 21,17 when Yishmael is about to perish from thirst and an angel is dispatched to save him, (against the protestations of other angels who predict the harm his descendants will do to the descendants of Avraham), and where G-d explains that He cannot allow him to die now as now is not guilty. [The comparison is very lopsided when examined closely and with reference to a period when no Torah had as yet been given. Ed.] מורה, “rebellious;” compare Genesis 26,35: מורת רוח, “of rebellious spirit.”

כי יהיה לאיש בן סורר ומורה, “When a man has a son who is wayward and rebellious, etc.” The expression סורר is also found in Hoseah 4,16 כפרה סוררה, “like a wayward cow.” It refers to an animal which refuses to respond to training. The word מורה means to be rebellious with words and doing the reverse of what his father tells him. Nachmanides writes: that this boy is guilty of being punished for two misdemeanours. 1) He ignored his father’s instructions thereby insulting him. 2) He stole wine and meat from his father and ate like a glutton and drank like drunkard. He violated the commandment to honour his father (Exodus 20,12), and he also violated the commandment to “be holy” (Leviticus 19,2). The meaning of “to be holy” is to abstain from indulging one’s cravings. Also, we are to endeavour to understand the ways of the Lord G’d in all His ways. Anyone who is a glutton and a drunkard has no idea of the Lord’s ways. Seeing that at this time the offenses committed by this boy are not deserving the death penalty, the Torah does not order him executed because of the severity of his sin but because it wants his death to serve as a warning to the community at large. This is the reason why the Torah adds: “all of Israel must hear about it and be afraid.” You find a similar verse after the Torah describes the execution of the rebellious elder, זקן ממרא. There, too, the offense committed by the man is certainly not a capital offense by itself. Seeing that his execution is of a deterrent nature for other potential dissident scholars, the Torah demands that the people all be informed of what happened. Dissent from recognized authority must be discouraged most emphatically once it exceeds the academic level and threatens the executive branch of the rule of law. A third instance where the Torah demands the widest publicity for an execution based on similar considerations are the עדים זוממים, witnesses who framed someone but who at the last moment have been found out. The facts to which they claimed to have testified have not actually been disproved but their evil intent makes them liable to such punishment that although their intended victim went free they must be made an example of. The same is true of the מסית, the person who tried to seduce family members into serving idols. He is not executed for a deed but merely for abuse of his tongue. Here too the Torah demands the widest publicity for his execution in order to deter others from ever engaging in such a crime. ויסרו אותו, “and they shall discipline him.” They administer corporal punishment after having duly warned the guilty party of what is in store for him if he persists (Sanhedrin 71).

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son. The Sages said (Sanhedrin 71a) that a stubborn and rebellious son never existed and never will exist, and why was it written in the Torah? So that you may study it and receive reward. Nevertheless, we are obligated to explain why the Torah wrote something that does not exist at all. It is also worth contemplating why it says here and all Israel shall hear and fear more than with other specific commandments. Furthermore, why doesn’t it say here and they shall not act presumptuously again as it says in Parashat Shoftim (17:13)?Perhaps the reason is because a stubborn and rebellious son never existed and never will exist, and this section was written only so that sons would hear and fear and not act in this manner. The statement and all Israel shall hear means that they will hear this section and the judgment written in it, and sons will fear disobeying the honor of their father and mother. Therefore, it does not say “and they shall not act presumptuously again,” because the phrase “again” indicates something that was already done and should not be done again, which is not the case here. For a stubborn and rebellious son never existed, and this section was written only to instill fear and dread in sons. But it is difficult for me [to understand the verse] “And all Israel shall hear and fear,” for it should have said, “And all the sons [shall hear and fear],” because this fear is only necessary for sons. And in the book of the Zohar, this section is interpreted as referring to all of Israel. But I say that this is unnecessary, because even from the plain meaning of the passage, there is a wonderful moral lesson for all of Israel, who are called children of the living God. There is concern that they might rely on this and say, “Since we are His children, then certainly if we become rebellious children, He will not look upon iniquity in Jacob, and He will have mercy on them as a father has mercy on his children, and He will forgive them in the way that a father forgives his son.” And they will say, “The Holy One, Blessed be He, is forgiving.” Similarly, Moses said, His children are their blemish (Deuteronomy 32:5), meaning that the fact that they are called His children is their blemish, because they relied on this and committed sins in bundled packages, and trusted in their Father that He would not deliver them to the attribute of justice. Therefore, the Torah wrote that the law is a true law, that even the father is obligated to bring his son to the court and deliver him to death. Through this, all Israel shall hear this passage and fear God, and they will not rely on the fact that He called them children, because even in the earthly court, a father is obligated to deliver his son to the court, and so too is the law in the heavenly court.

