Deuteronomy · Chapter 23

A man shall not take his father's wife, and shall not uncover his father's skirt.

לא יקח — This does not mean “he shall not take” but “he cannot take” his father’s wife: there can be no question of a legal marriage for him in regard to her, because the marriage ceremony (קדושין) has no legal hold on her (cannot make her his wife: it is no marriage) (Kiddushin 67b; cf. Rashi on Kiddushin 67b s. v. לא יקח) ולא יגלה כנף אביו AND HE SHALL NOT UNCOVER HIS FATHER’S SKIRT — This refers to the שומרת יבם of his father (the widow of his father’s brother who died without issue, and who is waiting (שומרת) for her brother-in-law (יבם) either to marry her or to put her through the ceremony of release, חליצה), who is thus destined for his father. But has he not already been prohibited about her (i.e. forbidden to marry her) on account of the law (Leviticus 18:14) “the nakedness of thy father’s brother [thou shalt not uncover]”?! But the prohibition is repeated here in order to make him transgress two negative commands if he takes her (Yevamot 4a), and in order to put into juxtaposition to it the law (v. 2) “one born of incest or adultery (ממזר) shall not come [into the assembly of the Lord]”, and thereby to teach that one is termed ממזר only if he is born from those liable to the penalty of excision on account of the intercourse between them, as is the case with one who take’s his father’s שומרת יבם, who is forbidden to him under the penalty of כרת as אשת אחי אביו; cf. Leviticus 18:14 and Leviticus 18:29 (but not if he was born of a woman intercourse with whom involves only flagellation), and it logically follows that the term applies also to one born from those liable to one of the death penalties by sentence of the court, for amongst the cases of forbidden intercourse there is none punishable with death by the sentence of the court which does not involve the penalty of excision (if it was not preceded by a warning) (Yevamot 49a; cf. also Rashi on Kiddushin 67b s. v. מהנ״מ).

"A man shall not take his father's wife" — she who was violated [by him]. It is for this reason that this section is juxtaposed [to the preceding passage].

לא יקח איש את אשת אביו, “a man must not marry a woman who had been the wife of his father;” (even if she had only been raped by his father, and not legally married) This law does not come under the heading of a woman legally married to his father, as the offspring of such a marriage, i.e. the man the Torah speaks about here, would then be a bastard who cannot marry any Jewish woman. If he had done so he would be guilty of the karet penalty, and would forfeit his share in the afterlife. Here we speak of a woman who had been raped by his father, and this is why this verse follows the last verse of the last chapter which dealt with rape, when the penalty had been a financial one payable to the girl’s father. According to the opinion of rabbi Akiva, the karet penalty is sometimes also applicable to violation of commandments where this had not been spelled out. According to the other sages, our paragraph would have to speak of someone sleeping with his aunt while that aunt was awaiting completion of the process of completing the levirate marriage. ולא יגלה כנף אביו, “and neither is he to uncover his father’s robe.” According to the Talmud, tractate Yevamot, folio 49, what is meant here by the word כנף, is a robe which his father was in the habit of revealing, i.e. a woman with whom his father had indulged in extra marital relations. We find this word in a similar context in Ruth 3,9, where Ruth requests that Boaz, as her late husband’s redeemer become her partner in a levirate marriage.

לא יקח איש את אשת אביו, A man must not marry the wife of his father.” The reference is to a woman whom his father had once raped. This explains why this verse is appended to the subject of rape just discussed. ולא יגלה כנף אביו, ”and he shall not uncover the robe of his father.” The reference is to a woman who is slated to become his father’s wife as she was widowed from a brother of his father who had no children.

לא יקח איש את אשת אביו, this law has been repeated here to inform us that anyone born from such a union falls under the category of mamzer, “bastard.”

One who is severed or mutilated shall not be deemed fit to enter the congregation of Hashem.

פצוע דכא means, one whose stones have been bruised (פצוע) or crushed (דכא) (Sifrei Devarim 247:1). וכרות שפכה means, one whose membrum has a cut in it, so that it no longer forcibly ejects a continuous flow of sperm but it pours it forth slowly, and he thus cannot beget children (Sifrei Devarim 247:2; Yevamot 75b).

"Crushed in the stone" — [referring to] the testicles, without the [penile] organ. [One variant reading: lacking.] The grammarians say that the meaning of דַּכָּה is "their flesh that is crushed," but this is far-fetched. "Spout" (שָׁפְכָה) — this is the organ through which his waters and seed flow. "In the assembly of Hashem" — the meaning is that he shall not be counted as one of the assembly of Hashem so as to take a daughter of Israel. Likewise, [the exclusion applies to] an Ammonite but not an Ammonitess, a Moabite but not a Moabitess — and the trustworthy proof is Ruth. And the verse that says, "You shall not come among them" [refers] to the women of the seven nations. So too the verse in Ezra, "And all the mixed multitude separated themselves" — and I explained it there [in its context].

לא יבא פצוע דכה בקהל ה, someone with crushed private parts must not marry a Jewish woman. Seeing that such a person cannot sire children there is no point in his marrying a Jewish girl who will thus be prevented from becoming a mother. וכרות שפכה, “or maimed genitals;” this refers to a problem involving transmitting semen to the tip of the penis.

