Deuteronomy · Chapter 22

You shall not see your brother's ox or his sheep straying and hide yourself from them; you shall surely return them to your brother.

והתעלמת [THOU SHALT NOT SEE ANY OF THY BROTHER'S HERD … GO ASTRAY] AND HIDE THYSELF [FROM THEM] — i.e. one, as it were closes his eyes tight as though one does not see it. לא תראה … והתעלמת THOU SHALT NOT SEE … AND HIDE THYSELF [FROM THEM] — “thou shalt not see it, that thou hide thyself from it” (i.e. you see it only to hide thyself from it), this is the plain sense of the verse. Our Rabbis, however, said that the omission of the particle לא before the verb והתעלמת (one would expect כי תראה … לא תתעלם) suggests: There are times when you may hide yourself from it, etc. (Sifrei Devarim 225:4; Bava Metzia 30a).

THOU SHALT NOT SEE THY BROTHER’S OX OR HIS SHEEP RUNNING AWAY. This is a commandment explanatory of what He stated in the Torah, If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. Here he added [that the commandment to return lost property refers also to an animal that was] running away, for going astray implies that it merely strayed from its path and he can turn it [back] into the path without great effort; and now he mentioned running away, meaning that it escaped from him and is distant from the owner. He mentioned the term sheep for that is liable to be lost, and therefore he explained here, And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, and thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it home to thy house. He stated, And so shalt thou do with his ass, which is an unclean animal; and so shalt thou do with his garment, even though a garment is not as dear to its owner as are living creatures, and [total] loss is not as common in a garment as it is in animals which may die. And so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brother’s which he hath lost, meaning any of his household vessels even though they are not as dear to him as his garment with which he covers himself. And according to the interpretation of our Rabbis he added here many things, such as and thou hide thyself from them, which the Rabbis interpreted to mean: “Sometimes you are permitted to hide yourself from them [and ignore the lost article such as where the finder is an elder and it would be degrading for him to attend thereto, as for example to drive an ass back to its owner]. ‘Hasheiv’ (returning), you are to do it even a hundred times; ‘teshiveim’ (thou art to return them), even to his garden or deserted house” [i.e., the finder is not obligated to notify the owner that the article has been returned. The requirement that] return be made by [identification of the lost item and description of] its distinctive marks, and other matters are also derived from this section.

"You shall not see your brother's ox." This applies even when you are going out to war — and this is the homiletical reading. "And you hide yourself" is connected to "you shall not see." The verse mentions ox and sheep, having already mentioned the donkey, and the same law applies to all animals.

לא תראה את שור אחיך או את שיו נדחים, "You shall not see the ox of your brother or his sheep cast off, etc." This paragraph is an allusion to the need for the scholars to admonish the plain people in order for them to become the true people of the Lord. The term used by the Torah to describe these morally upright righteous people is אחים, brothers. I have already explained to you that this appellation is reserved for the finest group of individuals (compare Shemot Rabbah 52,5). It is these people whom G'd commanded that when they see an "ox" who is lost, i.e. a human being on a lesser moral level who is compared to a beast, to engage in rescuing him. The reason the Torah speaks of "ox and sheep" instead of donkeys, for instance, is that the Jewish people whom the Torah alludes to by the words "ox or sheep" are basically sacred, fit for the altar as opposed to such animals as the donkey. The word אחיך, "your brother," is a simile for G'd who "owns" all of us. The reason that Moses employs this unlikely sounding simile is that the Torah wanted to make plain to which one of His holy people the commandment to restore lost Jewish souls applies, i.e. to the righteous, the Torah scholars. נדחים, "gone astray;" the word is used in a similar sense in Deut 4,19: "and you are drawn astray." Someone who violates G'd's commandments is considered as having gone astray. The Torah commands that we must not ignore such people but bring them back to one's "brother" i.e. to G'd. The reason the Torah repeats the instruction השב תשיבם, "you shall surely restore them" is that if you will make the first move in setting such people on the right path they will complete the journey back to G'd under their own steam. ואם לא קרוב אחיך, "And if your brother is not near, etc." Here the Torah hints that it speaks of a period during our final exile, when we will be quite estranged to our Father in Heaven. The period described is the one of which Bileam spoke in Numbers 24,17 when he said: "I can see it but it is not near." The very fact that the redemption does not seem near at hand is apt to estrange the Jewish people to G'd. Even in the present generation the knowledge that the ultimate redemption is so far away undermines the people's faith in G'd. Nonetheless G'd commands ואספתו אל תוך ביתך, "you are to gather him inside your house." The house the Torah speaks of is the Torah academy, etc. There you will teach him the paths of Torah so that the light radiated by Torah study will save this person spiritually. This process will continue until G'd is placated and will claim him back, i.e. עד דרש אחיך אתו. The words והשבות לו, "and you will return it to him," mean that your concern for the straying Jew will be accounted for you as if you had rescued him from becoming totally lost. Alternatively, the meaning of the verse is that the Jewish people must engage the common people in the study of both halachah and Mussar, religious law and religious morals, until the day one dies,...

לא תראה את אחיך או את שיו נדחים, “do not inactively watch the ox or sheep of your brother which has gone astray” (voluntarily or against its will); this law applies even in war time when you are on the way to the front; what applies to ox or sheep applies to all categories of domestic beasts. והתעלמתם מהם, “and you blithely ignore them or hide from them;” you must not ignore their plight. The examples chosen by the Torah are animals that are too big for you to be able claim that you overlooked them as their owners hid them. השב תשיבם לאחיך, “you must make every effort to restore these animals to your brother.” The Torah is so serious about this demand that it repeats it with slightly different wording in another place (Exodus 23:4).

השב תשיבם לאחיך, “be sure to restore them to your brother.” The Torah commands that we be very cautious to observe the commandment to restore lost property to its owners. Concerning the repetition of the words השב תשיבם, “be sure to restore,” our sages in Baba Metzia 30 explain that one has to keep doing this even 100 times if necessary. All of this is part of the paths of mercy and kindness which we are to practice vis-a-vis each other seeing we are all the sons of one father. As such each one of us is vitally interested in what is useful for his fellow. We express our pity for lost property of our brother in practical terms by restoring it to him whenever possible. It matters not whether our brother has lost inert possessions or livestock such as his ox or donkey. Any kind of lost property is included in the Torah’s directive to restore it to the loser. This wording refers to minor utensils worth less than a garment, livestock, etc., which we have found and which can be identified by the loser. The positive commandment is followed by the negative one not to try and escape this obligation by turning a blind eye and not picking up the lost object for oneself either. There is more to the commandment to restore lost property than merely the act of restoring it. If a person is in a position to perform a useful service for his fellow and to thereby protect his fellow against financial loss, this is all part of the commandment under discussion here. All of this is part of the “umbrella” commandment in Leviticus 19,18: “love what is your fellow’s as if it were your own!” Concerning the practical ramification of the words: “you must not hide yourself” (from your brother’s lost property), and the subsequent semi phrase (verse 4) “you may hide your self from them,” the sages in Sifri have this to say: if the finder is an aged individual, a scholar, and it is not in keeping with his dignity to carry a bulky object in order to fulfill the commandment (personally) to restore this object to its owner, the Torah permits such a person to turn a blind eye to the object he has found. Ordinary individuals, on the other hand, are not permitted to use this ruse. A Midrashic approach. The words: “you will hide yourself from them,” refers to what you may succeed in doing vis-a-vis your brother, vis-a-vis human beings; the words: “you must not hide yourself from them,” refer to G’d who knows your motivation and whom you cannot fool by pretending not to have found the object or animal the return of which would cause you inconvenience or expense. If you investigate this commandment still further you will derive from it encouragement regarding the subject of the resurrection. G’d will practice this commandment personally by restoring the souls of the departed bodies to their original owners in due course after the redemption and the arrival of the messiah. Each person will resume his or her original role in the universe. At that time “lost” property will truly be restored to its original owner. The most recent owner of that property will give it to the previous owner and so forth until it will be eventually restored to the very first owner [who had not deliberately abandoned it, Ed.]. This is what is alluded to in Psalms 139,16: ”your eyes saw my unformed limbs.” David describes that Adam’s mental eye had been shown every human being ever to be to be born. [G’d had shown him the history of mankind in capsule form prior to his sin. This is why he donated 70 years of his life to enable David to be born alive at all as he had been shown a stillborn David. Since G’d had foreseen it, it was included in the book of the descendants of Adam he showed to Adam. The entire verse in Psalms 139,16 deals with this phenomenon. I refer the reader to an analysis by Rabbi Moshe Alshich in his commentary on Tehillim, this editor’s translation page 1005. Ed.]. It is not clear whether at that time the original wife will be restored to her original husband [assuming she had remarried, or to her last husband on earth, or, whether G’d will add to such bodies by splitting the raw material much as we know that a light can be split]. All our sages are agreed that the commandment to restore lost property applies only to property belonging to Jews, not to that belonging to Gentiles. This is why the Torah stresses repeatedly אבדת אחיך, “lost property of your brother,” and “restore it to your brother.” Gentiles are perceived as part and parcel of אלו-הי נכר הארץ, part of the alien deities of “earth,” a system of life which does not know of an hereafter or resurrection, etc. The Jewish people who are “G’d’s share and inheritance,” have a claim to eternal life and therefore it is mandatory that seeing their property is not lost permanently, that it be restored in due course. Regarding the resurrection of the dead, the Jewish people have been told (Isaiah 26,19) “Oh, let your dead revive, let corpses arise!” whereas in verse 14 of that same chapter the prophet says “they are dead, they can never live; shades, they can never rise” (referring to the Gentiles). Seeing that in connection with lost objects or animals the Torah employed the expression נדחים, “cast off, rejected,” the Torah continues in verse 3 with the statement: “you must not hide yourself (if you found it). The moral lesson is: “do not hide yourself from the Lord, so that when the time comes He will not hide Himself from you,” i.e. become someone whom you have “lost” (compare Samuel II 14,13-14).

“You shall not see your brother’s ox, etc. and hide yourself from them.” The Sages taught (Berakhot 19b) that sometimes you should hide yourself, such as if you are an elder and it is beneath your dignity. This can be interpreted in the way the Sages said (Avot 4:23), “Do not strive to see him in his time of disgrace.” There is no difference between disgrace of his body or his property — it is all the same if it is in a situation where it is impossible to save him and return what is lost. Regarding this it says, You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep driven away, when they are completely driven away, such as drowning in a river or similar situations, and hide yourself from them — you need to act as if you do not see them. However, you shall return means if there is a possibility of return, where they are not completely lost but it is possible for you to return what is driven away, then you shall return them to your brother — you are obligated to strive to see them in order to save them.

לא תראה את שור אחיך, “You shall not see (without helping) the ox of your brother, etc.” Nachmanides writes that this verse is necessary, seeing that elsewhere the Torah had written that: “you must restore the ox or donkey of your enemy when it is lost, you must restore it to him.” (Exodus 23,4) Moses now adds the expression נדחים, a different kind of dilemma that these animals find themselves in. You could have thought by reading Exodus 23,4 that all you have to do is point the erring animal in the right direction towards its owner. Here Moses goes beyond this, demanding that you ensure that the animal gets back safely to its master. This may, on occasion, involve far more time and effort on your part.

But if your brother is not near you, or you do not know him, you shall bring it inside your house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it out, and you shall return it to him.

עד דרש אחיך [AND IT SHALL BE WITH THEE] UNTIL THY BROTHER ENQUIRES [FOR IT] — But would it ever enter your mind that one could give it back before he enquires for it (Scripture distinctly states that you do not know to whom the animal belongs)?! But the meaning of the verse is: Thou shalt make diligent enquiries of him that he should not be a fraudulent claimant (Bava Metzia 27b. 28a; cf. Sifrei Devarim 223:4). והשבתו לו AND THOU SHALT RESTORE IT TO HIM — it is necessary that there be some restoration — that it (the animal) should not eat in your house to its own value, and you claim this from him (in which case there is no actual restoration of what has been lost). From here, they (the Rabbis) derived the law: Whatever works and requires food (as, for instance, oxen, etc., the cost of whose food is set off by the value of its labour) should work and eat; whatever does not work but requires feeding (as, for instance, sheep) should be sold and the money restored to the man who lost it (Bava Metzia 28b).

AND IF THY BROTHER BE NOT NIGH UNTO THEE — meaning that he does not reside near you, for it is not your duty to go to another land with the lost article in order to restore it to him, or that you do not know him at all. In the Sifre we find: “I know only that one is obligated to restore lost property if the loser lives nearby. Whence do I know that he must also do so if he lives far away? From what Scripture states, and thou know him not.” And if so, the phrase and if thy brother be not nigh unto thee means that he is “not near you” in your city that you may inquire about him and identify him [as the rightful claimant], then it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it.

"And you shall take it in" — if you were returning, or it is a command that you entrust it into the hand of a reliable person.

“And if your brother is not near, etc., and it shall be with you until your brother inquires for it.” The Rabbis said (Bava Metzia 27b) “inquire about him if he is a deceiver,” and nevertheless, it refers to the ox or sheep. [The Rabbis said this] because otherwise it should have said “until your brother seeks it.” Rather, your brother will come and inquire with examination and investigation, that is, through identifying marks, until it is clear to you that they are truly seeking that specific ox and not another. From this we automatically learn that one must inquire whether they are a deceiver or not. But the verse does not depart from its simple meaning [even according to the Rabbis], as explained by the Re’em, that it refers to your brother. And what is meant by You cannot ignore it after saying and you find it, which implies that it has come into your possession (ibid. 27a), is that because the matter is entrusted to the heart, for if your brother comes and inquires, saying “an ox with such and such markings was lost to me,” and your inclination persuades you to ignore it and to justify yourself that perhaps they saw it with someone else, or you wish to cast doubt on their identifying marks in order to exempt yourself from obligation in human law, nevertheless, You cannot ignore it because of the Eye above that sees and recognizes your schemes.

ואם לא קרוב אחיך אליך, “And if your brother is not near you, etc.” you are to keep his belongings safe by bringing them to your own house.

And so shall you do with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment, and so shall you do with every lost thing of your brother's that is lost from him and you find — you have no right to conceal yourself.

לא תוכל להתעלם THOU MAYEST NOT HIDE THYSELF — i.e. You must not cover your eyes, pretending not to see it.