סורר ומורה, “wayward and rebellious;” Nachmanides points out that there are two culpable deeds here for which punishment is called for. !) Treating one’s parents with disdain, disrespect. 2) He drinks alcohol to excess and he is a glutton, something forbidden to Jews who have been commanded to be a holy nation, not one guilty of debauchery. Even so, neither one of these sins is one that carries a death penalty. This penalty can be justified only because it heads off the likelihood that the son in question when fully adult will become guilty of the death penalty after committing sins which may cost other people’s lives before he is brought to justice. Naturally, many people ask how someone can be convicted of the death penalty, or of any penalty for that matter, at a time when is not guilty of an indictable offence. We have a rule that no one is convicted except on the basis of the sins he has carried out, not for the ones he contemplated committing in the future. (Compare Sanhedrin 72) This rule was based on the words באשר הוא שם, which the Torah writes in connection with Ishmael who was about to perish from thirst just out of earshot of his mother Hagar, (Genesis 21,16-21). Ishmael’s survival at the time does not necessarily contradict the principle we quoted, as we do not know of any crime committed by Ishmael afterwards that would have made him guilty of the death penalty. [Who knows if his miraculous survival did not inspire him to observe a lifestyle more in accordance with what he had seen in his father Avraham’s house. Ed.] Although we have a rule that all is under the control of heaven except whether man will be G’d-fearing and observe a lifestyle which reflects this, i.e. he is not interfered with in his decisions by G’d, the wayward son raised under ideal circumstances by parents who both were models of piety, is judged by the Torah, by superhuman psychology, as growing up to be thoroughly depraved. The Torah, [i.e. also his parents who bring him to court, Ed.] are therefore doing him a favour by enabling the court which decrees his execution to preserve such a son’s share in the hereafter for him through his execution at this stage of his life

מורה, obstinate, vexing. The word occurs in this sense in Lamentations 1,20 מרה, מריתי, “I kept disobeying.” זולל וסובא, as in Proverbs 23,21 “guzzlers of wine and gluttons of meat.”

כי יהיה לאיש בן סורר ומורה, “if a man has a wayward son, etc.” the death penalty decreed here for what must appear to the reader as a relatively minor sin by a teenager, is understood as the Torah’s way to save this son from losing his share in the world to come, if he were allowed to continue in his lifestyle. This is how Rashi explains it. If you were to ask that at least he should not have to face a harsher death penalty than that administered for armed robbery, which is death by the sword, not death by stoning, the Torah wrote that he ignored both father and mother, a euphemism for this son cursing father and mother, a crime which carries the penalty of death by stoning. (Compare Leviticus 20,9, where the wording of the Torah for cursing father or mother is: דמיו בו, “his blood will be upon him.” Whenever this expression occurs it refers to death by stoning.

his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out before the elders of his town and to the gate of the court of his place.

ותפשו בו אביו ואמו, “his father and his mother are to take hold of him, etc.” The procedure suggested by the Torah can be enacted only if both father and mother are willing to testify against their own son before the court. If either father or mother forgive their son, he goes free (Sanhedrin 88).

They shall say to the elders of his town: 'This son of ours is wayward and rebellious; he does not accept our word — he is a glutton in meat and a drunkard in wine.'

"A glutton" — this is explained: he is a glutton in meat; but it is a general term for one who gives over to every craving whatever is demanded of him. "And a drunkard" — he drinks excessively, that is, one who becomes intoxicated. Such a person is like an Epicurean, for he seeks nothing in this worldly life except to indulge in every kind of food and drink. This passage is juxtaposed [here] because of the beautiful-faced wife — the evidence being 'and his mother's name' (Lev. 24:11). And [there is] the allusion I indicated concerning the sons of Aaron.