פצוע דכה, “someone whose testicles have been crushed;” even if only one of his testicles has been crushed. (Yevamot 75). וכרות שפכה, “or whose male organ has been severed.” The reason the Torah employs the word שפכה, “poured out,” is that this organ serves to discharge either urine or semen. בקהל ה', “into the congregation of Hashem.” This does not refer to his religion but to the fact that such a person must not consider himself entitled to marry a natural born Jewish woman (Ibn Ezra). The reason is that his physical condition prevents him from fulfilling the primary function of marriage, that of begetting children. In the words of Isaiah 45,18: “G’d did not create earth in order for it to remain void; rather He created it in order to be populated.” Seeing the type of injuries mentioned here preclude the husband from fulfilling this commandment the marriage would be deemed futile from the start. Seeing that the Torah writes that such people must not come בקהל ה', “into the congregation of the Lord,” it would appear that they may marry a woman who does not fulfill that criterion, i.e. a convert or a freed slave (Yevamot 70). Had the Torah wanted to forbid marriage outright for these people whose virility is impaired it would have written: “he must not marry a woman.” Had the Torah used such terminology I would have concluded that any sexual intercourse which is not potentially capable of resulting in the woman becoming pregnant is forbidden. Now that the Torah prohibited only בקהל ה', it is clear that sexual intercourse is permitted even if its purpose is not to perpetuate the species.

פצוע דכא, an example of people who are unable to produce offspring, just like castrated people.

A mamzer shall not be deemed fit to enter the congregation of Hashem; even to the tenth generation he shall not be deemed fit to enter the congregation of Hashem.

לא יבא ממזר בקהל ה׳ ONE BORN IN INCEST OR ADULTERY SHALL NOT COME INTO THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LORD — i.e. he shall not marry an Israelite woman (Yevamot 78b).

MAMZEIR’ (BASTARD). The term signifies a man who is muzar (estranged) from his brothers and his friends, for it is not known whence he comes. This is similar to the verse, And a ‘mamzeir’ shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines, the verse stating that no one will dwell in Ashdod save a foreigner or a stranger who will chance to pass by, for the pride of the Philistines will have been cut off from it [Ashdod]. Now, if a child is born to a man from his father’s wife, he [the father] will put him far away and not acknowledge him because of his shame and disgrace [resulting] from the evil deed that he committed. His mother also will cast him away by night, like the asufi (any cast-off child whose father and mother are unknown) that is mentioned in the Talmud. Thus the mamzeir is “estranged” in his native city, and so also the offspring of any of the forbidden relations as our Rabbis have said in Yerushalmi Kiddushin: “Rabbi Abahu said: What is the meaning of mamzeir? Mum zar (a strange blemish”).

"Mamzer" — the Sages of blessed memory [say it means] one born of illicit unions. The second mem is an additional prefix, like the mem in "they are demolished from their storehouses" (Zeph. 3:6). Others say it is the name of a people — "and a mamzer shall dwell in Ashdod" (Zech. 9:6) — for it is far-fetched that the name of Israel should be applied even more so at the time of salvation as a term of disgrace. The translator [Targum Onkelos] took the shorter exegetical path and gave a midrashic rendering.

לא יבא ממזר בקהל ה, “a bastard must not marry a Jewish woman;” seeing that he is a product of a union punishable by extinction of its seed, what point is there in such a male impregnating a Jewish woman with his seed? The definition of a mamzer from the root זר, alien, is someone whose mother was out of bounds to the male who had impregnated her.

לא יבא ממזר בקהל ה', “A bastard must not enter the congregation of the Lord.” He is not allowed to marry a natural born Jewess but is permitted to marry a convert (Maimonides Hilchot Issurey Biah 15,7), seeing the Torah only forbade entry into קהל ה', and a congregation of converts is not considered קהל ה'. A “bastard” is someone born of the type of illegal union which is punishable by the penalty of karet according to Torah law, or people who sired children after having been legally sentenced to death by a Jewish court (the exception is the child born from a union while the mother was menstruous). The term ממזר is a contraction of the words מום זר, “a blemish making him an outsider” (compare Jerusalem Talmud Kidushin 3,12).

ממזר, “bastard,” according to Nachmanides the term is derived from מוזר, something or somebody strange, not fitting into an accepted mould and therefore excluded, rejected. When a man fathers the child of his father’s wife, he is so ashamed that he will not acknowledge the child, will shun it, ostracise it; he will try to minimize his own shame by not being associated with the product of his unbridled lust. Similarly, the mother of such a child will try and rid herself of it in the dark of the night. The child will wind up being a “foundling.”

Ammonites and Moabites shall not be deemed fit to enter the congregation of Hashem; even to the tenth generation they shall not be deemed fit to enter the congregation of Hashem, forever.

לא יבא עמוני AN AMONITE [OR MOABITE] SHALL NOT COME [INTO THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LORD] — i.e. he shall not marry an Israelite woman (Yevamot 77b).