"You shall not be able" — like its counterparts [in similar formulations].

וכן תעשה לשמלתו, even though such a find is far less likely to occur, so that you might consider it as having been abandoned on purpose.

וכן תעשה לחמורו, ...לשמלתו...ולכל אבדת אחיך, “you are to deal in a similar manner with an ass, a garment, or any other object your brother has apparently lost.” The Torah lists different categories of possessions, some that need feeding, others that are relatively inexpensive and do not represent a great loss if the loser does not recover them. Our sages also derive from the words עד דרוש אחיך, “until your brother request said object,” that in order to claim such “lost” property the claimant must furnish proof that these objects are really his.

You shall not see your brother's donkey or his ox fallen on the road and hide yourself from them; you shall surely help him raise them up.

הקם תקים [THOU SHALT NOT SEE THY BROTHER’S ASS OR ANY OF HIS HERD FALL DOWN BY THE WAY, AND HIDE THYSELF FROM THEM] THOU SHALT SURELY RAISE UP — This refers to the duty of loading — to re-load the burden that fell from it. עמו [THOU SHALT SURELY UPLOAD] WITH HIM — i.e. with the owner. But if he goes aside and sits down and says to him, “Since it is a duty for you to load it, if you want to load, go ahead and load!” — [“I” am not commanded to do it”], he is exempt from doing it (cf. Bava Metzia 32a).

In the commandment on assisting someone to lift up his burden, he added a warning thereon constituting a negative commandment [Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ass or his ox fallen down by the way etc.], for in the Torah He stated Thou shalt surely release it with him [i.e., by helping to unload the burden] which is a positive commandment [and thus we learn that in failing to render assistance one violates both a positive and a negative commandment]. He also adds [here the expression] fallen down by the way, for there He stated, lying under its burden, and He mentioned there only the ass because it commonly carries a great burden and, therefore, is liable to crouch under it. Also, here it says thy brother’s and there it states thy enemy’s, and of him that hateth thee, meaning [here] to say, “Do thus to him [in assisting him], and remember the brotherhood between you and forget the hatred.”

"Fallen" — like "crouching." The word "fallen" is a general term. "You shall surely lift them up with him" — and not by yourself alone, just as [it says] "you shall surely leave it with him."

או שורו נופלים בדרך, “or his donkey or ox collapsing on the way,” [due to having been overloaded, Ed.] even though the owner is someone who hates you, you must not ignore this, but assist them in helping the animal to get up.

לא תראה את חמור אחיך, “You must not see the donkey of your brother ..fall;” in a similarly worded commandment in Exodus 23,5 the Torah uses the expression חמור שונאך, “the donkey of one who hates you.” The promise contained in our verse is that if you assist your enemy with his falling donkey he will eventually appreciate you and become אחיך, “your brother.” When you assist him he will forget the “hatred” between you and only remember the bond of love that unites brothers.

לא תראה את חמור אחיך או שורו נופלים בדרך, “You must not idly look on while the donkey or ox of your brother collapse under their load;” Nachmanides writes that here Moses adds an additional dimension to what the Torah had already written in Exodus 23,5 where the animal was described as רובץ תחת משאו, ”lying down (impotently) under its load” (overload). Whereas in Exodus only a donkey, an animal that is used to carry heavy loads is mentioned, and the owner is your enemy, so that the Torah’s concern appears to be only the suffering of the beast, here Moses speaks about אחיך, “your brother,” to show that another consideration for offering assistance must be the desire to keep alive the concept that all Jews are to relate to fellow Jews as if they were brothers. The hate relationship must be set aside when even only an animal’s suffering is involved.

There shall not be men's weapons upon a woman, nor shall a man adorn himself with women's adornments, for whoever does these things is an abomination before Hashem your God.

לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה THE APPAREL OF A MAN SHALL NOT BE ON A WOMAN — so that she look like a man, in order to consort with men, for this can only be for the purpose of adultery (unchastity) (cf. Sifrei Devarim 226:1; Nazir 59a). ולא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה NEITHER SHALL A MAN PUT ON A WOMAN’S GARMENT in order to go and stay unnoticed amongst women. Another explanation of the second part of the text is: it implies that a man should not remove the hair of the genitals and the hair beneath the arm-pit (Nazir 59a). כי תועבת FOR [ALL THAT DO SO ARE] AN ABOMINATION [UNTO THE LORD THY GOD] — This implies that the Torah forbids only the wearing of a garb that leads to abomination (unchastity) (cf. Sifrei Devarim 226:1).

"No man's article shall be on a woman." This passage is juxtaposed [with the previous laws] because of going out to war, for woman was created only to raise up offspring, and if she goes out with men to war she will come in the course of things to lewdness. Similarly, "no man shall wear" — the meaning is that a male whose beard has not yet filled out should not mingle with women, lest he and they commit adultery without knowing it. This shows that the custom of Israel — as in most kingdoms — was that men's dress was not like women's dress; there was a distinction between them. Some say this refers to behavior outside the proper path, but there is no need for that explanation: Hashem abhors anyone who changes the work of Hashem.

לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה, “a woman must not wear men’s clothing;” it is an act of disgrace and sexual provocation;”Having taken note of this law, Yael, the Kenite woman who killed Sisera, the general who had commanded the army of the Canaanite King Jabin of Chatzor, did not use weapons used by male soldiers, such as arrows or a sword when doing so, but took a tent pin. (Judges, 4,21) This paragraph has been written immediately after those dealing with women and warfare, in order to remind us that warfare is something reserved for men, not women. When men go out to war they are likely to encounter situations making promiscuity a great temptation. They are therefore warned not to add to such temptation by dressing up as women. (Ibn Ezra)

לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה, “male apparel shall not be on a woman.” The principal concern of our verse is to deny the woman the right to bear arms (Sifri 227, Nazir 59). She is not to go to war and become a cause for immorality rampant during war. Similar considerations, i.e. the prevention of creating opportunities for sexual promiscuity- are the reason males are forbidden to wear women’s garments. Both of these apparent role reversals of the sexes are an abomination to the Lord. Our sages in Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 6,1 understand this wording to mean that “garments which will result in, or lead to abominations being perpetrated are forbidden” (compare Yoreh Deyah 156,2). Jewelry which is associated specifically with women is forbidden to be worn by men, as are mannerisms practiced especially by women, such as looking in the mirror. Seeing that they were one of three things which the rabbis had to give a special dispensation to for the household of Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi, it is clear that generally speaking male Jews are not supposed to admire themselves in a mirror. If a barber, in order to trim the client’s hair, needs to look into the mirror to better see the hairs he is looking for, this is in order. If a person was sick and he wishes to reassure himself that he is on the way to recovery by consulting a mirror and confirming that he looks healthier, this too is in order. The last mentioned examples are not uses for the enhancement of one’s exterior, for “dolling oneself up.” Our sages in Shabbat 94 also stated that if one picks a single white hair out of the black hairs in one’s beard one is guilty of violating the basic prohibition not to wear women’s clothing. A further illustration of this subject is found in Yalkut Shimoni on Judges item 56, that the reason Yael slew Siserah with a nail instead of with a knife was that she did not want to violate the commandment of using implements reserved for males.

לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה, in order to walk among males and seduce them.

If you chance upon a bird's nest before you on the road, in any tree or on the ground — with chicks or eggs — and the mother is sitting upon the chicks or upon the eggs, you shall not take the mother together with the young.

כי יקרא IF [A BIRD’S NEST] CHANCE TO BE [BEFORE THEE IN THE WAY … THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE MOTHER WITH THE YOUNG] — If it chance to be, this excludes that which is always ready at hand (in thy court yard) (Sifrei Devarim 227:1; Chullin 139a). לא תקח האם THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE MOTHER so long as she is sitting upon the young.

IF A BIRD’S NEST CHANCE TO BE BEFORE THEE. This also is an explanatory commandment, of the prohibition ye shall not kill it [the dam] and its young both in one day, because the reason for both [commandments] is that we should not have a cruel heart and be discompassionate, or it may be that Scripture does not permit us to destroy a species altogether, although it permits slaughter [for food] within that group. Now, he who kills the dam and the young in one day or takes them when they are free to fly [it is regarded] as though he cut off that species. Now, he [Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim that the reason for the commandment to release the mother bird when taking its nest and the prohibition against killing the dam with its young on one day is in order to admonish us against killing the young within the mother’s sight, for animals feel great distress under such circumstances. There is no difference between the distress of man and the distress of animals for their young, since the love of the mother and her tenderness to the children of her womb are not the result of reasoning or [the faculty of intelligent] speech, but are produced by the faculty of mental images which exists among animals even as it is present in man. But if so the main prohibition in killing the dam and its young applies only when killing [first] the young and [then] the dam [but not vice versa, whereas the Torah forbids it to be done either way]! But it is all an extraordinary precaution, and it is more correct [to explain them as prohibitions] to prevent us from acting cruelly. And the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said further: “Do not contradict me by quoting the saying of the Sages, ‘He who says in his prayer: Even to a bird’s nest do Thy mercies extend [etc., they silence him,’ which would seem to imply that there is no reason other than the Will of G-d for the commandment to release a dam when taking its nest], for that is one of two opinions, namely, the opinion of the Sage who holds that the commandments [of the Torah] have no other reason but the Will of the Creator. We follow the second opinion that there is a reason for all commandments.” And the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] raised a difficulty from a text in Bereshith Rabbah [which contradicts his theory that there is a reason for every commandment]. The text reads: “And what difference does it make to the Holy One, blessed be He, whether an animal is slaughtered from the front of the neck or the back? Surely you must say the commandments have been given only for the purpose of refining [disciplining] men through them, as it is said, Every word of G-d is refined.”Now, this theory, categorically stated by the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] concerning the commandments that there is a reason for them, is indeed very clear. There is a reason, benefit, and improvement for man in each of them, aside from the reward by Him Who commanded it, blessed be He! Our Sages have already stated: “Why were the reasons for t...

"If one chances upon." This passage is juxtaposed [with what precedes] because of the word "on the way." "Chances upon" (יִקְרָא) is like "it is encountered" (נִקְרָא) — "I was encountered" — and they are from the root of מִקְרֶה (chance occurrence), close in meaning to פֶּגַע (encounter). The alef of אֶפְרֹחִים (fledglings) is a superfluous letter, like the alef in וּבִזְרוֹעֶךָ (and with your arm). The reason [for this commandment] is that it is cruelty in the heart for the mother to be dashed upon the young — and likewise with ox or sheep.

כי יקרא קן צפור, “if a bird’s nest happens” (to be along the way you are walking,) the reason why this paragraph has been written here is because it also deals with chance encounters on the way, i.e. בדרך, “on the way,” קן צפור, “a bird’s nest;” whenever the word צפור instead of עוף occurs in the Torah meaning bird, it refers to a ritually pure bird, one that Israelites are allowed to eat if slaughtered in the prescribed fashion. Therefore the legislation following next applies only to this category of birds. (Compare Rabbi Yitzchok in the Talmud, tractate Chulin folio 139) לא תקח האם על הבנים, “you must not take the mother bird together with its young ones;” it would be an act of cruel insensitivity, comparable to cooking the kid in the milk of its mother, something the Torah has repeatedly forbidden. (Deut.14,21) as well as the prohibition to slaughter, even as a sacrifice, a mother cow together with its calf on the same day. (Leviticus 22,28) Our author considers the requirement that the fruit of one’s vineyard even after four years may be consumed by the owner only in Jerusalem, as also in a category intended to teach us how not to give in to the urge to indulge in drinking wine, etc. על הבנים, “with the young.” Other examples of the word על being used as meaning “with,” are found in Leviticus25,31, על שדה הארץ יחשב, “it will be considered as belonging with the fields of the land.” Compare also Numbers 28,10, על עולת התמיד, with the daily burnt offering, or Numbers 19,5: על פרשה ישרוף, “he is to burn it together with its excrement.”

לא תקח האם על הבנים, “do not take the mother bird with the young birds.” Nachmanides writes that the rationale behind this commandment is the same as the one behind the prohibition to slaughter both a calf and its mother on the same day. The purpose of the legislation in both instances is to ensure that our hearts will not become insensitive to animal’s feelings, as once they have become such, the next step is insensitivity to our fellow humans’ feelings. Alternately, the legislation is a reminder by the Torah that we must not do something, which, if duplicated many times would lead to the extinction of the species in question. Maimonides in his Moreh Nevuchim section 3,48 writes that the reason for both the above-mentioned pieces of legislation is to avoid a mother animal watch its young being slaughtered before its own eyes, as the sensitivity to such a happening is as great among animals as it is among humans. Nachmanides, questioning Maimonides’ approach, writes that if it were correct the legislation of לא תשחטו אותו ואת בנו, “do not slaughter mother animal and its young,” should apply only when the younger animal is slaughtered first. Once the mother animal has been slaughtered there is no reason not to proceed with the slaughter of its young. Halachah forbids the slaughtering of both generations on the same day regardless of the order in which these animals are slaughtered. [Compare Maimonides’ own ruling in chapter 12 of hilchot shechitah, that if someone first slaughters the cow, and then two of her calves on the same day, he has committed 2 transgressions and is punished separately for each. Ed.] It is therefore more likely that the point of these two items of legislation in the Torah is to prevent Jews from becoming cruel.

כי יקרא קן צפור, when one chances across this without having planned it. לא תקח האם על הבנים, I have already elaborated on this verse in connection with the prohibition to boil the young in the milk of its mother (Exodus 23,19) Similar considerations are valid in connection with the prohibition of אותו ואת בנו. The practices, if carried out, look as if the person carrying it out is insensitive, cruel by nature, and is so anxious to satisfy his palate that all considerations of feelings of others are of no concern to him.