זולל וסובא, such gluttons will become impoverished so that they will resort to robbery with violence in order to satisfy their needs. (Sanhedrin, 71, based on Proverbs)

ואמרו אל זקני העיר בננו זה סורר ומורה, and they will say to the elders of the city: “this son of ours is wayward and rebellious.” At the beginning father and mother bring this child to a court composed of three judges. They produce two valid witnesses that he has stolen from his father and used the proceeds to buy meat and wine and that he has consumed same. The court sentences the boy to corporal punishment of 39 lashes if he had been duly warned. If he repeats the crime the parents take the boy to a tribunal of 23 judges who have authority to preside over capital offenses, and they bring their witnesses with them. His trial is then concluded and the boy will be stoned to death (Maimonides Hilchot Mamrim 7,7).

All the men of his town shall stone him with stones, and he shall die. Thus you shall remove one who does evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear and fear.

וכל ישראל ישמעו ויראו AND ALL ISRAEL SHALL HEAR AND FEAR — From here we derive the law that his execution requires public announcement by the court: “The man named so-and-so is stoned because he was a refractory and rebellious son” (Sanhedrin 89a).

ורגמוהו כל אנשי עירו, “and all the men of his town will stone him, etc.;” in this verse the Torah tells us only of the penalty. Where did the Torah spell out the prohibition, i.e. the warning? After all, we have a principle that the death penalty by man can be enacted only if we have both the warning not to commit the sin in question as well as the penalty spelled out in the written Torah. The verse applicable is the warning not to eat something על הדם, “the result of which could be blood-guilt,” i.e. death by execution (Leviticus 19,26). No one other than the בן סורר ומורה is in line for execution for merely eating a forbidden meal. This is the meaning of the words זולל וסובא, that he ate meat to the value of 50 dinars in a ravenous manner, and washed it down with half a log of wine in the manner of drunkards. A tradition going back to the time of the prophets teaches that the בן סורר ומורה is not guilty of the death penalty until he has stolen money from his father and spent it on the food and drink we just described and has eaten it outside the premises of his father in the company of other people all known to be useless members of society, and the meat he ate was half raw, partially cooked in the manner thieves who are in a hurry cook their meat. Also the wine must have been only partially diluted, i.e. show evidence that the person who drank it was in a great hurry, revealing that the person drinking it was unable to temper his craving. If, however, the son had obtained the father’s permission to consume this food, or he had stolen the money from someone other than his parents, or he ate the meat completely raw and drank undiluted wine, he is free from the penalty prescribed by the Torah. The reason is that this is a method which is most unlikely to become habitual. The son cannot always find strangers to steal from, etc. He can however, go on stealing from his father and indulge himself. The period during which the execution of a בן סורר ומורה is theoretically possible is only when he is between 13, and 13 years and 3 months old. (Compare most of the details mentioned in Maimonides Hilchot Mamrim chapter 7 and in Sanhedrin 70). This is based on the Torah writing: כי תהיה לאיש בן. This means that until the boy is at least of age (13) he is not subject to this penalty. At the same time, the Torah does not punish an adult son at the instigation of his father, seeing he is no longer under the authority of the father. Therefore the sages in Sanhedrin 69 accepted it as given that the Torah had in mind only a thirteen year old who had demonstrated proof of puberty and was not yet more than 3 months past that time. Once he had brought evidence of puberty he is fit to father children and the fetus which he helped conceive becomes visible after 3 months pregnancy of the potential mother. Seeing that the Torah wrote “when a man will have a son,” etc., this precludes someone already capable of being a father. The word בן also excludes בת, i.e. the legislation discussed here does not apply to females, to daughters. The reason is simply that girls are not in the habit of indulging such cravings for eating and drinking intoxicating liquids. וכל ישראל ישמעו וייראו, “and the whole people of Israel shall hear and become afraid.” The judgment of such a wayward son would be proclaimed publicly throughout the country giving name, time, and place of the execution and the sin the execution was for (Maimonides Hilchot Mamrim 7,13). We have a Baraithah in Sanhedrin 71 according to which the execution of a בן סורר ומורה never occurred; similarly there was never such a thing as an עיר הנדחת, nor would there ever be either phenomenon. The Torah wrote the legislation for both as hypothetical scenarios only in order for the people studying them to accumulate the merit of having studied it. If that is so, we are entitled to ask why was it so important for the Torah to record such hypothetical legislation at all? However, this is part of the divine wisdom of the Torah to teach the people to what extent they must love G’d. There is no greater love than a father and a mother have for their son. If their son violates a commandment of G’d it is the usual practice of parents to excuse such behavior by their children as due to foolishness. If the Torah demands that parents overcome their love for their son and hand him over for the ultimate punishment because he violated a relatively minor rule of the invisible G’d, this is proof that these parents are truly devoted to Torah and G’d. This kind of obedience for G’d has already been demonstrated in practice by Avraham at the Akeidah when he had to demonstrate that he was ready to kill his son at G’d’s command, although Yitzchak had not been guilty of anything at all! Seeing that Avraham’s love for G’d was so absolute, exceeding his love for his only son, G’d described him as אברהם אוהבי. (Isaiah 41,8) After Avraham had done this his overriding love for G’d became world-famous. This is why the sages said concerning the hypothetical legislation involving execution of a wayward son at the instigation of his own parents that the purpose of the Torah is to make us study these laws and their moral implications. This is what I have heard from my teacher Rabbi Shlomo Aderet may he live long! We must, however, contrast this with an opinion offered by Rabbi Yonathan on the same folio as the Baraitha we quoted. Rabbi Yonathan testifies that he personally had sat on the grave of a person who had been executed as a בן סורר ומורה, as well as on the site which had once been part of an עיר הנדחת. Either Rabbi Yonathan did not consider the Baraitha as authentic, or we would have to say that the grave of the בן סורר ומורה upon which Rabbi Yonathan sat was not that of a בן סורר ומורה in the precise meaning of the term, but that it was someone more like Avshalom, i.e. a wayward son who had indeed been executed, but for more serious crimes and at an older age.