לא יבא עמוני ומואבי בקהל השם, "Neither an Ammonite nor a Moabite may become members of the Jewish people, etc." The reason which the Torah gives for denying the male members of these tribes the right to convert to Judaism, i.e. that they did not come forward with bread and water to assist the Israelites when the latter came out of Egypt is hard to understand. Does not the Torah itself testify in Deut. 2,29: "as did the members of the tribe of Esau and the Moabites?" The reference is to both of these nations having sold provisions to the Israelites at the time. Rashi explains the apparent contradiction as 1) the verse in 2,29 referring to the Israelites' offer to buy food in return for money (2,28). 2) What is written here refers to the fact that they hired Bileam to curse the Jewish people and to lead it into sin at the end of the 40 years trek through the desert whereas what is written earlier refers to what transpired in the first year of the Israelites' wanderings. Perhaps the word על דבר is meant to alert us that what they did with Bileam would have sufficed to exclude them forever as members of the Jewish people. The word קדמו means they should have come forward on their own account offering bread and water as gifts. This would have been only small recompense for all which our forefather Abraham had done for them. Instead of repaying good with good they had repaid good with evil. The plain meaning of the words לא קדמו אתכם is that they did nothing for your benefit. These verses may also be understood in light of what we have learned in Yevamot 76 where the Talmud searches for a reason why female members of the Moabite and Ammonite people are allowed to convert to Judaism. Rabbi Yochanan is quoted as saying that the daughter of a male Ammonite who converted may marry a priest. The Mishnah there already stated that the prohibition for Moabites and Ammonites to convert applies only to the males as the Torah speaks of עמוני and not of עמונית. It is not the way of the women to go out. Women are supposed to be in their homes. This is why they were not guilty of not coming forward with bread and water. This interpretation is based on the interpretation by Avner, Saul's general. In fact Amasa was very adamant about this halachah threatening to stab to death anyone who refused to accept it. [there was an attempt to use these verses to declare David as a bastard on the basis of his being descended from Ruth the Moabite. Ed.] According to the Talmud (at least one opinion) the tradition to permit a female member of these tribes to convert was approved at the time of the prophet Samuel already; otherwise how could Samuel have crowned David king if his great-grandmother Ruth had not even been Jewish? The argument between the teachers of the Mishnah Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon did not concern the validity of Ruth's conversion, but on which scriptural verse such a validity was based i.e. on the word עמוני being restrictive and excluding the females, o...

לא יבא עמוני ומואבי בקהל ה, “male members of the Ammonite or Moabite peoples must not marry Jewish women. This rule follows the rule about bastard because marriage with both is forbidden forever.

Because they did not meet you with bread and water on the road when you went out of Egypt, and because he hired against you Balaam son of Beor from Pethor of Aram that is on the Euphrates, to curse you.

על דבר may be translated BECAUSE OF THE WORD — i.e. because of the advice which they gave you in order to entice you into sin (Sifrei Devarim 250:1). בדרך IN THE WAY — when you were in a state of exhaustion (Sifrei Devarim 250:2).

BECAUSE THEY MET YOU NOT WITH BREAD AND WITH WATER. We find it stated [in Moses’ message to Sihon], Thou shalt sell me food for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink etc. as the children of Esau that dwell in Seir, and the Moabites that dwell in Ar did unto me. [This clearly states that the Moabites did not deprive them of bread and water, and in the verse before us it is mentioned that the Moabites did not meet them with bread and water!] Now, many scholars say that the Moabites did not meet them with bread and water, but that the Israelites bought it from them. But this is baseless, for it is adequate for a camp that they be sold [food] when they want to buy. Moreover, Israel came not within the border of Moab, and the Moabites brought them forth bread and water for money, and Scripture tells that the Moabites acted as did the children of Esau — why, then, were the Moabites forever banned [from the congregation of Israel] on account of this [for not having met them with bread and water], and of the Edomites it declared that we are not to abhor them? And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra stated that “the expression as the children of Esau … and the Moabites did unto me refers to the verse, Let me pass through thy land; I will go along by the highway, but neither [the Edomites nor the Moabites] sold them bread and water. For the Israelites passed through Mount Seir [in Edom] and Ar [in Moab]; it was only to pass through his city where he dwelled that the king of Edom did not permit them — this being the sense of the expression, Thou shalt not pass ‘through me’ [but he did allow them entry through other parts of Edom].” This interpretation [of Ibn Ezra] is also baseless, for the Israelites said to the king of Edom, “Let me pass through thy land,” and Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border. Thus they did not enter the border of Edom at all! And so it is written, And they journeyed from Mount Hor by the way to the Red Sea, to compass the land of Edom because they had to retreat by way of the Red Sea from Mount Hor which is on the border of the land of Edom, but they did not come into the land of Edom itself at all. Jephthah said it clearly: But when they came up from Egypt, and Israel walked through the wilderness unto the Red Sea, and came to Kadesh; then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying: Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land; but the king of Edom hearkened not. And in like manner he sent unto the king of Moab; but he would not; and Israel abode in Kadesh. Then he walked through the wilderness, and compassed the land of Edom, and the land of Moab, and came by the east side of the land of Moab, and they pitched on the other side of Arnon, but they came not within the border of Moab. Thus it is clearly explained that they did not come into the land of Edom or the land of Moab at all. Had they come there, the Edomites and Moabites would have sold them bread and water, for it is not custom...

אשר לא קדמו, neither of these two nations met the Israelites, but the Moabites at least gave them bread and water in return for money, as we read in Deut. 2, 28-29 כאשר עשו לי בני עשו היושבים בשעיר והמואבים היושבים בער, “as the Children of Esau who dwell in Seir did for me, as well as the Moabites who dwell in Or.” The Ammonites did not even sell us bread and water. However, the Moabites added to their sin of hostility by hiring the prophet Bileam to curse us. Therefore, לא תדרוש שלומם, for while neither of them have shown basic human civilities, the Moabites have even displayed open hostility.

על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם, “the reason why male members of the last named two nations may not marry Jewish women is that their forbears did not offer the Israelites who were coming out of Egypt either water to slake their thirst nor bread to still their hunger. If they had offered to sell their water or bread, there still would not have been any reason to be grateful to them for this, as they would have done so out of greed.