כי יקרא כן צפור לפניך בדרך, “if you encounter by chance a bird’s nest on your way, etc.;” the reason why these paragraphs follow one another is that the performance of one commandment brings in its wake the performance of additional commandments. (Compare Devarim Rabbah, 6,4 on our portion). Seeing that the reward for the performance of the commandment just discussed results in your enjoying long life, you will have the opportunity to devote yourself for more years to Torah study. When you build a house for yourself, you will be able to perform the commandment of erecting a fence on the edges of its roof to protect anyone from falling off it. When the Torah follows with the warning not to mix seeds of different plants when planting a vineyard, you will enjoy harvesting the fruit of that vineyard. When you are warned not to harness an ox and a donkey to the same plough, [as it would result in the donkey suffering pain, seeing it is so much weaker. Ed.] you will enjoy owning many oxen and many donkeys as a result of observing that commandment. When the Torah subsequently warns you not to wear garments in which linen and wool have been woven in the same cloth [except when commanded to do so for the tzitzit in certain situations], you will be able to afford buying a beautiful tallit on which to perform the commandment to attach these fringes. (Compare Tanchuma, section 2). The commandment to own garments which qualify for the attaching of these fringes is extremely important as we know from the Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 32. According to a statement on that folio, anyone who is meticulous about the observance of that commandment will eventually be in command of 2800 servants. This statement is based on Zecharyah 8,23: בימים ההמה אשר יחזיקו עשרה אנשים מכל לשונות הגוים והחזיקו בכנף איש יהודי לאמר נלכה עמכם כי שמענו אלוקים עמכם, “in those days ten men from nations of every tongue will take hold,-they will take hold of every Jew by a corner of his cloak and say: ‘let us go with you, for we have heard that G–d is with you.’ [There are 70 tongues, multiplied by ten multiplied by four corners on each garment of a Jew adorned with tzitzit. Ed.] This is also the interpretation of Jeremiah 17,11-12: קורא דגר ולא ילד, עושה עושר ולא במשפט, “like a partridge announcing that it has hatched young when this is not true, or like amassing riches illegally;” this is followed by the line: “כסא כבוד מרום מראשון, “o throne of glory exalted from of old;” how does this line connect with the line preceding it?” it teaches that the partridge proclaiming to have hatched young from its eggs had stolen those eggs from another species of bird sitting on them only after they had already been hatched. Then they proceed to eat those chicks which belong to another category of bird. When the chicks try to fly and are unable to, they become victims to predators. Who caused this sequence? Whoever steals eggs that are not his own. The prophet uses this simile to describe the gentiles who boast about their ill gotten gains which are the result of robbery. These gentiles, who destroyed the Holy Temple by burning it, will eventually have to pay for their crime by becoming totally extinct. (Compare Tanchuma, section two on our portion)

You shall surely send away the mother, and the young you may take for yourself, so that it may go well with you and you may lengthen your days.

למען ייטב לך וגו׳ THAT IT MAY BE WELL WITH THEE etc. — If in the case of an easy command which involves no monetary loss, Scripture states “Do this in order that it may be well with thee and thou mayest prolong thy days”, it follows à fortiori that this at least will be the grant of the reward for the fulfilment of commands which are more difficult to observe (Chullin 142a).

"That it may go well with you" — that Hashem will have compassion on you and do good to you. "And that you may lengthen your days" — as when you do not destroy the entire nest, having let the principal [the mother] go.

למען ייטב לך והארכת ימים, in the matter of dispatching the mother bird before taking her chicks, we find some display of protective concern by the Torah for the preservation of the species, an effort not to destroy the seed of the birds of the field although they are הפקר, unclaimed property. In the example of the dispatch of the mother bird the Torah appears to teach us that even the display by us of concern for such totally unclaimed eggs or chicks is rewarded by the Creator with the party showing this empathy receiving dividends in this life and the principal (reward) in the world to come.

ואת הבנים תקח לך, “and the young ones you may take for yourself,” in order to eat them. We learn from here that the eggs may be eaten even, though they have been taken from a living bird. (Talmud, tractate Chulin, folio 64, and Tossaphot there) והארכת ימים, And you will enjoy long life.” The reward will be far greater than if you had ignored G-d’s law and taken mother bird and its young for yourself. והארכת ימים, the reward matches the fulfillment of the commandment. By not killing both mother bird and all its young, thus not making that family extinct, you will yourself be rewarded with additional years of healthy life.

שלח תשלח את האם ואת הבנים תקח לך, “you must be sure to send away the mother and take the young for yourself.” According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah’s directive here is designed to protect the species from extermination. Even though the Torah permitted slaughtering of living creatures for the enhancement of man’s lifestyle, the Torah did not mean to give a carte blanche for exterminating any species thereby. If one were to take both mother bird together with her young (and eat them) it would be symbolically similar to exterminating that particular species (Nachmanides). The Torah adds the words: “in order that that it will be good for you,” i.e. if you will display concern for the survival of the species of these birds, G’d in turn will display His pity for you and will increase your days on earth as compensation for not having wiped out that family (species) of birds (Ibn Ezra). When the Torah chose the expression והאם רובצת על האפרוחים או על הביצים, “and the mother is roosting (reclining) on the chicks or the eggs,” (verse 6) the Torah revealed to us by that that the “eggs” mentioned here are equivalent to the “young ones” mentioned in verse 7 seeing that eventually the young chicks will emerge from these eggs. This also teaches that the command to dispatch the mother bird is applicable only when the eggs have advanced to the stage where it is practically certain that healthy young chicks will emerge from them (Chulin 109). If the eggs are broken or otherwise show signs that they will not be hatched, there is no need to send away the mother bird in order to take the eggs. The reason the Torah mentions both the chicks and the eggs in the plural is because this is the normal scenario. Even if the mother bird is brooding over only a single egg or chick the same legislation applies (Chulin 109). Maimonides, in his More Nevuchim 3,48, offers the following rationale for this commandment: The Torah does not want the mother bird to experience the anguish of watching to see herself being deprived of her chicks. The situation is analogous to the prohibition of not slaughtering the calf and its mother on the same day (Leviticus 22,25), so that the cow does not watch the death of its calf. The love of a mother animal for its young is not determined by intellectually rationalised feelings but by something more profound in the psyche of the animal. It reflects its power of imagination. If the Torah is so concerned with the feelings of birds and four-legged domesticated animals, how much more is it concerned with the feelings of human beings! The legislation therefore is designed to teach us not to practise cruelty even when such cruelty is only of an emotional nature. A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Ki Teytze 2: There is no commandment which is easier to fulfill than sending away the mother bird. Compare the reward offered by the Torah for a commandment which requires so little effort to fulfill: “in order that it will be good for you and will prolong your days.” We may appreciate this better by reference to a parable. A king employed a number of labourers to work in his field to plant there and he did not tell them exactly what their wages would be. In the evening, every labourer who had planted a tree was given one gold coin. When the labourers observed this (extraordinarily large payment) they were amazed and concluded that if planting a single tree, an undemanding task, was worth a gold coin to the king, how much greater would be the payment for labourers who planted a number of trees per day. The commandment of שלוח הקן, the sending off of the mother bird, is similar. It does not require financial cost in order for us to fulfill it and yet the reward is great. We may extrapolate from that what kind of reward G’d will grant us for the fulfillment of commandments which require the spending of a lot of money, physical exertion, and possibly involve saving someone’s life. The reason that G’d spelled out the reward for only a few of the commandments is to encourage us to fulfill all of them. We may compare the commandments to trees producing fruit. Some tree may produce a fruit which is superior to the fruit of another tree. Similarly, there are commandments the reward for which is greater than the reward for fulfilling some other commandment. We know, for instance that the reward for being hospitable and providing food and shelter for strangers is having children. We have proof of this from our matriarch Sarah (Genesis 18, 6-10) and we also know this from the woman in Shunam who was blessed with a child by a promise from the prophet Elisha whom she hosted on a regular basis (Kings II, 4-16). Other commandments such as honoring father and mother are rewarded by long life (Exodus 20,12), as is the commandment to send away the mother bird even though the principal meaning of this long life is understood to refer to life in a world beyond this terrestrial life on earth, [In the following list of verses from scripture the author illustrates allegorically the eventual fate of the Gentile nations as retribution for their not having observed this commandment in their relationship to the Jewish people. Ed.]. Isaiah 16,2 writes: “like fugitive birds, like nestlings driven away, Moav’s villagers linger by the fords of Arnon.” The prophet refers to Jeremiah 17,11: “like a partridge hatching what she did not lay, so is one who amasses wealth by unjust means, in the middle of his life it will leave him, and in the end he will be proved a fool.” Immediately after this Jeremiah continues: “O throne of Glory exalted from of old. Our sacred shrine! O Hope of Israel, O Lord!” How do these verses form a continuation from what the prophet wrote before? The partridge brings eggs belonging to other species of birds and broods on them until they hatch from their shells. When these chicks hatch, the chicks feed on the partridge plucking its feathers and making it defenseless until they eventually devour it. Who is the cause of the partridge’s misfortune? None other than the partridge itself. If it had not stolen other birds’ eggs this would never have happened to it. This is what is going to happen to the nations of the world who dared stretch out their talons against the throne of G’d, i.e. destroy our Temple. They destroyed and burned G’d’s Sanctuary, exiled the Jewish people and, as a result, in the words of Tzefaniah 2,9, “Assuredly, as I live, declares the Lord of Hosts, the G’d of Israel: ‘Moav shall become like Sodom, and the Ammonites like Gomorrah; clumps of weeds and patches of salt and desolation evermore. The remnants of My people shall plunder them, the remainder of My nation shall possess them.’” Thus far the Midrash. We find that Solomon drew a comparison between two commandments, treating them as one. This is what he meant when he said in Proverbs 30,17: “the eye that mocks a father and disdains homage due a mother, the ravens of the brook will gouge it out, young eagles will devour it.” Concerning the above verse the Jerusalem Talmud Peah, chapter 1 declares that the eye mocking the father is a reference to the commandment to honour father and mother. The words “and disdains the homage due a mother” are a reference to the commandment of dispatching the mother bird prior to taking her young. Whereas in the Torah we read about the reward for observing these commandments, Solomon informs us about the punishment in store for violating it. An investigative/scientific approach: the reason behind the commandment to dispatch the mother bird is to teach us empathy and to encourage us to turn our backs on all forms of cruelty. The latter is a negative virtue. The commandment is parallel to that of not slaughtering the calf on the same day as its mother. It is in line with what we learned in the oral Torah that the reason ritual slaughter of animals has to be performed by cutting the animal’s throat is because this is the least painful method of killing the beast. Killing the animal by hitting it on the neck (such as the עגלה ערופה) is much more painful. The foregoing is the opinion of Maimonides in his Moreh Nevuchim, and I have already mentioned part of it earlier. A Kabbalistic approach: the words שלח תשלח את האם are a reference to the emanation בינה, the source from which the lower seven emanations derive their spiritual input in every seven year (שמטה) cycle to renew the face of the earth. The earth is the קן העולם, the nest of the world. It is known as אם העולם, “mother of the nest (world),” like the “mother bird,” seeing it hatches all creatures. You will find the following comment in the Sefer Habahir item 104: Rabbi Rechumai said the reason that the Torah commands שלח תשלח את האם, “be sure to dispatch the mother,” whereas it does not say that one must dispatch the father bird, is to render recognition and give honor to the “mother” of the world seeing that the emanation בינה is perceived as the emanation everyone calls out for as we know from Proverbs 2,3 כי אם לבינה תקרא, “for you call out for insight.” [This may also be an allusion to Proverbs 1,8: ואל תטוש תורת אמך “do not abandon the teachings of your mother.” Ed.] The emanation בינה as the emanation immediately “above” the lower seven emanations each of which symbolizes one of the seven days of creation, is perceived as the mother, i.e. the one giving birth to these other seven emanations. Concerning the words ואת הבנים תקח לך the same Rabbi Rechumai writes that it refers to the בנים she has raised. This is a reference to the seven days of the week and the seven days of Sukkot. Thus far Sefer Habahir. The dispatch of the mother bird legislated here applies only to pure birds, i.e. the ones permitted for consumption by Jews. This is a compliment and a form of religious service for these birds as they are considered above and beyond the domain of the seven days of creation, a domain which has not been completed (limited) by a number being given to it. [The reference appears to be to the emanation בינה, which is “higher” than the seven emanations below it. Ed.] A parallel to this is found in Psalms 147,8 ולתבונתו אין מספרת, “its insight has not been assigned a number such as have the days (which would limit it). Not only the emanation בינה but also the tenth emanation מלכות, (from כתר down) is known as אם as we know from the fifth commandment כבד את אביך ואת אמך, a commandment addressed to people in that sphere. [I assume that the word ואת in that commandment provides the linkage between בינה and מלכות. Ed.] Our sages in Berachot 35 citing Proverbs 28,24 where Solomon lambasts those who rob father and mother, speak about man robbing G’d (in connection with enjoying food etc., without first reciting a benediction). The reason the simile is extended to both father and mother [who cannot both represent G’d. Ed.] is that “father” refers to Hashem, whereas “mother” refers to כנסת ישראל, the spiritual concept of the people of Israel. The Torah promises long life as the reward for fulfilling both the commandment of honouring father and mother and the commandment of dispatching the mother bird. The only difference in the wording of the reward is that in connection with honouring father and mother the “long life” is promised על האדמה, an expression repeated in connection with having true weights (Deut. 25,15). In connection with our commandment the words על האדמה “on the earth” are missing, suggesting that the Torah speaks of extra terrestrial life in the hereafter, or as the sages put it “in a world which is all long life.” The meaning of the words והארכת ימים is a reference to the תאריך אף מן הימים, “you will also enjoy other days,” i.e. after the world limited to ששת ימים, the six days of creation has come to an end. There is also a different approach concerning this commandment, i.e. that the reward promised extends to the entire world seeing that the very chasing away of the mother bird awakens feelings of concern, worry and pity in her seeing she suspects something will happen to her chicks. It is these feelings and the appeal to G’d which they engender that triggers G’d’s largesse for His creatures on earth. Seeing that the mother bird is trying to take her own life due to her anguish, the angel in charge of all the birds is aroused asking G’d’s mercy for her. At that point, Hashem, Who is known as רחמיו על כל מעשיו “extending His mercy to all His works,” (Psalms 145,9) is activated to extend this mercy in increasing amounts to all creatures experiencing anguish. Looked at from this vantage point, you may conclude that the effects of fulfilling this commandment are indeed very far ranging, so much so that it triggers mercy for all the inhabitants of this world. This is the extended meaning of the words למען ייטב לך והארכת ימים, i.e. the dispatch of the mother bird will be good for you in that it results in your life span being extended. An extension of one’s life span is always due to the attribute of Mercy having been invoked. I have found the following in Devarim Rabbah 6,3: “the reward for fulfilling the commandment of dispatching the mother bird are children (being granted them).” G’d formulated this reward as follows: ‘if you presently do not have children, I will grant you children.’ How is all this contained in the wording of the text? The Torah writes שלח תשלח את האם ואת הבנים תקח לך, “if you will surely dispatch the mother you will be able to acquire the children for yourself.” This Midrash alludes to the mystical aspect of this commandment I already discussed. This also clarifies that the emanation (attribute) בינה is the one responsible for the granting or denying of children. This is the meaning of the peculiar expression ותתפלל על ה' reported in Samuel I 1,10 where Channah is described as praying for children. We would have expected the text to say ותתפלל חנה אל ה', that Channah prayed “to the Lord,” not על ה'. The expression על ה' suggests a domain above that of the seven lower emanations, a domain of a world which is totally good, totally enduring, everlasting. This is implied in the words והתענג על ה', (Psalms 37,4) where the psalmist says: “seek favour of the Lord and He will grant you the desires of your heart.” If one penetrates to that emanation, to that attribute of G’d, one will have one’s wish for children granted. Seeing that this is so the legislation before us concludes with the words למען ייטב לך והארכת ימים, “so that it will be good for you and you will enjoy long life.” We have learned in Niddah 70 “what is a person to do in order to be endowed with wisdom?” Let him ask for mercy from the One Who owns wisdom, for it is written וה' יתן חכמה, “the Lord will grant wisdom” (Proverbs 2,6). The Talmud there continues: “what is someone to do who yearns to have children?” “Let him ask for mercy from the One to whom the children belong.” as we know from Psalms 127,3: “sons are the provisions of the Lord, the fruit of the womb, His reward.” It is worthwhile to analyse in this saying how the sages arranged the requirements (objects of prayer) in the descending order of the emanations. [Wisdom is stored in the higher emanation חכמה, followed by the next lower emanation בינה, which is the source of children. Ed]. This commandment belongs to the category we described earlier as מקובלות, [the author had divided the commandments into three groups, מושכלות, מקובלות,חוקים, compare beginning of commentary on Parshat Chukat Ed.] Normally, the sages instituted a benediction to be recited prior to the performance of any of the commandments which the author described as מקובלות. We do not know of any such benediction before the performance of this commandment. Why is this so? The reason is that it is not one of the commandments man should strive to fulfill, seek out opportunities to observe. If the occasion arises, the commandment needs to be fulfilled. This is why the whole paragraph is introduced with the words כי יקרה, “if it so happens.” Even if the opportunity arises, this commandment applies only if the finder wants to take the eggs or chicks for himself.