וכל ישראל ישמעו וייראו, “and the whole people of Israel will hear about this execution, and they will become more G’d-fearing.” According to Nachmanides this is the Torah’s way of making clear to the people that G’d’s objective with this legislation is even more aimed at the people on the whole than at the victim, as it is hoped to make the carrying out of this legislation totally unnecessary in the future. Execution of the recalcitrant Torah scholar, זקן ממרא, who may even have been objectively correct in his interpretation of Torah law, is also based on the fact that the authority of legally appointed judges must be respected, even if until the final handing down of the judgment there is freedom to argue the merits of the verdict. Public interest as interpreted by the lawgiver, the Torah, sometimes overrides what we in our limited vision consider the infringement of the right of the individual. Stamping out the roots of religious disputes by nipping such dissent involving civil disobedience in the bud, prevents the forming of schisms and different groups ultimately each upholding a version of the Torah of their own. [Some of the wording is my own, though not the thrust of the message. Ed.]

And if a man has incurred a capital judgment deserving death and is executed, and you hang him upon a wooden post —

וכי יהיה באיש חטא משפט מות AND IF THERE BE IN A MAN A SIN DESERVING THE JUDGMENT OF DEATH — The juxtaposition of these sections (this and that of the rebellious son) tells us that if father and mother spare him (the rebellious son), he will in the latter end turn to mischief and commit sins for which he will become liable to the death penalty by the court (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 1). ותלית אתו על עץ [AND IF THERE BE IN A MAN A SIN DESERVING THE JUDGMENT OF DEATH] THOU SHALT HANG HIM ON A TREE — Our Rabbis said, All those who have to be put to death by stoning must afterwards be hanged, for it is said here (v. 23) “for cursing of God ends in hanging”, and we are told that one who curses God is punished with stoning (cf. Leviticus 24:15—16; Sanhedrin 45b).