על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים, “because of the fact that they did not meet you with bread and water.” It is elementary courtesy to welcome people who are journeying with offers of food and drink. It is irrelevant that the Israelites did not lack any of their basic needs while they were in the desert. After all, the manna descended for them daily, and Miriam’s well traveled with them wherever they moved. Nachmanides writes as follows: the Torah made sure that there is a clear separation between these two brothers (Ammon and Moav) on the one side and the Jewish people on the other, seeing these brothers who owed their very existence to the acts of charity and kindness performed for their father and mothers by Avraham, founder of the Jewish people who had battled the mightiest kings of his time merely to get Lot released from captivity (Genesis 19,29). How did they repay that favor? One of them hired the prophet Bileam to curse the Jewish nation and the other failed to offer the basic necessities of life to the people who were their cousins travelling through the desert. Of the two, Ammon had sinned more greatly against the Jewish people seeing that the Moabites as well as the Edomites (who knew that G’d had forbidden the Jewish people to harass them) offered food against payment (Deut 2,29). Ammon did not; this is the meaning of “for they did not meet you with bread and water.” The Torah therefore mentions Ammon first (although historically he was junior to Moav). The Torah also lists Ammon’s sin first and only afterwards reminds us that Moav had hired Bileam to curse us . Our sages in Yevamot 76 conclude that this exclusion from becoming members of the Jewish people is applicable only to the males of that nation, i.e. מואבי ולא מואבית. The reason is that it is the custom for men to extend greetings with bread and water, whereas it is the custom of the women to be busy in their homes. This accounts for the fact that Ruth, the Moabite, was allowed to convert. As a result, eventually, David was born.

Regarding the matter that they did not greet you with bread and water. Rashi explains that this refers to the advice they gave to cause you to sin, but this is not explicitly stated in the scripture, and the main point seems to be missing from the text. Furthermore, it is not reasonable to distance two nations just because they did not greet them with bread. Rather, certainly the main reason is because they caused them to sin, and this matter is explained in the scripture that they did not greet them with bread and water so that they would be hungry and thirsty from the journey’s fatigue, and through this, they would necessarily eat from their idolatrous sacrifices and drink from their wine flasks which lead to licentiousness, as concluded in Sanhedrin (106a) that anyone who is tired and weary does not distinguish between what is forbidden and what is permitted, and eats and drinks whatever is given to him. The Holy One, blessed be He, knew their intention in this manner, and therefore they were distanced. Therefore, it is said regarding the matter that they did not greet you, meaning, regarding that hidden matter which they intended by not greeting them. And although females were the primary agents in the acts of immorality, nevertheless the main guilt lies with the men, whose way it is to take the initiative, and it was the men who began the corruption and they forced their daughters into prostitution. For this reason, the Israelites spared the females in the war against Midian, because they erred due to this law that only the males were to be distanced. This is a more precious interpretation than what all the commentators have said about this, and it resolves all the questions that they asked.

על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם, “on account of their not having greeted you, etc.;” the last few words refer to the nation Ammon. ואשר שכר עליך וגו., “and because it hired against you, etc.” a reference to the people of Moav who hired Bileam to curse the Israelites. On the other hand, the Moabites, as distinct from their cousins the Ammonites, did offer food and drink to the Israelites as we know from Moses’ own testimony in Deut. 2,28 אכל בכסף תשבירני כאשר עשו בני עשו ..והמואבים, “sell me food against payment in cash, as the Edomites and the Moabites have done for me.” I have explained this whole scenario on Deut.

But Hashem your God was not willing to accept from Balaam, and Hashem your God turned the curses into blessings for you, because Hashem your God loves you.

"And He turned" — for it was in Balaam's heart to curse, but Hashem did not permit him to do so.

ולא אבה ה׳ אלוקיך לשמוע אל בלעם, "but the Lord your G'd refused to listen to Bileam, etc." Although G'd could have found a reason for allowing Bileam to curse the Israelites seeing they were guilty of sins, He decided not to allow him to do so and to extend His goodwill to the Israelites even though they could not claim it by right. The Torah adds כי אהבך, "because G'd loves you," i.e. not because of your merit. Please read what I wrote on the meaning of לא אבה on Deut. 2,30.