“So that it will be good for you and you will have long life.” This language is also said regarding honoring father and mother in the second set of Commandments, and the phrase so that it will be good for you implies that good will automatically flow to you from this. Now, with honoring father and mother, the matter is simple: if you honor your father and mother, then your children will see you and do likewise when they grow up. Similarly, when your children see you sending away the mother bird, they will learn a kal vachomer that if you show respect to those who give birth even among animals, how much more so should they respect their own parents. The reward for both these commandments is long life because these two commandments strengthen faith in the creation of the world. Just as there is a cause for every cause, and things are linked back to the First Cause, blessed be He, so too every born being has a progenitor, going back to the First Creator, blessed be He. It is fitting to show honor to Him, and from His honor, He has shared honor with all progenitors who descend from Him, blessed be He, from cause to cause. Therefore, the Torah mentions the observance of Shabbat alongside the commandment to honor father and mother everywhere, because Shabbat, which comes to commemorate the creation of the world, causes one to fulfill the commandment of honoring parents. This counters the belief of those who believe in the eternity of the universe, who say that the world has no beginning and that everything necessarily exists. According to their ignorant reasoning, there is no advantage of the progenitor over the progeny. We, however, believe that the First Creator, blessed be He, shared His honor with all progenitors who are influenced by Him, blessed be He, and this is the reason for honoring father and mother and for sending away the mother bird. For this reason, the Torah placed this commandment next to the commandment when you build a new house, and our Sages said (Tanchuma Teitzei 1): “If you fulfill the commandment of sending away the mother bird, you will merit building a new house.” What is the connection between these two? Because the commandment of sending away the mother bird brings you to believe in the creation of the world, which the Holy One, blessed be He, built and created. Therefore, measure for measure, you will also merit to build a new house. This is the foundation of faith, and it is written And the righteous shall live by his faith (Habakkuk 2:4). For through faith, one cleaves to the source of life; therefore, the reward is long life. This is why they interpreted (Bereishit Rabbah 6:2) the verse Lest you should ponder the path of life (Proverbs 5:6) regarding the sending away of the mother bird.

When you build a new house, you shall make a railing for your roof, so that you do not bring a liability of capital judgment upon your house, should one who might fall fall from it.

כי תבנה בית חדש WHEN THOU BUILDEST A NEW HOUSE, [THEN THOU SHALT MAKE A BATTLEMENT FOR THY ROOF] — If thou hast fulfilled the command of שלוח הקן (of letting a mother bird go when the nest is rifled), you will in the end be privileged to build a new house and to fulfill the command of “making a guard-rail”, for one good deed brings another good deed in its train, and you will attain to a vineyard (v. 9), fields (v. 10) and fine garments (vv. 11—12). It is for this reason (to suggest this) that these sections are put in juxtaposition (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 1). מעקה means, a fence around the roof. Onkelos renders it by תיקא; the fencing is like a casing (תיק) which guards things that are within it. כי יפל הנפל [THAT THOU BRING NOT BLOOD UPON THY HOUSE] IF ANY MAN FALL FROM THENCE — (The words may be taken to mean: if he that is to fall (הנופל) falls from it). This suggests: this man deserved to fall to his death (on account of some crime he had committed), nevertheless his death should not be occasioned by your agency, for meritorious things are brought about through the agency of good men and bad things only through the agency of evil men (Sifrei Devarim 229:7).

THEN THOU SHALT MAKE A PARAPET FOR THY ROOF. The commandment of the parapet is newly-declared, or it may be explanatory of the prohibition, Neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor. But the commandment concerning mixed seeds is explanatory, for He has already stated, Thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed. Now, this [prohibition] implied any place where they are sown; here he added that if a vineyard be sown with mixed seeds that which has been sown ‘tikdash’ (will be forfeited) together with the increase of the vineyard, meaning to say that any benefit is forbidden just like hekdeish [“holy things” belonging to the Sanctuary from which we are prohibited to derive any benefit]. The meaning of ‘pen tikdash’ (‘lest’ thou forfeit) is like ki tikdash (“for” you shall forfeit). So also, And ye shall not go out from the door of the Tent of Meeting ‘pen tamuthu’ (‘lest’ ye die) [is like ki tamuthu — “for” you shall die]. Likewise, Neither shall ye touch it ‘pen t’muthun’ (‘lest’ ye die) [is like ki t’muthun — “for” you shall die]. It is possible that the meaning of pen tikdash is similar to ‘pen’ their adversaries should misdeem, ‘pen’ they should say, Our hand is exalted which is like “perhaps.” The verse thus states: Do not sow the vineyard with mixed seeds, for perhaps they will sprout and the whole vineyard will be forbidden to you, for they do not become forfeit [unless they sprout] as we have been taught, “A grain crop [sown near a vine] is rendered forfeit after it has struck root, and grapes, after they have grown to the size of a white bean.”

"When you build a new house." This passage is attached [here] because after they had fought and were in the Land, it begins with commandments of the house. "Parapet" (מַעֲקֶה) — its meaning is known from its context; it has no parallel, but the grammarian derived it from the root of עָקָה (distress), as one who brings himself into distress [by lacking it]. "The one who falls" is called by its name on account of its end [i.e., its outcome], and similarly "the dead one shall be put to death," and similarly "the naked man's garments you would strip," and "the children struggled within her" — many such words, beyond counting, are called by the name of their outcome; we do not know whether this is simply the way of the language, or whether it is prophetic speech, as [in] "he pursued as far as Dan," "as far as the Valley of Eshcol," and "therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother." And after the commandments of the house come the commandments of seed and planting, because after one is in the Land and has built a house, he sows.

ולא תשים דמים בביתך כי יפול הנופל, if it were to happen that someone falls off that roof you could not have been the indirect cause, seeing you had put up a protective railing. Had you not done so, your family might bear part of the guilt for such a mishap.

כי תבנה בית חדש, “When you build a new house;” This command appears to only include one who builds a house. From where do we derive also one who purchases a house or receives it as a gift? The verse states, “House,” which means any kind of house. ועשית, “you must install a parapet for your roof.” If the old roof had collapsed, you must replace it with a new one. This law is introduced here to remind you that after you have completed the conquest of the Holy Land, and have taken over many houses intact from their previous owners, who may not have had such a protective rail or fence on their roof, you must now provide such a parapet. [After dealing with one kind of hazard that your property may present to outsiders, the Torah warns against being the cause of other kinds of hazards by writing as a general rule:] לא תשים דמים בביתיך, “do not place anything in a position in your house that might cause bloodshed.” This includes ferocious dogs and shaky ladders. (Talmud, tractate Ketuvot folio 41)

ועשית מעקה לגגך, “you are to make a railing on the roof of your house.” According to the plain meaning of the text the commandment is an example of how one is to guard against dangers to life and limb posed by one’s property. It is similar to the general statement in Deut. 4,9: “only beware for yourself and greatly beware for your life.” Seeing that such considerations are a major concern of the Torah, the Torah here legislates the affixing of a railing to the edge of one’s roof so that if someone falls off it the owner cannot be accused of negligence. The sages taught us as a corollary of this commandment that if someone raises a dog trained to bite in his house, or he puts a shaky ladder inside his house (for climbing the upper floor) he is liable for harm caused thereby (Ketuvot 41). A Midrashic approach based on Shabbat 32, the sequence of the words ועשית מעקה לגגך ....כי יפול הנופל ממו, “you shall erect a railing on your roof....so that if someone falls from it.” These latter words mean that if someone falls from that roof this has already been foreseen since the days of creation, i.e. he would not fall unless that was his fate. However, you have to do your duty so that you will not be perceived to be the cause of his fall. What this Midrash is trying to illustrate is that all creatures at the time of their creation which occurred in accordance with their will and their aspirations, were informed by G’d at that time of all that will befall them in the course of their lives. Similarly, He informs them of the number of years they are going to live and what the manner of their death is going to be. They are also informed if they will enjoy an easy livelihood, or if they will have to fight and suffer in order to eke out a living. G’d tells them if they will be dependent on handouts or will be able to make a living by their own skills and labours. This is also what the sages had in mind (Chulin 60) that all creatures were created with a complete itinerary for their lives mapped out. (my translation Ed.) The sages based this on Genesis 2,1 וכל צבאם “complete with all their hosts,” At that time those creatures were all satisfied with what fate was to have in store for them. This is the meaning of: “he had been programmed to fall from this roof ever since the six days of creation.” In spite of people having been programmed, it is a great sin if by failing to erect a railing someone fell to the ground from that roof and was killed. This is quite independent of that person having been meant to die in such a fashion on such a date. Seeing this is so the legislation makes sense, after all. A Kabbalistic approach: seeing that in connection with the commandment to dispatch the mother bird the Torah had alluded to the emanation בינה which presided over the other seven emanations as does a mother who has raised seven children, it had now become necessary to mention the emanation חכמה and יראה in connection with this commandment in order to complete the cycle of ten emanations. These latter two emanations are closely linked to the emanation of בינה. The railing on the roof is a symbol of something which embraces all the other things within it. It is a reference therefore to a very lofty source. The roof needs to be enclosed by something of a lofty nature so that all that is within it does not separate and disintegrate into separate parts. This is what is meant when David said (Psalms 111,10) ראשית חכמה יראת ה', that the beginning of all wisdom is fear of the Lord, i.e. the recognition of the highest emanation כתר the אין סוף which surrounds all. This is what is meant when the author of the Yetzirah (1,4) speaks of עשר ולא תשעה, ”Ten, and not Nine.” [I believe the author means that if one forgets for even one moment the existence and function of the tenth and highest emanation, the result will be heresy and the blood guilt resulting from that. Hence the need for the linkage between the emanation בינה which was central to the last-mentioned commandment, and the emanations חכמה and בינה alluded to in this commandment. Ed.] The words כי יפול תפול ממנו, are a warning of what would happen to the spiritual niveau of a Jew who fails to keep such considerations uppermost in his mind. It is an indirect reference to Elisha ben Avuyah who became a victim of this failure to heed David’s warning about the primacy of יראת ה'. [I have paraphrased the author in this paragraph. Ed.] (compare Chagigah 14). Even though Elisha ben Avuyah did not literally “fall off a roof,” seeing that he lost his faith in the nether regions, this is all the same thing and the “roof” is merely a convenient symbol for affixing a railing and “keeping it all together.”

When you build a new house, etc., for the one who falls will fall from it. From the language of our Sages (Shabbat 32): “Leave the drunkard alone, for he falls by himself.” Thus, the word “from it [mimenu, which is also from him]” refers back to “the one who falls,” and this is said so you should not claim, “Does the parapet nullify the decree when someone is destined to fall?” Therefore, the text says this is not the case, for “you shall not bring blood-guilt upon your house” — for why should someone whose blood is within him [destined to die] fall in your house? Nevertheless, one who is destined to fall will not be saved by the parapet, for “the one who falls will fall from [because of] him[self]” — he falls from himself even on flat ground. But if you do not make a parapet, then he will fall from [because of] you and not from himself, and God wanted him to cause his own fall, for it was from His hand that this happened to him. Some say “from it” refers to the parapet, because one who is destined to fall will fall even from the parapet, and the parapet only saves those who are not destined to fall. And our Sages said (Tanchuma Teitzei 1) if you fulfill the commandment of making a parapet [for your roof], you will merit a vineyard. What is the connection between a parapet and a vineyard? It is because wine causes the drunk to fall, as derived in Yalkut: Just as the vine is harvested and remains silent, and afterward they give it to a person and it makes him fall, etc. — see the end of Parashat Vayeshev (40:146). Therefore, specifically after making the parapet which protects from falling, you will merit a vineyard, and not before then, “lest the faller fall from it.” A hint to this matter: the final letters of “ki yipol hanofeil” [lest the faller fall] add up numerically to “yayin” [wine].And know that the section of sending away the mother bird begins with the letter ‘kaf’ and ends with ‘mem’, which together form the word “samech” [meaning support], and similarly the sections about the parapet and vineyard begin with ‘kaf’ and end with ‘mem’, referencing the verse God supports all who fall (Psalms 145:14). For regarding sending away the mother bird, the Sages discuss a case where a father tells his son to climb up to a building and bring bird chicks, and the son climbs, falls, and dies — where is the long life promised to this person? God supported him by giving him long life in the world that is entirely long [the World to Come] (Chullin 142a). And in making a parapet, God supports all who are liable to fall. And regarding “do not sow your vineyard with diverse seeds,” one is not liable until he sows wheat, barley, and grape seeds with one throw of the hand (Berachot 22a), which would cause one kindling of fire [punishment] (Kiddushin 56b). However, when one does not sow in this manner, “God supports all who fall” with the throw of the hand. The Rivah explained something similar to this, and from his explanation you can see what I have added of my own.