AND THOU SHALT HANG HIM. “Our Rabbis have said: All that have been stoned must be hanged. It is this which is stated, for he that is hanged is a reproach unto G-d, and is a degradation of the King, for man is made in the image of the King, and the Israelites are His children. There is a parable of two brothers who resembled each other etc.” This is Rashi’s language. “All that have been stoned must be hanged” are the words of an individual Sage [i.e., Rabbi Eliezer], but the law is according to the words of the Sages that no offender [executed by] stoning is hanged save the blasphemer and the idolator. This is the sense of the phrase, for he that is hanged is a reproach unto G-d, — because people will say, “Why was this person hanged? Because he blasphemed G-d or worshipped a particular idol by means of this particular service, and he saw therein this sign or wonder.” The discussion of the idol and the service thereof are considered a k’lalah [“a reproach” to G-d]. Or it is an expression of “degradation” as the Rabbi [Rashi] mentioned, from the expressions and he cursed me with a grievous ‘k’lalah (curse); that his sons did bring ‘a curse’ upon themselves [both verses being expressions of] contempt. And the parable concerning the twin brothers contains a secret; it does not refer, as the Rabbi thought, to the Israelites who are called the children of G-d. In line with the simple meaning of Scripture the verse is stating: “If a man has committed a great sin for which he is deserving of death and of hanging on a tree because of the grievous nature of his sin, nevertheless his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, for the most accursed and blasted of all people is the hanged. Among all forms of death, there is none as ugly and despicable like it [this degradation of the human body], and it is not fitting that we defile the Land and that G-d’s curse be within the Holy Land, for there the Eternal commanded the blessing, even life forever. Therefore Joshua commanded and they took them down off the trees. In my opinion the affair of Saul’s children who were left hanging was because they were not hanged by a court of Israel, nor by any Israelite. Rather, David who turned them [the seven members of Saul’s family] over to the Gibeonites to do as they pleased with them, and it was they who hanged them [Saul’s relatives] and did not wish to bury them in order to demonstrate their vengeance against Saul’s family, and those that remain shall hear, and fear. But when water was poured upon them from heaven then David knew that their sin had been forgiven, and that G-d was entreated for the Land, that the Eternal had remembered the Land with rain and the famine would end. Then he commanded and they [the Israelites] buried them with their fathers in honor of their royal status. David bore no guilt at all [in the entire affair], for we were commanded only that we not defile the Land by allowing someone whom we hanged [to remain on a gallows overnight]. N...

"And you shall hang him." We have already received from the Sages the matter of those who are hanged.

וכי יהיה באיש חטא משפט מות, "And when a man is guilty of a sin carrying the death penalty, etc." The reason the legislation in this paragraph follows on the heels of the legislation of the previous paragraph is because G'd extols the importance of refining man. First the Torah was concerned with man's personal refinement as expressed in the verse כי תצא למלחמה, man goes to war against his evil urge. Next G'd showed His concern about the rehabilitation of man's children, hence the paragraph about the delinquent son, בן סורר ומורה. In our verse the Torah refers to the scholars of the respective generation whose task it is to watch over evil doers. The Torah writes: כי יהיה באיש חטא משפט מות and he continues to be rebellious against G'd's law without repenting he will wind up being executed, והומת. The Torah blames the fact that it came to an execution on negligence by the leading scholars, the Rabbis. When the Torah writes: ותלית אותו על עץ, "you must hang him from a tree," this refers to the scholar, the fruit-bearing tree, who will have to bear the guilt or punishment of the sinner. G'd had charged the scholars with ensuring that errant sinners become penitents by disciplining them both by word and by deed (compare Erchin 16). We have written about this duty of the scholars already in Parshat Kedoshim. When the scholars are derelict in their duty to persuade the sinner to mend his ways the result is the death by execution of the sinner. The Torah continues with לא תלין "do not let the body hang overnight." This is a commandment addressed to the people at large not to suspect a Torah scholar of a sin when they have observed him commit a deed which could be interpreted as a sin. You must assume that even if had committed a sin, he had already repented it by nightfall so that he would have rehabilitated himself before the following morning. The word נבלתו, "his dead body" in the sequence לא תלין נבלתו is a reference to the sin. We find that sin is also referred to as a "dead body" on occasion. כי קבר תקברנו, "for you must surely bury him." The Torah speaks about the need for you to bury this sin on that very day when it had been committed or presumed to have been committed. The reason for this is כי קללת אלוקים "for it is a curse of G'd." If you were not to give the scholar in question the benefit of the doubt and at least assume that he has meanwhile repented his mistake you would be desecrating the name of the Lord and would besmirch His honour. The Torah concludes this paragraph with לא תטמא את אדמתך, "do not defile your soil." We can best understand this in conjunction with Shabbat 119 that Jerusalem was not destroyed until people were wont to impute base motives to the Torah scholars. The Talmud bases this on a verse in Chronicles II 36,16: "But they mocked the messengers of G'd and disdained His words and taunted His prophets." This is the reason that G'd commanded that people must not insult the Torah scholars. If they do, the Jews would b...