“And the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you.” This language requires explanation, for how can it be said that the curse itself will be a blessing? Even though blessings came in place of the curses, related to the matters with which he wanted to curse them, still the curse itself is not a blessing. There is also difficulty with what our Sages of blessed memory said (Sanhedrin 105b): “From the blessings of that wicked one [Balaam], you learn what was in his heart to curse them, etc.” And they conclude that all of them [his blessings] reverted to curses except for [the blessing regarding] synagogues, etc., as it is said, And the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you. It does not say “curses,” etc., implying that only one of them was turned into a blessing. And it is difficult to understand what distinguishes this blessing from others, and furthermore, what in the language of the verse implies that specifically synagogues returned to being a blessing. And the explanation for all this is, that Balaam was a sorcerer and he saw in the astrological signs of Israel that indicated all these things which he sought to curse them with: that they would not have synagogues, etc., their kingdom would not endure, etc. It is known that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not disrupt the natural order because of the merits of Israel except in places where there is no way to turn the natural order toward good. But in places where it is possible to fulfill the judgment of the natural order and interpret it in another way, then the Holy One, blessed be He, does not disrupt it. This is similar to a star whose name is “Evil” that was rising against Israel and indicated bloodshed, but the Holy One, blessed be He, turned it into the blood of circumcision. As our Sages said (Shabbat 156): “One who is born under the influence of Mars will be a shedder of blood, let him be a ritual slaughterer, etc.,” as explained above in Parashat Bo (10:10). And all the curses enumerated there in the Gemara — that the Divine Presence would not rest upon them, that their kingdom would not endure, that they would not have olive trees and vineyards, etc. — in all of these, there was no way to interpret them for good in order to fulfill the judgment of the natural order without Israel being harmed. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, had to completely disrupt the natural order from these indications. Consequently, they all reverted to curses when Israel sinned and did not have merit that could stand in its power against the natural order. But regarding the instruction that they shall not have synagogues and study halls, the Holy One, blessed be He, did not need to override the natural order, because there was room to fulfill the judgment of the natural order that they would not have synagogues, but it is for their benefit. This is as Rashi explained your dwellings [mishkenotekha], Israel — that they are mortgaged [memushkanim] for their sins, as it is said The Lord has spent His fury and kindled a fire in Zion (Lamentations 4:11). And this is certainly a great benefit that God expends His wrath on wood and stones, and we are saved. For one who has a pledge to give for his debt, they do not collect from him lives [i.e., he is not personally harmed]. And this is what is meant by The Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you — because the very wording of the curse itself, which is “they shall not have synagogues,” was turned into a blessing, for through not having synagogues, lives are saved. And this is what Balaam said: How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel. Meaning, it is for your benefit that they are your dwelling places — mortgaged on your behalf — and you are saved. Therefore, this matter did not revert to being a curse, for the judgment of the natural order was fulfilled and not overridden. Thus, it is not relevant to say that the instruction of the natural order will return to its original state when Israel is not meritorious.

You shall not seek their welfare or their good all your days, forever.

לא תדרש שלמם THOU SHALT NOT SEEK THEIR PEACE [NOR THEIR GOOD] — Since it states, (v. 17) “He (the runaway slave) shall abide with you, even among you, … [where it shall be good for him]” one might think that this (a Moabite or Ammonite runaway slave) should also be treated likewise, therefore Scripture states לא תדרש שלמם THOU SHALT NOT SEEK THEIR PEACE [NOR THEIR GOOD] (Sifrei Devarim 251:2).

THOU SHALT NOT SEEK THEIR PEACE. “Since it is written [with respect to a fugitive slave], He shall dwell with thee, in the midst of thee [where it liketh him best; thou shalt not wrong him], I might think that the rule also applies to this one [an Ammonite or Moabite fugitive slave]. Scripture, therefore, says, Thou shalt not seek their peace.” This is Rashi’s language. Now, this interpretation in the Sifre is deduced from the expression [here] nor their prosperity [Thou shalt not seek their peace ‘nor their prosperity,’ and not as it might appear from the heading in our text of Rashi that it is derived from the expression their peace, for thus is the language of the Sifre]: “Since it is stated there [with respect to the fugitive slave] ‘batov lo’ (where it liketh him best); thou shalt not wrong him — exclude these [the Ammonite and Moabite fugitive slaves] from this tovah (good).” But the expression Thou shalt not seek their peace is interpreted in the Sifre as follows: “Since it is stated, When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it, I might think that the same rule applies to Ammon and Moab. Scripture therefore says, Thou shalt not seek their peace. ” It is also so stated in Tanchuma. It appears to me that Scripture has forever forbidden war against Ammon and Moab, and the verse stating, neither contend with them was not only a temporary command, but a negative commandment for the generations. It is for this [reason] that He said, because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession. Thus their land belongs to them forever because it is the possession that G-d gave them. If so, the verse here stating, Thou shalt not seek their peace commands that if we wage war against them over a city which they captured from other peoples, that we are not to proclaim peace to them. Similarly, if they invaded our Land we are permitted to pursue them and capture cities from them, to smite the inhabitants of those cities who harmed us, as Jephtah did [of whom it is said], And he smote them from Aroer until thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities. David also did so to all the cities of the children of Ammon because they “breached the fence” first and warred against him. In that event we need not to proclaim peace to them and we may smite those fighting us in every city, the men, and the women, and the little ones if we wish. Thus the Rabbis have said in Midrash Rabbah: “And ye shall smite every fortified city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all fountains of water. They [i.e., Jehoshaphat king of Judah and Jehoram king of Israel] said to him [Elisha]. ‘Scripture states, Thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof, and you say thus [destroy them]!’ He [Elisha] said to them: ‘Scripture commanded this with respect to all peoples, but this one is minor and despised,’ as it is said, And this is but a light thing in the sight of the Eternal, and He will deliver the Moabites into your...

לא תדרוש שלומם וטובתם, “do not seek their peace nor their prosperity.” If you will be engaged in war with them it is a duty for you to destroy their cities and property including any fruitbearing trees inside their territory. We find this spelled out by the prophet Elisha in Kings II 3,19 when the Israelites were ordered to attack Moav after the latter had ceased paying taxes to the Kingdom of Israel. This treatment of the Moabites is in direct contrast to other expansionary wars when felling fruit bearing trees is strictly forbidden. Neither were the Israelites at the time allowed to offer peace to the Ammonites or to the Moabites if they decided that they had no other option. (Compare Deuteronomy 20,10 and 19)