מעקה, this word is unique in Scripture, constructed from עקה just as מעשה, a deed, action, is constructed from the root עשה, and מראה, from ראה. However, similar sounding words in Psalms 55,4, מפני עקת רשע, “because of the oppression of the wicked; as well as in Amos 2,13 מעיק תחתיכם, “I will slow you down by force,” follow the pattern of such roots as שב and קם.

You shall not sow your vineyard with mixed kinds, lest the yield of the seed that you sow and the produce of the vineyard become defiled.

כלאים [THOU SHALT NOT SOW THY VINEYARD] WITH DIVERSE KINDS OF SEEDS — i.e. wheat and barley together with kernels of grapes with one and the same hand-throw (Berachot 22a; Kiddushin 39a; Chullin 82b). פן תקדש LEST IT BECOME קדש — Take it as the Targum does: lest it become unclean (unfit for use); to anything for which a man has repugnance to come into contact with, be it on account of its sublimity as, for instance, holy things, or be it on account of some bad quality, as, for instance, something that is forbidden, the term קדוש is appropriate, as, in the latter sense, e.g., (Isaiah 65:5) “Come not near to me for I make thee קדוש". [המלאה — This is the fullness and increase which the seed produces].

"You shall not sow mixed kinds." The explanation of "lest it become sanctified" (תִּקְדַּשׁ) has already been given by Menahem ben Saruq the Spaniard in his lexicon: it is from the root of קֹדֶשׁ, because one thing becomes mingled with the other.

לא תזרע כרמך כלאים, “do not sow your vineyard with more than one kind of seed;” previously, in Leviticus 19,19 we had a similar law where we were warned not to sow two seeds in one field. [The reason given is that the seeds might mingle and produce a new species that is not fit for human consumption because it is something that runs counter to the way G-d created the earth, where we were always told the word למינו, “according to its species.” Ed.] פן תקדש The use of the verb קדש here is similar to קדש וקדשה “man-prostitute and woman-prostitute” (Compare Deut. 23,18) because they too, are mixing with other people. כלאים, different kinds of seeds, that are hard to tell apart, and therefore are apt not to be recognised. In order to give the warning more deterrent power, the penalty for having grown crops based on mixing seed is not only that they are forbidden to be eaten, they are forbidden to make any kind of use of. [When the mixing of species is more visible, such as mixing linen and wool, or mating two different species of animals, the penalty is less severe.]

לא תזרע כרמך כלאים, “Do not sow additional species of seed in the midst of your vineyard.” According to Kiddushin 39 culpability for violating this commandment does not start unless one has taken wheat and barley in one’s hand together with kernels of grapes and flung them into the ground. The wording of our verse may be interpreted as follows: the word כרמך refers to the kernels of the grapes; the word כלאים refers to the mixture of wheat and barley. The reason the sages read this into the text is that the Torah wrote לא תזרע כרמך כלאים, instead of writing כרמך לא תזרע כלאים. They took their cue from Leviticus 19,19 where the Torah wrote שדך לא תזרע כלאים, “your field you must not sow with a mixture of different species of seeds.” Had the Torah used a similar way of phrasing our verse, I would have understood that throwing grain seed into an existing vineyard or one which had already been sown with grape-seeds makes the party doing that culpable for violating this prohibition. If someone sows the three kinds of seeds we mentioned simultaneously he will be receiving 39 lashes twice, once because he violated the prohibition in Leviticus 19,19, and once for ignoring the prohibition in our verse here. Sowing grain seeds of different kinds in the earth is culpable only if this is done in Eretz Yisrael, whereas the prohibition of mixing grape kernels with other seed is world-wide, at least as a rabbinic decree. This is based on the additional words in our verse פן תקדש, “lest it become forbidden, out of bounds” (like sacred things). Our sages in Kidushin 56 read the words פן תקדש as if the Torah had written פן תוקד אש, “lest it will have to be burned in fire” (seeing its use is totally forbidden). The reason behind the prohibition of mixing these species reflects that what we do on earth has its impact in the celestial regions and will result in changes in those regions also. I have elaborated on this in my commentary on Leviticus 19,19 את חקותי תשמורו.

לא תזרע כרמך כלאים, “Do not sow your field (vineyard) with a mixture of grapes and other plants.” The Torah had already written a similar verse where instead of כרמך, the word שדך, “your field,” a more inclusive term had been used. (Leviticus 19,19) Basically, what is new and additional here is what follows, i.e. פן תקדש, “lest it become forbidden (like sacred products, to non priests). It would not only be forbidden to eat, but also for any secondary form of enjoyment, selling it, using its wood to make fires, etc. The expression פן, just as in other instances whenever it appears, is a word “forbidding something on pain of.” It is also possible that the meaning is as in פן ינכרו צרימו, in Deut. 32,27 where it means lest its oppressor misunderstand, i.e. In our verse the meaning is: “lest not only the one crop but also the second crop would be forbidden at different stages of their respective growth processes and you would err in knowing when the product becomes forbidden.” [This interpretation presumes that the farmer, keeping in mind that the grapes will mature much later than the other crop of, say barley, thinks that there is really no mingling going on at all. Ed.]

תקדש, is prohibited just as קדשים, sacred things are prohibited to most people.

You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.

לא תחרש בשור ובחמור THOU SHALT NOT PLOUGH WITH AN OX AND WITH AN ASS [TOGETHER] — The same law applies to any two different kinds of animals in existence; the same law applies also to merely driving them together (when not ploughing) whilst they are yoked together as a pair carrying any load (Sifrei Devarim 232:1-2; cf. Kilayim 8:2 and 3; Bava Metzia 8b).

He states, Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. The same law applies to all diverse species of animals. It is an explanatory commandment of the prohibitions, Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind, for it is the custom of tillers of their soil to bring their working animals into the same stall and gender them. And in the matter of sha’atneiz [a garment of mingled stuff] he explained here that it applies only to [a combination of] wool and linen. He mentioned Thou shalt not wear in order to teach that coming upon thee [Neither shall there ‘come upon thee’ a garment of two kinds of stuff] is forbidden only if it is worn as a garment [indicated by the term “wear” used in the verse before us].

"You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey." This is connected to the subject of sowing. Hashem had compassion on all His works, for the strength of the donkey is not equal to the strength of the ox. And in connection with sowing, [the verse] mentions sha'atnez — already mentioned as a general rule — and here it specifies that it is wool and linen, and not other [materials].

לא תחרוש בשור וחמור, “do not plough with an ox and donkey together pulling the plough.” The ox, being an animal that chews the cud is constantly eating, whereas the donkey in the meantime is being overworked. This is an example of inflicting pain on living creatures. (Baaley Tossaphot.) Another explanation is that the ox is considered to be the king of the domesticated animals and his image is engraved on the Divine Throne, while the donkey is considered to be a despicable animal. This is not a befitting union. An alternate interpretation; G-d’s mercy extends not only to human beings but to all of His creatures. Therefore these two categories of beasts being mismatched as one is far stronger than the other, it would be causing the donkey pain to be part of such a team pulling the plough. יחדו, “together;” it is forbidden only when the two animals are tied together to the ploughshare. (Sifri). Our sages in the Talmud, tractate Baba Kama folio 54, state: what is stated here includes any two animals of different species, but excludes two human beings pulling the plough together, even if one is considerably stronger than the other. The reason why this law is written here is that we previously spoke about sowing different kinds of seeds, and ploughing is closely related to sowing.

לא תחרוש בשור ובחמור יחדו, “You shall not plough with an ox and a donkey together.” The Torah merely uses the most likely example of pairing animals together which are mismatched, one being much weaker than the other. Any animals of two different species must not be used to jointly pull wagons, etc. (Sifri 231). Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that the reason for this commandment is G’d’s concern and pity for His creatures, seeing that the physical strength of a donkey cannot be compared to that of an ox. According to his words our verse speaks only about donkeys and oxen not being paired together, not other animals. Ibn Ezra’s view does not coincide with that of our sages in Sifri. The principal reason of this commandment is that pairing different species in such a fashion leads to their mating (compare Maimonides Moreh Nevuchim 3,49), something that is an abomination in the eyes of G’d. It is customary for the farmer to bring his team of animals to a common stable which would facilitate mating and even giving birth to bastard animals (mutations) as a result of such mating. All such activities directly contradict G’d’s revealed plan for His universe when the Torah describes all the species as having been created למיניהם, למינהו, למינה, i.e. strictly in adherence to their genetic properties. Further evidence that this must be the reason which prompted the Torah in formulating this legislation is the fact that it is sandwiched between two commandments concerned with maintaining the purity of species, i.e. men and women remaining distinguishable by their clothing, and the subsequent prohibition of mixing wool and linen. The prohibition dealing with not mixing different species extends to three spheres. 1) the soil, i.e. not planting species together, or grafting species onto one another; 2) not to try and mate different species of animals together [even if the vast majority could not produce offspring from such mating due to genetic incompatibility. Ed.] 3) mixing flax and wool in clothing. In Leviticus chapter 19 all these three categories appear in a single verse (19) “You shall observe My statutes; you shall not mate your animal to another species; you shall not plant your field with mixed seed; a garment which is a mixture of combined fibers (of wool and linen) shall not come upon you.”

לא תחרוש בשור ובחמור יחדיו, “You shall not plough with and ox and a donkey together.” The ox is a pure species chewing the cud, whereas the donkey is an impure species. When the donkey hears the ox chewing food it pains him. [Apparently, chewing the cud is a noisy procedure. Ed.]

You shall not wear sha'atnez — wool and linen joined together.

שעטנז is an expression for a mixture. Our Rabbis explained it to mean a material that is calendered (pressed, שוע), or woven (טווי), or twisted (נוז) together (Sifrei Devarim 232:1); (שעטנז is taken to be an abbreviation of these words; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 19:19 and our Note thereon).

צמר ופשתים יחדו, “wool and linen together.” The reason why only these two categories of yarns are forbidden to be mixed is that the two were involved in the first murder. Kayin’s offering to G-d had consisted of leftover flax that he had grown, while Hevel had offered sheep which grow wool. Seeing that these two species had been indirectly responsible for the first disagreement between two human beings ending in the death of one, we are to be forever mindful of this. An alternate interpretation: These two fibers were used in the garments worn by the priests when performing service in the Temple but are not permitted to be worn by the priests at any other times. This is why the affliction known as tzoraat, does not strike garments consisting of any other fibers. This is a reminder that there is a basic problem involving these fibers, one that is overcome only on holy consecrated ground when used by the priests in their service to G-d. The Torah teaches that the expression shatnes, means a mixture of woolen and flax (linen) fibers.

.לא תלבש שעטנז צמר ופשתים יחדו , “Do not wear a mixture, i.e. wool and linen together.” The Torah forbids this mixture only when woven together or sewn together. This is the meaning of יחדו. It is perfectly in order, however, to wear a linen shirt underneath a woolen jacket (Maimonides Hilchot Kilayim 10,11). It is also permitted to sew together the skins of animals producing wool with linen threads, seeing that this does not constitute a garment. We discussed the mystical aspects of this commandment in Leviticus 19,19.

לא תלבש שעטנז, “you must not dress in a mixture of wool and linen threads.” Moses explains in this verse that this prohibition applies only to mixing wool and linen fibers. He mentions the word לבש to wear, to indicate that only when such mixtures are worn as a single garment is this probation applicable. Wearing a linen shirt and a woolen suit is perfectly in order. Also, even if such a mixture is used, say protectively, but not in the manner one wears clothing, one has not transgressed this commandment.

לא תלבש שעטנז, “do not wear a garment consisting of wool and linen intertwined.” The reason for this prohibition is that the dividing curtain in the Temple was made of a mixture of fine linen and wool dyed blue. G–d did not want Jews to wear something symbolising that dividing curtain behind which was the Holy Ark from the lid of which the voice of G–d could be heard. (by Moses) The same warning not to duplicate such sacred combinations was issued to the people in connection with the ingredients and quantities of the spices in the k’toret, incense to be offered up twice daily. (Compare Exodus 30,38, and the Talmud in tractate Rosh Hashanah folio 24) People are also not to build annexes to their houses by duplicating measurements used for the Temple. An alternate reason offered for this prohibition of mixing wool and linen, is that Kayin’s offering consisted of linen, and Hevel’s of wool, and is therefore a reminder of jealousy and hatred, the opposite of what the Torah stands for.

You shall make twisted fringes for yourself on the four corners of your garment with which you cover yourself.

גדלים תעשה לך THOU SHALT MAKE THEE TASSELS [UPON THE FOUR CORNERS OF THY VESTURE] — be they even from a mixture of wool and linen; for this reason Scripture puts them (the prohibition of שעטנז and the command of צצית) in juxtaposition (Yevamot 4a).

"You shall make yourself twisted cords" (גְּדִלִים). The dissenters [Karaites] say this is a commandment in its own right — for the night, as tzitzit is for the day; hence it is written "with which you cover yourself." The transmitters of tradition [Rabbis], however, have transmitted that this is the commandment of tzitzit [applicable] during the day. The meaning of גְּדִלִים (twisted cords) is as in [the phrase] "in network-work, twisted chains" — the work of chains. The dissenters derived it from the root of גְּדֻלָּה (greatness). We, however, believe solely in the words of our early masters. This verse was stated to clarify "on the four corners," and it is juxtaposed with sha'atnez because tzitzit [with wool on a linen garment] is permitted.