וכי יהיה באיש חטא משפט מות, “If someone had been guilty of a capital offense, (and had been duly executed);” this was added at this point as the corpse is going to be hung (for a few hours maximum) על עץ, not a tree that is still rooted in the earth, but on a wooden structure that had once been a tree. All the sinners guilty of death through stoning, including the rebellious son, will be hung afterwards as a deterrent, but must be buried before sunset. Compare Esther 5,14, where the gallows constructed by Haman to hang Mordechai from is called: עץ, “tree.”

his corpse shall not remain overnight on the gallows; you must bury him on that same day, for it is because he sinned before Hashem that he was hanged. And you shall not defile your land that Hashem your God is giving you as an inheritance.

כי קללת אלהים תלוי FOR HE THAT IS HANGED IS A קללת אלהים — i.e., a degradation of the Divine King, for man is made in His image and the Israelites are His children. A parable! It may be compared to the case of two twin brothers who very closely resembled each other: one became king and the other was arrested for robbery and was hanged. Whoever saw him on the gallows thought that the king was hanged (Sanhedrin 46b). — Wherever the term קללה occurs in Scripture it has the meaning of bonding in light esteem and despising, as e.g., (1 Kings 2:8) “[Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of Bahurim] who cursed me with a severe curse (קללני קללה נמרצת)” (cf. II Samuel 16:5—8).

AND THOU DEFILE NOT THY LAND. In the opinion of our Rabbis this is not merely a reason, meaning [that a corpse may not be left hanging] “in order that you defile not your Land,” for, if so, it would be permissible [to leave the dead overnight] outside the Land. Instead, this is a second negative commandment. Now, whoever leaves overnight the corpse of a criminal hanging, or of any dead body in the Land transgresses two negative commandments [his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, and thou defile not the Land] and a positive commandment [but thou shalt surely bury him the same day]. Outside the Land [whenever someone allows any corpse to remain overnight] he violates the positive commandment [mentioned] and the negative commandment [his body shall not remain all night] which is derived from the law of the hanging corpse, as I have explained. It is by reason of this negative commandment that Joshua buried the Canaanite kings during the day of their execution, although, in their hanging, there would not have been the curse which our Rabbis mentioned with regards to the blasphemer and idol-worshipper. Rather, it was on account of the uncleanness of the Land [which their hanging would have caused] or because he was apprehensive of the desecration of G-d on the basis of the parable of the two brothers, as I have mentioned.

"For a hanged person is a curse of God." Because he blasphemed Hashem. And according to the plain sense, God is the subject [of the verb], and the curse reaches every place near the hanged person, and there is a mystery connected to the soul in this — therefore "you shall not defile your land." This passage is juxtaposed [here] because of the war: it begins with "when you go out," and the case of Gibeon proves [that] the rule of "his body shall not remain overnight" is not for the honor of the dead but for the honor of the land — for the law of the uncircumcised and the law of Israelites [in this respect] are not the same.

כי קללת אלוהים תלוי, every disembodied creature is known as elohim; this includes the soul of human beings known as צלם אלוהים, “image of G’d.” [as He is without body, so this essence of a human being is without a body, does not need a body. Ed.] (Genesis 1,27) This is how we can understand the woman, known as בעלת אוב in Samuel I 28,13 whom King Sha-ul approached and asked to raise the prophet Samuel for him producing a disembodied image. Seeing that the disgrace done to a person after he has died is also an insult to this disembodied essence of him, the Torah describes it as קללת אלוהים, equivalent to cursing the dead person’s eternal essence. קללת אלהים, leaving the dead corpse hanging without burial is an insult to that very eternal essence of a human being called אלהים. ולא תטמא, do not allow the spirit of impurity, death, to linger overnight in a location where a body remains unburied.