לא תדרוש שלומם, “do not seek their peace, etc.” The choice of the word דורש in above verse, is understood by Sifri as based on Deut. 20,10 where prior to attacking a city the Israelite commander in chief makes peaceful overtures in order to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. On the face of it, I might have thought that what is written in our verse refers also to the nations of Ammon and Moav; the Torah therefore adds, that we must not actively promote those nations’ welfare though we are forbidden to provoke war with them or to harass them. What then is the message of our verse? If, per chance, Israel has occasion to go to war against a city that had been conquered by the Ammonites or Moabites, who themselves had no business to expand their borders, the presence of the Ammonites and Moabites does not need to deter us from invading such a town forthwith, without peaceful overtures beforehand. Not only that; if either of these nations conducts war against us by invading the land of Israel, we are at liberty not only to drive them out, but to pursue them and annihilate their armies on foreign soil. We may even conquer lands that they have occupied for long periods. Basically, this is what Yiftach did in Judges, chapter 11. It is permitted in such situations to kill also the women and children of the invading enemy even if it is Ammon or Moav. Looking at it from the plain meaning of the text when read without looking for deeper meanings, Moses stresses that although both the Moabites and the Ammonites, being descendants of Lot, Avraham’s nephew, are “family” in a manner of speaking, we are not to promote their welfare as they have forfeited any special claims upon us, not having acted as blood relations should. They have long ago severed the bond with Avraham’s heirs and have broken faith with Avraham who had been responsible for their survival more than once. In fact, Hashem had treated them with especial concern because they were related to Avraham, and the latter had even risked his life for Lot, rescuing him from the four mightiest kings on earth at that time. He did this in recognition that at one time, Lot, by joining Avraham in emigrating to a strange country, Canaan, had behaved properly and had even not revealed to Pharaoh that Sarah was in fact Avraham’s wife and not his sister. Nonetheless, they had long spent the reward that they had received for that. Similarly, there had been a time when the Egyptians had welcomed Yaakov and his family and had treated them very generously. Nonetheless, the merit they had acquired at that time, at no real cost to themselves seeing that Joseph had saved them from the famine, they had long ago frittered away when they turned on the Israelites with unmatched cruelty only because the Israelites had dared to have large families. This is why, if Egyptians wanted to convert to Judaism and join our nation, three generations had to pass before they could become fully equal members of the Jewish people. Similar restrictions apply to descendants from Esau/Edom. In spite of all our suffering at the hands of these people and their hatred for us, the Torah does not permit us to reject them and to treat them as an abomination. [After all, their descendants did not harm us, they were not even born at that time. Ed.]

You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not abhor an Egyptian, for you were a sojourner in his land.

לא תתעב אדמי THOU SHALT NOT ABHOR AN EDOMITE utterly, although it would be proper for you to abhor him because he came out against thee with the sword (Numbers 20:18—20). לא תתעב מצרי THOU SHALT NOT ABHOR AN EGYPTIAN all in all (utterly), although they cast your male children into the river. And what is the reason that you should not abhor him utterly? Because they were your hosts in time of need (during Joseph’s reign when the neighbouring countries suffered from famine); therefore although they sinned against you do not utterly abhor him, but —

לא תתעב אדומי ומצרי, “do not abhor an Edomite for he is your brother, nor an Egyptian for you were a stranger in his land” [in the days of Joseph when no other country was able to provide food and for many years thereafter until they became slaves. Ed.] This verse is written here as the members of these nations could not marry a Jew or Jewess until the third generation after their conversion.

לא תתעב אדומי, “Do not abhor the Edomite.” The Torah implies that though we would have reason to abhor this people seeing that they assumed a threatening posture against us (Numbers 20,18) nonetheless we are not to hold this against subsequent generations of Edomites. seeing there is a blood bond between our two nations, both being descendants of our patriarch Yitzchak. Neither must we detest the Egyptians although they drowned our boy babies; the fact remains that at a crucial point in our history Egypt offered a home to our people at a time when Yaakov’s family was in reduced circumstances (compare Rashi). Seeing that each of these nations had been guilty of grievous sins against the Jewish people only the third generation (after the Exodus) of these people are potential candidates for conversion to Judaism. By that time they may have become more refined. We are to detest Ammon and Moav, by contrast, seeing they seduced the Jewish people into sin, The Torah goes out of its way to prohibit us from seeking the welfare of these nations. These verses gave rise to our sage in Sifri 252 to rule that seducing someone into sin is a more grievous sin that killing him seeing that the murderer robs the victim only of life on this terrestrial sphere whereas the seducer robs him of his eternity.

לא תתעב אדומי, “do not abhor an Edomite.” Some commentators see in this command a warning that although the Edomites had acted towards the Israelites in an extremely hostile manner when the latter came out of Egypt and they denied them the right of passage, they had, however, let them buy food or drink from them, as distinct from Sichon who had not. This is why the Torah in Deuteronomy 2,29 refers to this. Moav, though their founding father Lot had been the recipient of acts of kindness by Avraham his uncle, had denied any assistance to the Jewish people at that time. (Judges 11,17). An alternate interpretation is that although Edom had not allowed the Israelites to pass through its territory, the fact that they were cousins, Israel having been a brother of their founding father Esau, was reason enough not to abhor them. לא תתעב מצרי, “do not detest the Egyptian.” Even though in the end they enslaved you, do not detest them as you were welcome and well treated residents in their country for many years.

Children who are born to them in the third generation shall be deemed fit to enter the congregation of Hashem.

בנים אשר יולדו להם דור שלישי וגומר THE CHILDREN THAT ARE BORN UNTO THEM [MAY COME INTO THE ASSEMBLY] IN THEIR THIRD GENERATION — other nations, however, since they did not sin against you may be admitted at once if they acknowledge the tenets of Judaim. — Thus you learn that he who causes a man to sin does him greater harm than if he kills him, for he who kills him, kills him only as regards this world, while he who causes him to sin puts him out of this world and the world to come. Therefore Edom, though he met them with the sword was not to be abhorred utterly, and similarly the Egyptians who drowned them (their male children), while those (the Ammonites and Moabites) who caused them to sin were to be utterly abhorred (Sifrei Devarim 252:3).