גדילים, “twisted strings;” the expression is a variant for קליעה, “plaited work.” This law appears here as in connection with the tzitzit, fringes used in a ritual context that must be attached to four cornered garments, the prohibition for plaiting wool and linen has been waived. (Ibn Ezra) ארבע כנפות, “four corners.;” only four-cornered garments (or more corners) are subject to this commandment, not three-cornered ones. (Ibn Ezra)

גדלים תעשה לך , you shall make for yourselves twisted threads;” here the tzitzit are referred to as gedilim. Our sages in Yevamot 4 cite a tradition that the appearance of this commandment in a positive connotation immediately after the prohibition of mixing wool and linen is to teach us that for the purpose of tzitzit this prohibition has been waived. The Talmud concludes that the appearance of certain legislation immediately after another legislation has halachic implications and is a legitimate exegetical tool (דרשינן סמוכים). The reasoning goes as follows: “if the Torah had not wanted to permit a mixture of wool and linen threads as the integral parts of the tzitzit, why would the prohibition of kilayim have to be repeated here? We already discussed the mystical aspect of the commandment of making and wearing tzitzit in Numbers 15,38. The expression גדלים chosen by the Torah here to describe these tassels, fringes, is an allusion to Psalms 104,1: ה' אלו-הי גדלת מאד הוד והדר לבשת, “O Lord, my G’d, You are very great; You are clothed in glory and majesty.” When someone wears tziztiyot, i.e. 32 twisted threads, this is an allusion to the 32 paths of wisdom (discussed in the latter part of Numbers 15,38) על ארבע כנפות כסותך “on the four corners of your garment.” Seeing that in Numbers 15,38 the Torah wrote vaguely that the tzitziyot should be על כנפי בגדיהם, “on the corners of their garments,” I would have thought that every garment is to have tzitziyot. This is why the Torah had to be more precise here and tell us that the legislation applies only to garments with four corners. Any garment having fewer than 4 corners is not subject to this legislation, whereas any garment having more than four corners requires to be equipped with tzitziyot in order that it may be worn (Maimonides Hilchot Tzitzit 3,3). Our sages in Menachot 46 derive this from the additional words אשר תכסה בה, “which you cover yourself with.” The reason these words are not used to include three-cornered garments which are large enough to cover you is that four is not part of three, whereas four is part of five.

גדילים, tzitzit, fringes, their threads have to be intertwined.

If a man takes a wife and goes in to her and comes to hate her,

ובא אליה ושנאה [IF ANY MAN TAKE A WIFE] AND COME UNTO HER AND HATE HER, the end will be...

IF ANY MAN ‘YIKACH’ (TAKE) A WIFE, AND COME UNTO HER. The meaning thereof is as follows: When a man will take a wife through the means sanctioned by the Torah which is betrothal with money — this being “the betrothed” he [Moses] mentions [further in Verse 23] — and after some time he came unto her, and hate her because she was not pleasant to him in conjugal relation, and so he arose early in the morning and came before the court claiming that he did not find her to be a virgin. Now this person intends to divorce her without the dowry of virgins, which is the kethubah (marriage contract) that he wrote her. And because she became betrothed to him under the presumption of virginity, he accuses her of having committed adultery after her betrothal to him. Therefore Scripture states, But if this thing be true as the husband said, they shall stone her. The truth cannot be known except by the testimony of two witnesses. And because, concerning the illicit relations of virgins, Scripture will clarify that if she were betrothed she is stoned, and if she were not betrothed she is absolved from punishment, it was unnecessary to explain here “But if this thing be true that she was unchaste while betrothed, and [what is more] she so acted willingly [with anyone other than her lawful spouse] they shall stone her.” And instead it says by allusion because she has done a base deed in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house, the base deed being that she did so voluntarily. The expression to play the harlot signifies when a wife being under husband, goeth aside, for an unbetrothed maiden is not termed “a harlot” if she lies with one of the people, but the betrothed one is espoused to him [her future husband and therefore she is termed “a harlot” if she commits adultery with another man].

"When a man takes a wife." In the opinion of the dissenters, this passage is juxtaposed [with tzitzit] because of "with which you cover yourself." The truth, on the homiletical level, is that it is juxtaposed on account of the house, then the garment, and then the mistress of the house.

כי יקח איש אשה, after the Torah has dealt with matters concerning the settling of the people in the Land of Israel, it turns to instructions designed to ensure that the Shechinah, benevolent Divine presence, will maintain its beneficial presence there. One of the most important elements in ensuring this is the avoidance of forbidden mating and the offspring of such couplings. The Torah therefore addresses both forbidden incestuous relations amongst Jewish partners, and intermarriage or living together of Jews and Non-Jews without the benefit of “marriage,” something which is anyway legally impossible. All of this belongs to the headingוהיה מחניך קדוש ולא יראה בך ערות דבר ושב מאחריך, “your encampment shall be holy. Let nothing unseemly be found among you so that He would turn away from you.” (23,15)

כי יקח איש אשה, "when a man takes a wife, etc." The Torah addresses average people even those who have forsaken the path of Torah because they claim that their time is too short and they are so preoccupied with earning a subsistence that they cannot observe all the Torah's restrictions. The words כי יקח איש אשה may be translated as "when a man decides to betroth himself to Torah (which is supposed to be his life's companion)," ובא אליה, "and he consummates this relationship," i.e. a relationship which had been initiated at the time all the Jewish souls stood at Mount Sinai when G'd revealed Himself and they received the Ten Commandments, and now ושנאה, he hates the path of Torah, and he does not want to grant her the things which are due to his "wife" as a matter of right as spelled out in Exodus chapter 21. When his "wife" remonstrates with him asking why she does not receive her due, her "husband" claims that she has not provided him with what he considers the obligation of any wife to her husband, i.e. food and drink. He also claims that he does not observe that his devotion to Torah has paid any dividends such as his economic situation improving. In fact he claims that when he looks around at all his friends who have not adopted the path of Torah they all seem to be better off than he. This is what the Torah alludes to by the sentence ושם לה עלילת דברים והוציא עליה שם רע ואמר את האשה הזאת לקחתי, "and he accuses her and gives her a bad name saying I have married this woman, etc." He does not deny having "married" the woman, i.e. having made a commitment to Torah. The "husband" claims "when I came near to her I did not find her hymen," i.e. a symbol of strength. He claims that people who relied on Torah were compelled to look elsewhere to find sustenance. The Torah replies that the wife's father, i.e. G'd, and the community of Israel, will defend her virtue before the Supreme Court. ולקח אבי הנערה ואמה, "the father and mother will display the בתולים, of the "maiden" (wife), i.e. proof that loyalty to Torah results in spectacular achievements by its adherents. The Torah adds that this defence of the Torah's reputation will be public, i.e. השערה, "in the town square." This is an allusion to what the Zohar volume 3 page 80 writes that in the future G'd will demand that the Torah will be compensated for all the insults it had endured for so long. This is also mentioned indirectly in Avot 6,2 where Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that day after day a heavenly voice goes forth from Mount Chorev proclaiming: "Woe to mankind for their disregard of Torah." In our paragraph G'd is described as demanding the compensation for the insults endured by the Torah throughout the ages at the hands of those who have rejected it and sold it short, something the author in Avot spoke about. G'd is described as the father of the virgin-bride who has been subjected to unjust accusations, her groom denying her virginity at the time of marriage. The father of the bride...

כי יקח איש אשה, “When a man marries a woman, etc.” seeing that the Torah had dealt with man’s basic preoccupations previously, i.e. building a house, planting and harvesting a field, and the rules governing his clothing, it is appropriate to add some aspects of marriage and its restrictions at this point. ובא אליה ושנאה, “and after having had marital relations with her he hates her;” this translation is inaccurate: the Torah means that he had hated her already previously.

כי יקח איש אשה, “When a man marries a wife, etc.” According to Nachmanides the expression כי יקח here does not refer to the final stage of the wedding, but the initial stage, the betrothal, such a when the man hands the woman a piece of jewelry or other trinket and she accepts it as a promise of marriage. Consummation of the marriage was usually delayed by 12 months. When that has occurred, the groom claims that she had not been a virgin at that point. He intends to cause her loss of her life as he claims that at the time of her betrothal she had still been a virgin, becomes guilty of death by stoning, for if she had lost her virginity prior to becoming betrothed she would not be culpable at all. The Torah here hints strongly how it disapproves of a girl losing her virginity voluntarily before her betrothal by writing (verse 21) כי עשתה נבלה בישראל לזנות בית אביה “that (at any rate, even if completely unattached) it would be an outrage if she demeaned herself while still in the home of her parents.” In Biblical usage, a girl, woman who was unattached at the time when she engaged in sexual intercourse is not considered a זונה, harlot.

and places against her fabricated charges and spreads an evil name about her and says, 'This woman I took, and when I came to her I did not find in her the tokens of virginity' —

ושם לה עלילת דברים that HE WILL IMPUTE ACTIONS UPON HER BY MERE WORDS (i.e. he will slander her); one sin brings another sin in its train: if he transgresses the prohibition “thou shalt not hate [thy fellow]” (Leviticus 19:17), the end will be that he will fall into slander (cf. Sifrei Devarim 235:3). את האשה הזאת THIS WOMAN — Hence we derive the law that one must not speak anything to the judge except in the presence of the opposing party (Sifrei Devarim 235:6).

"Pretexts" (עֲלִילוֹת) — like "causes." "Matters" (דְּבָרִים) — whether true or false. "Tokens of virginity" (בְּתוּלִים) — a plural form that is not separated [into a singular], like בַּחֲרוּת (youth), זְקֻנִים (old age), and עֲלוּמִים (prime of life).

ואקרב אליה, “when I wanted to become intimate with her, etc.” an elegant expression for carnal relations. Compare Genesis 20,4: ואבימלך לא בא אליה, “and Avimelech had not slept with her.” Or, Isaiah 8,3: ואקרב אל הנביאה, “I was intimate with the prophetess.”

then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the tokens of the young woman's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate of the court of that place.

אבי הנערה ואמה [THEN SHALL] THE FATHER OF THE DAMSEL, AND HER MOTHER [TAKE AND BRING FORTH etc.] — Let those who have reared this depraved child (lit., “evil plant”) be exposed to contempt because of her (Sifrei Devarim 235:9).

"The father of the young woman and her mother" — if they are alive, or [otherwise] the appointee of the court.

ולקח אבי הנערה, “the father and the mother of the girl shall take.” if they are alive; if the girl is an orphan, an appointee of the court performs the services of father and mother (Ibn Ezra).

ולקח אבי הנערה ואמה, “then the father and the mother of the girl will take (proof).” Nachmanides points out that at this stage both her father and her mother are mentioned as standing up publicly in defense of their daughter, although only her father speaks up in her defense. When submitting their evidence to the elders, father and mother are both involved. The reason why only the father voices his opinions in the forum of the elders is that seeing the indemnification for having slandered his daughter is payable to him, it is he who must submit the claim. On the other hand, all matters connected to שמלה, in this instance a simile for bedclothes, are a woman’s business, a mother’s concern. They are the experts capable of judging what colour blood originates in which part of the body. Normally, the sensitivity of the matter would have required that only the mother concern herself with this, but, seeing that the father had stated that he, as a father, had given this daughter to the man who now has slandered her reputation, and by inference the father’s inability to have brought up his daughter properly, he is invited by the Torah to be present throughout the proceedings.

את בתולי, according to the plain meaning this refers to the blood lost when the bride’s hymen was broken, a residue of which is on the sheet of the bed.

And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'My daughter I gave to this man as a wife, and he has come to hate her.'

ואמר אבי הנערה AND THE DAMSEL’S FATHER SHALL SAY [UNTO THE ELDERS] — although both parents appear before them, yet the father alone shall speak — this teaches that a woman is not allowed to speak in the presence of her husband (if he, too, is concerned in the matter) (Sifrei Devarim 235:10).

And behold, he has placed fabricated charges, saying, "I did not find your daughter's tokens of virginity" — yet these are my daughter's tokens of virginity.' And they shall spread out the cloth before the elders of the city.

ופרשו השמלה AND THEY SHALL SPREAD THE CLOTH [BEFORE THE ELDERS OF THE CITY] — This is a figurative expression: they must make the matter as white (as clear) as a sheet (Sifrei Devarim 237:1; Ketubot 46a).

AND THEY SHALL SPREAD THE CLOTH. “This is a figurative expression meaning, the matter is as white [i.e., as clear] as a sheet.” This is Rashi’s language, which is the interpretation of Rabbi Yishmael found in the Sifre and Mechilta. But there is no need for it. For this was the custom in former time in Israel: they would bring the groom and bride into the bridal chamber and examine them, and the witnesses would guard them outside — these being termed shoshbinin (friends) by the Sages. When they separated, the witnesses would enter and take the cloth on which he laid with her and see the proof of her virginity. This [procedure] is known in the Talmud and in books of Agadah [homily], and they would call this cloth sudor. Therefore, Scripture states that her father and mother should spread the cloth which they took from the hands of the witnesses and say, These are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. Now surely there is still a need to clarify matters with respect to many items about which Scripture spoke briefly. But the intent of [the Sifre and Mechilta in] stating “This is a figurative expression,” is only in accordance with the opinion which holds that the law concerning a man who defames his wife applies even if he has had no sexual relations with her. [It is according to this opinion that the phrase and they shall spread the cloth cannot be literal, for if no cohabitation took place, there can be no evidence in the sheet. Hence, the phrase is figurative, meaning that they are to prove their complaint “as clear as a sheet.”] But the plain meaning of Scripture is in accordance with the Sage that this law applies only after he has had conjugal relations with her [and in that case the phrase and they shall spread the cloth is to be understood literally]. And thus the Rabbis said in the Gemara: “Rabbi Eleazar ben Yaakov says, The term cloth is literal, and the law is in accordance with his words.” And such indeed is the sense of the section [of the Torah]. For Scripture stated first, Then the father of the maiden, and her mother, shall take and bring forth the tokens of the maiden’s virginity. Thus the verse is speaking of both [the father and mother]. Afterwards it reverts to the father alone: And the maiden’s father shall say etc. It then reverts and states, and ‘they’ shall spread the cloth — the two of them. Now, the reason [for these changes] is that [basically] the claim concerns only the father for [if the husband’s accusation is proven false,] the fine [of a hundred silver shekels, imposed upon the husband] belongs to the father. Scripture, however, made the mother a partner in this affair because women occupy themselves with the subject of the sheet, for it is they who are knowledgeable and expert in blood, and it is proper for the mother to take hold and bring it [the cloth] to court. But the claim, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife is that of the father, for the mother is not the adversary of her daughter’s husband. Or it ma...