.לא תלין נבלתו על עץ , “you must not allow his corpse to remain hanging from a tree or gallows,” but bury him on the same day. The reason for this is so that people will not confuse this corpse with the one of a blasphemer whose body is to be displayed by hanging, and people might believe that the corpse they are looking at is that of a blasphemer. It would be considered as an insult to a mortal king if too much publicity would be given to someone who had mutinied against him even if he had already been punished for his crime. Similarly, it would be an insult to the immortal King, our Creator, if too much publicity were to be given to someone who had been audacious enough to insult the Creator through blasphemy. An alternate interpretation for the line: כי קללת אלוקים תלוי, people seeing the corpse of someone who had been executed for violating G-d’s commands would reason that the guilty party had already paid the price for what he had done; why subject him to indignities by displaying his body?A third interpretation for the above line: this line is addressed to the judges; people seeing the face of the corpse hanging, and knowing the judges who decreed the corpse’s execution might curse them for having executed him for a minor crime, or for not looking for a technicality to avoid having to convict that person of a capital crime. כי קבור תקברנו ביום ההוא, “but you must inter him the day of his execution,” instead of becoming ritually contaminated by touching the corpse or by being with it under the same roof.

לא תלין נבלתו על העץ, “Do not leave his body on the gallows overnight.” This is a warning that the body which was hanged after execution should not be allowed to remain on display overnight. Our sages used this verse to expand the law that a dead person should not remain unburied overnight (Sanhedrin 46). Sifri Ki Teytze states flatly that leaving a body unburied overnight is an infringement of the law not to leave the body of an executed person on the gallows overnight. It would be a double insult to leave man on the tree seeing the tree was meant in his honor, i.e. to provide the coffin for his body. Unless leaving the body overnight in order to supply it with shrouds, a coffin, etc., it would be an infringment of the law not to allow a dead corpse to remain unburied overnight. The general rule applicable to this commandment is that in the land of Israel if one leaves a person on the gallows overnight one has violated both a positive and a negative commandment. The negative commandment is spelled out here in the words לא תלין נבלתו על העץ, whereas the positive aspect of the commandment are the words כי קבור תקברנו ביום ההוא, “but you are surely to bury him on that day.” It seems to me that seeing Adam’s sin had been the cause that he did not spend the night in Gan Eden as we know from Psalms 49,13 אדם ביקר בל ילין, “Adam does not even spend a single night in the precious place” (as interpreted in Sanhedrin 38), man should not have qualified for all this consideration, but, on the contrary, his body deserved to be displayed overnight. The Torah teaches us with this legislation that despite such considerations it applies different yardsticks in its immeasurable wisdom as explained by the words כי קללת אלו-הים תלוי, “someone left hanging is a curse in the eyes of G’d.” According to the plain meaning of these words the implication is that it is proof that the person whose body has been hung must have blasphemed G’d the Creator, or he must have been guilty of serving idols. Otherwise he would not have been on display overnight. [Legally speaking, according to the majority opinion in Sanhedrin 45, only the body of a blasphemer was hung on the gallows for the balance of the day of his execution. Ed.]. We may therefore understand the word קללת as having a dual meaning, i.e. קללה, “curse,” and קלה, “treating lightly, as being of no value, belittling.” He who serves idols treats the Creator as if He were irrelevant. Our sages in Sanhedrin 46 describe a person when he is in a depressed state of mind as saying קל עלי עלמא, “the world is ‘light’ for me,” as really meaning that the world is too heavy for him, but he does not want to utter something that could be self-incriminating. Similarly, here. The Shechinah does not want to “incriminate“ itself. Therefore the Torah phrases this sentiment as if it were bemoaning its own fate, whereas in reality it is expressing its pain at the fate that befell one of its creatures. G’d experiences pain when man has to die. We know this already from Exodus 3,7 where G’d tells Moses concerning the pain experienced by the Jewish people כי ידעתי את מכאוביו, “for I am keenly aware of its pains.” Another verse testifying to this empathy of G’d with the pain of the Jewish people is found in Isaiah 63,9 בכל צרתם לו צר, “in all its troubles, G’d is troubled.” We have to understand the words קללת אלו-הים in a similar fashion, describing G’d’s empathy with this particular individual’s fate. The Talmud in Sanhedrin raises questions against the peculiar wording saying that if indeed this is the correct interpretation the Torah should have written קלת instead of קללת. The answer given is that the reason the Torah wrote the extra letter ל was to give the word both meanings (as we already mentioned) . Ibn Ezra writes that the words קללת אלו-הים תלוי mean that any area adjacent to the body on the gallows will be a source of negative fallout for anyone coming into contact with it so that the sooner the body is removed the safer the area will be for people. G’d uses the body to disseminate these negative vibes, poisons, etc. Furthermore, writes Ibn Ezra, there is a mystical element attached to the life-force of a person (נפש) which causes infection? This is the reason why the dead cause ritual impurity. And this is why the Torah writes that we must not cause such impurity in our land by allowing corpses to remain above ground overnight. [In other words, the legislation is less for the sake of the body of the sinner who has been executed, than for preserving the land of Israel in its purity. Ed.]. A Midrashic approach based on Sanhedrin 46: This can be compared to two brothers who were very much alike. One of them became king, whereas his brother was caught as a robber and hung. Seeing that they look so much alike, passers-by seeing the hung body will think that the king had been hung. A Kabbalistic approach: the meaning of the verse and the parable mentioned in the Midrash is that the “king” described there represents the attribute כבוד, better known as צלם אלו-הים, “the image of G’d.” In other words, the “image” is separate from the essence, i.e. it is an עבד אלו-הים, “a subsidiary of the Lord.” Seeing that the body hung on the gallows was someone symbolizing this צלם אלו-הים, he would become a קללת אלו-הים a provocation to the negative side of Elohim, unless buried on the day he was executed and not left there till night time which is the domain of the attribute of Justice; it is presumed therefore from the wording of the Torah that leaving he body there only during the day would not provoke the attribute of Justice.