דור שלישי, “the third generation;” at that point the relationship to the original Egyptians, (also generally speaking) is no longer considered as meaningful in the character development of the great-grandson. We know this from Exodus 10,2 where the Torah commands us to familiarise our children and grandchildren with what happened to us in Egypt.[Does the Torah not expect the third generation to relate to matters so long in the past, long before they were born, seriously? If so why were we commanded throughout our history never to forget what Amalek did to our forefathers 100 generations ago? The prophet extends this by one more generation (Yoel 1,3). Ed.].

When you go out as a camp against your enemies, guard yourself from every evil thing.

כי תצא וגו׳ ונשמרת WHEN [THE HOST] GOETH FORTH [AGAINST THINE ENEMIES], THEN KEEP THEE [FROM EVERY EVIL THING] — because Satan accuses men in time of danger (Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 2:6; Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 1 on Genesis 42:4; cf. Rashi on that verse and our Note thereon).

WHEN THOU GOEST FORTH IN CAMP AGAINST THINE ENEMIES, THEN THOU SHALT KEEP THEE FROM EVERY EVIL — “because Satan indicts [people] in the hour of danger.” This is Rashi’s language. The correct interpretation regarding this commandment appears to me that Scripture is warning of a time when sin is rampant. The well-known custom of forces going to war is that they eat all abominable things, rob and plunder, and are not ashamed even of lewdness and all vileness. The fairest of man by nature comes to be possessed of cruelty and fury when the army advances against the enemy. Therefore, Scripture warned, then thou shalt keep thee from every evil. And by way of the simple meaning of Scripture this is an admonition against doing anything forbidden. And in the Sifre it is stated: “I might think that Scripture is speaking of the laws of defilements and purities and tithes. It therefore says ‘ervah’ [an unseemly thing, which refers to unchastity]. Whence do I know to include idolatry, lewdness, bloodshed, and blasphemy? Scripture therefore says, then thou shalt keep thee from every evil. Or perhaps the verse is speaking of defilements and purities, and tithes? It says ervah (an unseemly thing): just as ervah uniquely represents a deed for which the Canaanites were driven from the Land and which removes the Divine Presence [from Israel], so all deeds for which the Canaanites were driven from the Land and which remove the Divine Presence [from Israel] are included in the admonition of this verse. When Scripture states davar [thing, but literally ‘word’ — then thou shalt keep thee from every evil ‘davar’] it includes also ‘evil talk.’” This also is included in the purport of the verse we have explained, that besides the [specific] admonitions which are stated concerning these stringent sins, he added yet a [special] prohibition to an army that we guard against any of these sins so that the Divine Presence withdraw not from the Israelites who are there, just as he said, For the Eternal thy G-d walketh in the midst of thy camp Thus he who commits any of the great sins while in the army, those about which it is written, they have set their detestable things in the house whereon My Name is called to defile it, [he causes the Divine Presence to withdraw from Israel]. Moreover, [we are to avoid these sins] in order that the enemy should not overpower us because of our committing the very deeds that cause them to be driven from before us, this being the sense of the expression, and to give up thine enemies before thee. The Sages [in the Sifre] added evil talk [as derived from this admonition] in order that contention should not increase among them and smite them with a very great plague, [even] more than the enemy [will inflict upon them].

"When the camp goes out" — this is the camp that goes out against the enemy, where the Ark is present; it is a small camp, not the large camp, for there [the large camp] has fixed enclosures. When they go out to battle they are drawn close around the Ark. It is clear that one who is defiled by a nocturnal emission is destructive. This section was juxtaposed here on account of the war against Midian, since [the text] just mentioned the matter of Balaam — that they are enemies because of their sister — and the Ark was with the camp that went out against Midian. "From every evil thing" — both for the soul and for the body, such as a nocturnal emission.

כי תצא מחנה על איביך, "When a camp goes out against your enemies, etc." The Torah means that although there are nuances of transgressions which G'd does not go out His way to punish you for, and even if He does decide to punish you the punishment is very mild, the Torah informs us that at a time when there is general danger, such as when one goes out to war, one needs to be careful not to become guilty of violating even the smallest detail of G'd's commandments, i.e. מכל דבר רע, "from anything which is evil." The word דבר includes even causes which bring about evil. The Torah follows this up with the example of a soldier who became ritually unclean due to an involuntary nocturnal seminal emission. Our sages in Ketuvot 46 explain that sexual fantasies one has during the day often are the cause of such emissions during one's sleep. The reason the Torah wrote these two veרses next to one another is to warn us not to entertain such fantasies during the day so that we would not become defiled during the night.

כי תצא מחנה, “when you go forth in camp, etc.;” this verse was written here as the punitive against Midian was mentioned which had been conducted on account of Bileam’s having caused the Israelites to be seduced into sinning and 24000 had died on account of that. There was a reference to this evil prophet in verse 6 of our chapter.