ופרשו השמלה, “and they will spread out the sheet.” According to Rashi the word “sheet” is to be understood allegorically; i.e. the parents bring proof of their daughter’s virginity by all the means at their disposal. Nachmanides understands the word שמלה, literally, arguing that if it were not so why would the mother come to court at all, it would be enough for the father to come to court to defend the honour of his daughter. True, the mother is not a litigant in the matter. However, precisely because the word “sheet” is to be understood literally, and women are more experienced in interpreting stains on sheets than are men, her explanations are relevant. We must understand the preceding verse (15) ”the father and mother of the girl take her and display evidence of the virginity of the girl in the presence of the elders of the city, to the gate (court).” At that point the Torah mentioned both the father’s and the mother’s presence at court, whereas in verse 16 only the father speaks to the elders of the city. Subsequent to this, in verse 17 both father and mother are involved i.e. ופרשו in displaying the sheet. The physical evidence is submitted after the father had presented his arguments in the absence of the mother. Thus far Nachmanides.

ופרשו השמלה, ”they will spread out the sheet, etc.” This verse needs to be understood as a simile, i.e. just as a sheet bears clear testimony to what went on while people slept on it, so the facts of the case are made crystal clear by the presentation of the accused girl’s parents. Nachmanides adds that this interpretation is appropriate according to the sages who claim that the slanderer will be found guilty even though he had not even had marital relations with his bride. According to the sage who holds that the slanderer cannot be convicted unless both parties agree that the marriage had been consummated, the verse has to be understood at its face value, i.e. that the שמלה our verse speaks of is the sheet on which the young couple consummated their marriage.

And the elders of that city shall take the man and flog him.

ויסרו אתו [AND THE ELDERS … SHALL TAKE THE MAN] AND CHASTISE HIM — i.e. with lashes (Sifrei Devarim 238:2; Ketubot 46a; cf. Onkelos).

ויסרו אותו, “they will chastise him;” they will administer punitive lashes to his skin for having transgressed the positive commandment that “you shall love your neighbour as if he were yourself.” (Leviticus 19,18)

And they shall fine him one hundred selas of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he spread an evil name about a virgin of Israel; and she shall remain his wife — he has no right to send her away all his days.

AND THEY SHALL FINE HIM A HUNDRED SHEKELS OF SILVER. The meaning thereof is that after the husband was administered stripes — a punishment deduced from the expression and they shall chastise him — [he is to be fined a hundred shekels of silver]. For it was customary to write over a dowry of fifty shekels of silver to a virgin, but this person defamed her because he hated her and he wanted to send her away empty-handed. Therefore Scripture punished him with [a fine of] a hundred silver shekels, for the Torah punishes with a twofold measure, as in the case of the verse, he shall pay double. Although a kethubah (marriage contract) is only a matter of Rabbinic ordinance for whoever made such a condition with her, or who married her without qualification, yet it was customary to write a dowry for virgins, just as it is said, according to the dowry of virgins, and the majority did so. And if this woman had no kethubah, why should he have put forth wanton charges against her because he came to her and he hated her — he should have written her a bill of divorce and be freed of her, as it is written, if you hate [her] send [her] away. [Instead he brought wanton charges against her, therefore he is fined double the normal amount of the dowry of virgins even if he had not given her a kethubah.]

The meaning of "all his days" is that she shall forever be in his domain until the day of his death.

ונתנו לאבי הנערה, “and they (the elders of the town) give to the father of the girl;” all of the elders. The word נער is repeatedly spelled without the letter ה at the end of the word in this paragraph, but here it is read as if spelled with that letter, suggesting that harmony is being restored through the procedure decreed by the Torah. לא יוכל לשלחה, “he can never divorce her at his own initiative;” this is in spite of the fact that generally, when husbands claim to have found that their wives had betrayed them they are considered as telling the truth. This type of individual is not believed unless he can corroborate his claim of her lack of virginity when she got married by eye witnesses. He has been proven a liar, therefore in the future his claims must be substantiated if he is to be taken seriously. A different interpretation: he is being dealt with on the basis of מדה כנגד מדה, “measure for measure,” i.e. tit for tat. He had tried to send her away (i.e. divorce her), hence he will never be able to rid himself of her. The Torah decreed the same penalty for someone who had raped (compare verse 29 this chapter). Seeing that he had forced himself upon his partner once, it is likely that sooner or later he will tire of her and try to divorce her. The Torah therefore prevented such a person from doing so. כל ימיו, “all his life.” [The Talmud there queries why the Torah used language that implied that he had done such a thing as divorcing her once before, whereas he had actually not done anything! The answer given by the Talmud is that this is the reason why that person also has not been punished with 39 lashes as he would have been had he violated a negative commandment by performing a forbidden act.]

וענשו אותו מאה כסף, Concerning the penalty of 100 silver pieces levied against the husband who slandered the reputation of his bride, Maimonides writes in Moreh Nevuchim 3,49: “seeing that the standard dowry of a virgin is 50 silver pieces (verse 29) and this husband had tried to make her lose her כתובה, her marriage settlement and wanted to divorce her without paying her a penny, the Torah treats him like a thief who has to make restitution of twice the value of the object he has stolen” (Exodus 22,8). Even though, in this case, the husband did not get to carry out his intention, we have a precedent of other witnesses being punished in accordance with the damage they wanted to cause the intended victim in Deut. 19,19 where the Torah discusses עדים זוממים. The corporal punishment administered to him reflects the fact that he tried to assassinate her character, to demean her; therefore her husband is being demeaned by having this corporal punishment inflicted upon him publicly. Seeing he wanted to betray her, divorce her without compensation, he is not allowed to divorce her ever, the opposite of his intent.

וענשו אותו מאה כסף, “they will fine him one hundred pieces of silver;” Nachmanides writes that since it had been the accepted custom to pay a dowry of 50 pieces of silver when marrying a virgin to the father of the bride, or to her if she was of age, and this “groom” wanted to cheat the father out of that amount, the Torah imposes the kind of penalty that reflects the one paid by a thief, i.e. double the amount stolen.

But if this matter is true and tokens of virginity were not found for the young woman,

ואם אמת היה הדבר BUT IF THE THING BE TRUE — proven by evidence of witnesses and after legal warning that she had committed adultery after her betrothal (Ketubot 44b).

then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones and she shall die, because she committed a disgrace in Israel by acting wantonly in her father's house; and you shall put away the evil-doer from your midst.

אל פתח בית אביה [THEN THEY SHALL BRING THE DAMSEL] TO THE ENTRANCE OF HER FATHER’S HOUSE — suggesting: “See what a child (lit., a plant) you have reared!” (Ketubot 45a). אנשי עירה [AND] THE MEN OF HER CITY [SHALL OVERWHELM HER WITH STONES] — This means, the witnesses shall stone her, all the men of her city standing by (Sifrei Devarim 240:1; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 24:14). לזנות בית אביה TO PLAY THE WHORE “IN” HER FATHER’S HOUSE — The word בית is equivalent to בבית.

"And they shall stone her" — for it is possible that after she had been betrothed, a man lay with her, since the one who betrothed her did not violate her; rather, she claims to be a virgin. The transmitters of the religion have explained this matter very well: these tokens of virginity are found only up to a certain fixed time, depending on the physical development of the young women. And because of "they shall stone her," the passage about one who has been violated while betrothed follows.

לזנות בית אביה, there were witnesses that she had sexual intercourse after being betrothed.

If a man is found lying with a woman who is a married man's wife, both of them shall be put to death — the man who lay with the woman and the woman — and you shall put away the evil-doer from Israel.

ומתו גם שניהם THEN THEY SHALL BOTH OF THEM DIE — The redundant words גם שניהם are intended to exclude a case of unnatural intercourse from which the woman derives no gratification (Sifrei Devarim 242:4; Sanhedrin 66b). גם is intended to include those persons who commit adultery with one of this pair after them (i.e. after this pair had been found guilty) (Sifrei Devarim 242:5). Another explanation of גם שניהם is: these words are intended to include in the death penalty the embryo: that if the woman was pregnant the execution is not deferred until after she gives birth (cf. Targum Jonathan on; Arakhin 7a).

THEN THEY SHALL ‘GAM’ (ALSO) ‘SHNEIHEM’ (BOTH OF THEM) DIE. “This excludes unnatural gratification from which the woman derives no satisfaction. Gam (also) — this is intended to include in the death-penalty those who come after them” [as explained further on]. This is the language of Rabbeinu Shlomo [Rashi]. But I do not understand what this means. Is this the case of a virgin that we must exclude or include those who come after them [to commit adultery with her? The verse here speaks of a married woman, therefore] what difference is there between the first [adulterer] and the second and third? Moreover, the text should have read “those who come after ‘him’” [instead of “after ‘them’ “]! And in our versions of the Sifre it is stated: “Both of them — this excludes unnatural gratification. Since the verse states ‘gam’ both of them it includes those who come from their backs,” meaning unnatural sexual intercourse [sodomy]. Scripture included it here, but all cases of adultery are deduced from this one. In line with the simple meaning of Scripture the phrase ‘gam shneihem’ (also both of them) means “[not only] the man who is the more responsible for the sin because he demands it, he seduces her, and commits the act — but ‘gam’ (also) the woman.” Scripture itself mentions this, explaining the phrase also both of them — the man that lay with the woman, and the woman. Such is the customary manner of Scripture to ascribe the sin to the man, as I have explained in connection with the verse, he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless. And some scholars say that the phrase the man that lay with the woman, and the woman is but an additional explanation [of the pronoun — both of them], like let him bring it, the Eternal’s offering; [the kingdom which will not serve] him, Nebuchadnezzar. And in the Sifre it is stated: “The man that lay with the woman — even if she was a minor; and the woman — even if she had intercourse with a minor.” If so, the meaning of also both of them is “also either one of them, the man or the woman who has reached the age to be culpable of punishment.”

"Also" — its meaning here is the same as that [of the previous case], and this [word] further clarifies that meaning.

כי ימצא איש שוכב עם אשה בעלת בעל, "If a man be found having intercourse with a woman married to someone else, etc." This verse is best understood with reference to Sanhedrin 59 that if a Gentile engages in Torah study he is guilty of the death penalty. The Torah is already betrothed to her husband the Israelite, she is his bride. ומתו גם שניהם, "Both of them shall die etc." both the Gentile studying the Torah and the "Torah" itself. This means that such "Torah" instead of spreading its spiritual light will darken the horizon of the Gentile who studies it. It will not be perceived as possessing life-giving powers as when it is studied by an Israelite. Torah, which according to Proverbs 4,22 is a source of life to those who encounter it, will not prove to be a source of life to pagans who study it but the reverse.

ומתו גם שניהם, “they will both have to die;” Rashi explains the unusual wording, i.e. not “they will both be executed,” by saying that this includes the descendents of this pair of sinners. We are not to assume that as soon as these people have been convicted, even though not yet executed, any unborn children will not be affected by their deeds, since their parents had already been considered legally dead. What these people had done does not come under the heading of “if the parents sinned why should the children be punished for this? The word גם, “also,” in our verse is the Torah’s hint that this situation is different from other situations in which parents are both guilty of a serious sin violating the laws of chastity. An alternate approach to our verse: the word גם does indeed refer to the descendants of this pair of adulterers. Even if the willing female partner is a minor, she will also be subject to the penalty of having committed adultery. The same is true for an adult married woman who committed adultery with a boy that had not yet reached puberty. This is though even though we had been told in verse 21 that the girl involved who by being described as נערה was not yet an adult was alone in being stoned to death, (seeing she shamed her father under whose roof she had indulged in such shameless conduct). Furthermore, we cannot punish the person with whom she lost her virginity as we do not know who he was. If the adulterer (male) was known and there is evidence against both, they will both be subject to death by strangulation. Another interpretation of the apparently superfluous word גם: even if the woman involved in this adultery is pregnant at the time, we do not wait with carrying out the death sentence until her baby is born. According to an interpretation in Ibn Ezra, the word גם is a hint that more laws concerning forbidden sexual unions will follow.

ומתו גם שניהם האיש השוכב עם אשה , “they shall both die, the man who sleeps with a woman.” if the woman was a married woman at the time. The word והאשה “and the woman,” which appears superfluous seeing the Torah wrote that “both are to die; is to tell us that the man is considered more guilty than the woman. If she had been considered equally guilty, the Torah should have added the word הנשכבת, “who had been slept with.” This is the opinion of Nachmanides. Our sages in Kidushin 10 understand the words ומתו גם שניהם to mean that both man and woman are equally guilty, i.e. both are adults. If the woman was a minor, she is not to be executed. In Erchin 7 these words are interpreted as referring to any fetus inside the woman. If a woman is pregnant and her labour pains have commenced before she has been sentenced, the court waits until after she has given birth before carrying out the sentence. If she had not reached that stage in her pregnancy her status does not result in a delay of her execution. [The reason is that once the baby (fetus) showed signs of wanting to move out of its mother it is considered a separate body.]

ומתו גם שניהם, and they will both die. Rashi explains that the apparently superfluous word גם, “also,” refers to unborn children that these people could have looked forward to having had they remained alive. Nachmanides writes that he does not understand Rashi’s comment [As his comments appear to be based on an erroneous text in a Rashi manuscript, and resolving it is lengthy, I’ll skip this. Ed.] According to the plain meaning of the text, the word גם is not superfluous, but it refers to two separate instances of grossly sinful behaviour, 1) the slanderer in verses 14-20 as well as 2) the seducer in our verse here. According to Sifri the additional dimension derived here is based on the superfluous words האיש השוכב and והאשה, indicating that sometimes only one of the participating parties are executed, such as when one of the parties was a minor. Even though the minor may have been the one that initiated the sin, only the adult pays the penalty.