כי קללת אלוקים תלוי. ”for a hanging person is a curse of G’d.” Some sages learn from this verse that all people who were executed by stoning are to have their bodies hung publicly during the balance of the day of their execution. The expression קללת אלוקים does not refer to the act of hanging and displaying the body of the sinner in question, but it refers only to the person who was executed for blaspheming. In practice, this hanging is applied only to the body of the blasphemer who, more than anyone else, had cheapened the whole concept of a human being, whom G’d had created in His image, and he had the unforgivable nerve to curse his Creator. His body, by his own admission then, is not worth treating with the dignity accorded to other dead bodies. Nachmanides writes that when viewing the text at its face value, the meaning is that whenever a person commits a sin deserving of the death penalty by public hanging, his corpse will not be hung from a tree as there is no greater curse that can be applied to a human being than to publicly hang him. It is therefore not appropriate that such a stain on human dignity, akin to ritual contamination, should ever be seen in the Holy Land. Our sages interpret the words קללת אלוקים as referring to the person executed, saying that the message is that although this person deserves the debasement of being hung, but that seeing that this would reflect negatively on his Creator, the Torah spared him this indignity. They also say that we learn from the words קללת אלוקים that anyone hanging a dead corpse thereby inflicting an indignity on that body, is guilty of transgressing a negative commandment (compare Sanhedrin 15) ולא תטמא את אדמתך, “so that you do not contaminate your land.” Nachmanides writes that this cannot be the only consideration for having to bring the corpse of the judicially executed sinner to burial before nightfall, as if it were, it would be permissible to let such a corpse remain unburied overnight in the Diaspora. The true interpretation is that it is forbidden to leave a corpse unburied [or untended Ed.] overnight, whereas when this happens in the Holy Land one transgresses an additional commandment by doing so.

כי קללת אלוקים תלוי, when passers by view the corpse of a person who has been hanged they are in the habit of cursing the judge who decreed this penalty, or the relatives of the victim curse the judges accusing them of handing down a harsh verdict for a “minor” offence, such as the collecting of kindling on the Sabbath. (Numbers 15,33) If the Torah considered it asr necessary to warn the people against cursing their judges, (אלוהים לא תקלל, Exodus 22,27) it did so because it is familiar with people’s psyches, more so than people themselves. Therefore, to counteract such violation of the law not to curse judges, לא תלין נבלתו, “his corpse is not to spend the night unburied,” but כי קבור תקברנו...ולא תטמא את אדמתך, “you must proceed forthwith to bury him, for as long as he stays unburied people may contract severe ritual impurity through contact with that body, or through being under the same roof as the corpse.”

כי קללת אלוהים תלוי, “for an impaled body is an affront to G–d;” a body that has not been buried is as if one had cursed G–d, as anyone seeing that corpse will realise that the body while alive had cursed the Lord by his activities and tarnished the concept of man having been created in G–d’s image.