ומתו גם שניהם, “and they are both to die as a result.” Rashi comments that the apparently extraneous word גם also, means that also the offspring of such a forbidden union is to die. He adds that if a man had cohabited with the woman in question after she had been condemned to die by the court that man is subject to the same penalty. The Torah had to add this as we might have thought that as soon as the woman had been convicted she was legally already considered as no longer alive.

If there is a young virgin woman who is betrothed to a man, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her,

ומצאה איש בעיר [IF A DAMSEL THAT IS A VIRGIN BE BETROTHED UNTO A MAN] AND A MAN FIND HER IN THE CITY [AND LIE WITH HER] — (Because he found her outdoors) therefore he lay with her: a breach in the wall invites the thief; if she had remained at home (as becomes a chaste Jewish girl) this would not have happened to her (Sifrei Devarim 242:2-3).

The subject of the betrothed maiden concerns a case of witnesses seeing from afar a man taking hold of a maiden and lying with her in the city, whereupon the witnesses shouted and warned them [of the sin thereof and its death-penalty]. In the opinion of our Rabbis, both of them are liable to stoning, for the woman also is under presumption of voluntary adultery since she did not cry out at all, for, it is normal for any woman who is raped in the city to scream for help and to be saved. If, however, the witnesses saw in the field that the man grabbed her and lay with her, she is under presumption of having been raped and is therefore free of punishment. The meaning of the phrase [For he found her in the field;] she cried is thus “that she probably screamed” [for even though the witnesses did not hear her cry it is presumed that she cried for help; or it may mean even if she had cried — there was none to save her,” for even if they heard that she did not cry she is free of punishment since there was none to save her. In general, if there are people to save her [and she did not cry] whether it be in the city or the field she is guilty; where there is none to save her whether it be in the city or the field she is free. Scripture speaks of the common case [i.e., that in the city there are people to save her, and in the field there are none — but the law as explained is the same in all cases]. Scripture states, and the man, because he afflicted the wife of his fellow. Now the term “affliction” applies only to forcible cohabitation, and yet the same verse already declared her guilty as if she committed adultery voluntarily! But the purport thereof is as follows: When we see a man take hold of a woman and lie with her we adjudge the woman to be consenting because she could have been saved from him, and we consider the man as if he is afflicting her for he did not entice her nor appeal to her to submit to him. Now, I know not the precise meaning of this law of “crying out.” If we see a maiden being overpowered by a man and she fights him with all her strength, weeps and takes hold of his clothes or his hair to save herself from him, and she did not realize [enough] to cry out, why should she be stoned? Rather, the “crying out” of which Scripture speaks is also the common case to deduce that ordinarily [if she did not cry for help] in the city it was a seduction [for had she cried out, people would have come to her rescue] and in the field [we presume] she was forced.

"If there be" — when this circumstance occurs.

you shall bring both of them out to the gate of that city and stone them with stones and they shall die — the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he afflicted his fellow's wife; and you shall put away the evil-doer from your midst.

"Gate" — the place where the elders of the city sit. The verse calls the betrothed woman "the wife of his neighbor," and we cannot know the [legal force of] betrothal except through the words of tradition.

אשר ענה את אשת רעהו, he violated her and made her unfit to continue being the wife of her betrothed. We find a similar expression in Michah 2,9 נשי עמי תגרשון מבית תענוגיה, “you drive the women of My people away from their pleasure homes.” [compare Nachmanides who explains that the woman is not considered as an unwilling helpless victim in the scenario described by the Torah here. Hence the comparison with the chapter in Michah by our author is not so baffling. Ed.]

וסקלתם אותם באבנים, “you shall stone them (to death) with stones. The Torah decrees a harsher mode of death for the woman who committed an adulteress act while betrothed, seeing that still having been a virgin, and not having tasted the physical gratification of sexual intercourse, she nonetheless shamed her family; this is a sin which reflects on her father and her family in whose house she lost her innocence and therefore reflects on there having been something wrong in her upbringing. Once she has been married and lived in her husband’s home, the family can blame her aberration as connected to her having left her father’s home. The adulterer is also stoned because he prevented the fiancé of this woman from being the first one to have sexual intercourse with her. על דבר אשר לא צעקה בעיר, “because she did not loudly protest being violated,” even though in a city where help would have been at hand. Her silence is proof that she did not really object to being violated by the rapist. She had no reason to fear being killed as the rapist would surely have been found and brought to justice.

על דבר אשר ענה, “on account of his having violated (raped) the wife of his fellow.” We would have expected the Torah to write: “on account of his having slept with his fellow’s wife.” If he had to use force to make her submit, she is a victim of violence and innocent. How then could the Torah punish her with death by stoning? The reason the Torah describes the man as having violated her, forced her, is that the Torah considers the male as if he had raped her, whereas she is considered as if she had been quite willing to engage in this encounter. Seeing the incident occurred in town where her cries for help would likely have resulted in her being rescued she is guilty of death for failing to cry out. The man, on the other hand, is treated as if he had violated her against her will instead of having merely seduced her first, and we apply the death penalty to him. If the Torah mentions “city” and “field” as the locations where these illicit sexual unions take place, this is not to be understood literally, i.e. that only adultery by consent in the city makes the woman guilty of the death penalty, whereas she is free from guilt only if she had been raped in the field. The words “field” and “city” are illustrations of a likely scenario. If a woman was raped in the city she is most certainly not convicted, whereas if she chose to commit adultery in the field she is most certainly a candidate for the death penalty. In the final analysis both parties’ fate depends on the testimony of the witnesses.

על דבר שלא צעקה בעיר, “because she did not even cry out in the city;” Nachmanides writes that the example quoted here by the Torah is the scenario that usually occurs. Normally, when the girl about to be raped cries out, there will be someone in the city that responds to her outcry. Failure to cry out may therefore be interpreted as consent by her. Similarly, seeing that there is only a remote chance that one’s outcry is heard in the field, her failure to cry for help does not incriminate her. If it can be proven that there were people passing by in the field while all this was taking place, she is considered as having consented because she had not tried to attract attention. If the woman did not know how to attract attention by crying out, but she is found weeping bitterly, this is also considered a behaviour that exonerates her from being labeled a harlot. Alternately, any attempt on her part to escape her attacker by struggling with him in silence also is interpreted as conduct that exonerates her. על דבר אשר ענה את אשת רעהו, “for his having raped the wife of his fellow;” Nachmanides writes that although, generally, the expression עינוי, affliction, is used only when actual rape takes place, as in Genesis 34,2 with Dinah daughter of Yaakov, whereas here the woman in question was a willing partner in the act, why else would the Torah declare her guilty? However the situation described here is one where the man in question has been seen taking hold of her, and was lying down with her and she made no attempt to be rescued or to rescue herself; she is guilty while the man, at the same time, is considered as having raped her, since he initiated the crime without her consent being expressed, and he had made no attempt to seduce her, i.e. to secure her freely given consent.

But if in the field the man finds the betrothed young woman and the man overpowers her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall be put to death.

ואם בשדה וגו, if this rape had taken place on an field, far from civilization and help; you might argue that there is not much difference between rape in this paragraph and that in the previous paragraph, as the fact that the Torah decrees the death penalty for her attacker makes it is clear that witnesses must have been at hand, otherwise how could her attacker have been brought to justice? We have to answer that there is a basic difference between a rape that takes place in an open field, of a woman who walked there without a chaperone, and rape in a city where a woman feels safe in walking the streets alone, unaccompanied. If the victim did not raise her voice in the city when attacked, where the chances are great that her cries will be heard, we must interpret this as tacit consent on her part, hence the more severe type of the death penalty. If that woman was attacked while walking alone in the field, and she had raised her voice and by chance her rape had been observed by witnesses who had heard her cries, and the attacker had been caught then he is brought to justice; he would be brought to justice even if she had not cried out, as we give her credit for having been afraid that if she cried out her attacker would also kill her. She is therefore not considered as having consented to her violation. The Torah does not justify her tacit compliance, but even if she told the witnesses not to interfere, she is not executed, as her compliance is presumed to have been influenced by fear for her life. The Torah even excuses her behaviour if when the witnesses arrived the rape was in full progress and her libido had been aroused by her attacker. Whenever there exists doubt about the victim of a rape having consented tacitly, no court will punish her. [Public opinion might. Ed.]

And to the young woman you shall do nothing — the young woman bears no liability of capital judgment, for just as a man rises against his fellow and kills him, so is this matter.

כי כאשר יקום וגו׳ FOR AS WHEN A MAN RISETH [AGAINST HIS FELLOW MAN, AND SLAYETH HIM, EVEN SO IS THIS THING] — According to its plain sense the following is what it implies: there is in the damsel no sin deserving death, because she was coerced and he, (the man) attacked her with violence, just as when a man attacks his fellowman to kill him. — Our Rabbis, however, gave it (the verse) a Halachic interpretation as follows: Behold, this simile is intended to elucidate the law in question but at the same time turns out to be itself elucidated by that law (lit., this comes as a teacher and is found to be a learner) (Sanhedrin 73a).

"For" — it is possible that she did not consent, and did not know [what was happening] until he came and violated her; hence the analogy of the murderer.

אין לנערה חטא מות, even though in the end she stopped resisting, i.e. she became a willing partner; seeing that initially she had been forced she is exonerated by judicial prosecution. Our sages go so far as to state “even if she said that had she not been forced she would have hired the man in question to sleep with her,” (Ketuvot 51) [the rapist kindled her libido so that she lost control over her emotions. Ed.] 'כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו וגו, this situation is not comparable to someone having sexual intercourse with a beast when the Torah condemns the “innocent” beast to share the death penalty with the human being. (Leviticus 20,15). The difference is that the animal in question did not offer any resistance at all, whereas the woman in question in our verse initially did offer resistance. What happened to her is comparable to a murdered person who had been forced to commit a sin and who was murdered for having refused to do so.

כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו, “for like a man who rises up against his fellow,” in Sanhedrin 74 our sages explained to us why the Torah describes the situation of the נערה המאורסה, the betrothed girl who became the victim of a rapist in the field, in such a cumbersome fashion, using such a parable comparing the situation to murder. We would have assumed that all the Torah had to say is that she cried out to no avail According to the Talmud, the Torah wanted to teach us that the two crimes, murder and rape, have features in common which enable us to apply the law applicable in one situation to the other situation in a reciprocal manner, i.e. the language of our sages: הרי זה בא ללמד ונמצא למד. The law of the murderer contains elements which are applicable to the law pertaining to rape, whereas the law of rape contains elements which we can apply to the law about murder. Just as one must prefer to suffer death rather than commit the sin of murder based on the dictum of Rava: ‘who said that your blood is redder than that of the person you are asked to kill in order to stay alive,” so if someone threatens you with death unless you rape a woman you must rather suffer death than commit that crime. This law applies even if the woman to be raped is not married. Our sages in Sanhedrin 75 tell of an incident when some man became love-sick over unrequited love. When his family turned to the doctors to ask how he could be cured, the doctor said that until he would have his craving indulged, i.e. sleep with the woman in question, he could not be cured. The Rabbis ruled it would be better that he die than that the woman submit to his sexual advances. In reply to the question whether at least he could have his libido assuaged by seeing the woman in question in the nude, the Rabbis were adamant, refusing that the woman in question expose herself to that man. In answer to the further question whether the woman could talk to that man from behind a fence, the rabbis did not even permit this either. (There is a dispute in the Talmud whether the lady in question was married or not.) Nonetheless, the reason given by the scholars who refused the girl in question to even speak to the infatuated man from behind a fence gave as their reason that it is not permissible to expose the girl’s family to shame on account of someone who cannot control his libido. Even speaking to the individual from behind a fence is considered as equivalent to closeting herself with him. Seeing that the Torah adds the comment that there was no one to act as the rapist’s victim’s savior, it appears that had there been such a person nearby he would have been obligated to save the girl from being raped even if the savior would have had to kill the rapist to be. The same holds true, of course, in the case of saving a potential murder victim from his assailant by killing him. When one observes a situation which will result in murder unless one stops the murderer by any means available one must use all such means including killing the potential murderer. This is also the reason why when a woman who is in labor and is likely to die unless the baby about to be born is killed, must be saved at the expense of the life of the infant about to be born. The general rule is that it is permissible or obligatory to kill a רודף, someone clearly intending to kill an innocent person. The latter rule obtains only until the baby’s head and the greater part of its body has left the mother’s womb. Once this has happened halachah treats both mother and baby as separate lives and it is forbidden to save one at the expense of the other. We have confirmation of these rulings in Oholot 6,6 where the Mishnah teaches that in order to save the life of a mother in distress due to difficulty in giving birth one may remove organs of the fetus piece by piece from the womb seeing her life takes precedence over that of an unborn child. However, if the greater part of the baby had already emerged, one may not decide which life to save and has to leave this to natural forces. The question is asked in the Talmud there: “why can we not save the life of the mother in the aforementioned situation seeing that we have a rule that if a minor is a potential murderer, in the act of perpetrating murder, that he may be stopped at the cost of his life? Why is this infant different from that situation? The answer given is that the infant in the process of being born is not viewed as someone bent on murder as it is his natural function to emerge from the womb for the sake of its own life. He is as if programmed by heaven to be in a life-threatening position vis-a-vis his mother. The reason that the Torah in our verse describes the victim of the rape as צעקה, having cried out for help, (when in fact this is merely a presumption) is that she is viewed by the Torah as if she had cried out, i.e. the Torah gives her the benefit of the doubt (Ibn Ezra). Alternatively, the meaning of the words is ”if she had cried out there would have been no one to help her.” In other words, she is not charged as even if there is evidence that she had not called out this was due to the knowledge that it would have been useless.

For it was in the field that he found her; the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to rescue her.

"She cried out" — it is possible that she did cry out.

צעקת הנערה, we give her the benefit of the doubt, assuming she had cried for help.

If a man finds a young virgin woman who is not betrothed and seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered,

"Who is not betrothed" — this is a case of a violated woman, not a seduced one.

כי ימצא איש נער בתולה, “if a man finds a young girl who is a virgin, etc.;” this paragraph is added at this point as other laws concerning virgins preceded it.

then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty selas of silver, and she shall be his wife in return for his having afflicted her; he has no right to send her away all his days.

לא יוכל שלחה, “he is not permitted to divorce her;” (lit. he must continue to drink out of the vessel he has chosen) he cannot terminate this marriage even if she was blind or lame. (Talmud tractate Ketuvot folio 39)