ונשמרת מכל דבר רע, ”you shall guard against anything evil.” This is a warning not to insult the sanctity of the Holy Ark, (which while in the Sanctuary was automatically protected against such improper behaviour by the walls of the Sanctuary). When in the camp of the soldiers during war it was not surrounded by walls shielding its sanctity (Numbers 31,6). According to the plain meaning of the text, the words מכל דבר רע mean: “against anything which the Torah has prohibited.” When the Canaanites went to war all their normal restraints against unbridled behaviour were suspended during the period of the war. They would behave in a totally irresponsible manner, The Jewish people have to be reminded that even in war, their camp is a holy camp as opposed to the Canaanites. Our sages in Sifri 254 understand the words מכל דבר רע as directed at sexual licentiousness which is so often the mark of soldiers in war. Another meaning of דבר רע, is “using one’s tongue loosely, irresponsibly, לשון הרע, badmouthing others.” They derive the warning against sexual licentiousness from the words ולא יראה בך ערות דבר, the word דבר being an allusion to that verse 15. The connection with לשון הרע is based on the word רע in our verse. Instead of דבר רע, assume the spelling would have been dibbur ra, “wicked talk.” The reason this verse warns specifically against these two sins is that each one is an extremely serious sin and the Presence of G’d, the Shechinah is apt to withdraw from the camp on its account. Our sages in Avodah Zarah 20 also comment that the wording of that line suggests that one should not have sinful (lewd) thoughts by day which would result in one’s having nocturnal emissions of semen during one’s sleep. This is why the next verse discusses such an occurrence and the need to purify oneself as a result. Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair (the epitome of piety) derives from the sequence of our verses here that care not to violate a negative commandment will lead to a person becoming eager in striving to fulfill positive commandments. This is turn will lead to one becoming ritually pure of body. The next stage of one’s spiritual ascent will be פרישות, suppression of sinful thoughts. This in turn will lead to a state of purity of spirit followed by the attainment of a level of sanctity. Having attained that level one will graduate to יראת חטא, an abhorrence of sin, which in turn will lead to the virtue of humility. Once a person has acquired this virtue he will progress to the virtue of piety which in turn will enable him to acquire holy spirit. In the foregoing the venerable Rabbi listed ten virtues, five of which involving one’s body, the other five involving one’s spirit, one’s mind. All of them are leading up to the tenth attribute, i.e. holy spirit.

ונשמרת מכל דבר רע, “you shall be on guard against anything evil.” Rashi understands this line as a warning that Satan works “overtime” whenever the Israelites find themselves in danger, so that even minor misdemeanours will be exploited by him as the perennial prosecutor of the Jews at the throne of Hashem. Nachmanides writes that in his eyes the true explanation of this line at this particular juncture is that when at war due to the difficult conditions, one tends to become less stringent in one’s ritual observances. Moses therefore warns the people that at that time more than at any other, because one’s life is in danger and one depends on Hashem’s special protection, one must be careful not to become lax in one’s Torah observance. From the vantage point of the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, Moses warns someone who experienced a seminal emission to leave the boundaries of the camp (the subject discussed in the verses following), the reason being that seeing G’d is present in the camp, it is not befitting that someone who is ritually contaminated share that domain with the presence of G’d until he has purified himself. Consciousness of His presence in order to ensure our success in war, will also make the soldier concerned reflect that in the last analysis it is not his prowess as a soldier that ensures success but the help we receive from above. Similar considerations also made our sages decree that a synagogue, or even a private place where prayers are offered must be at least 4 cubits (2.5 meters) removed from a toilet or other place where garbage is dumped. The reason why the Torah decrees that excrement must be covered, although it is not ritually contaminating, is that if visible to the person offering up prayers to his Creator, it will distract from his concentration. Seeing that prayer, unless offered when the heart is “in gear,” is not only ineffective but almost insulting to Hashem, we must take steps to remove from our vision anything that will detract from our concentration.

If there is among you a man who is not clean because of a nocturnal occurrence, he shall go outside the camp; he shall not come within the camp.

מקרה לילה [IF THERE BE AMONG YOU ANY MAN THAT IS NOT CLEAN BY REASON OF] UNCLEANNESS THAT CHANCETH HIM BY NIGHT — By night: Scripture speaks of what usually occurs (but the law applies also if the uncleanness happens at day time) (Sifrei Devarim 255:3). ויצא אל מחוץ למחנה THEN HE SHALL GO ABROAD OUT OF THE CAMP — This is a command, לא יבא אל תוך המחנה HE SHALL NOT COME WITHIN THE CAMP — This is a prohibition (Sifrei Devarim 255:4). He is forbidden to enter the “camp of the Levites”, and all the more so, the "camp of the Shechinah". (cf. Sifrei Devarim 255:5; Pesachim 68a and Rashi on Numbers 5:2).

And by way of the simple meaning of Scripture the verse warns that a man to whom a [nocturnal] pollution occurred, should leave the camp completely for the reason mentioned, that G-d walks among us to help us and the camp is holy, and that our hearts are to be intent towards the Holy One, blessed be He, hoping for His help and that we put not our trust in a human arm. A similar reason is also for the command to cover excrement, for the entire camp is like the Sanctuary of G-d. From this law we deduce, concerning a place of prayer, that we must remove ourselves four cubits away from excrement [if it is behind us] or as far as the eye can see [if it is in front of us]. However, our Rabbis interpreted it: “Then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp — neither in the camp of the Levites, nor in the camp of the Divine Presence” when the ark of G-d was there with them. The covering of excrement also, in their opinion, is required when mentioning G-d’s Name in prayer or in the reading of the Sh’ma. If so, this too, is an admonition which he restated here with respect to an army in order that everything should not be as lawless as in the camps of the peoples. These commandments as well are then explanatory [of those mentioned before].Now, the reason for covering excrement is not because excrement is like something unclean that defiles its location and breaks through and rises [like the impurity of the dead]. Rather it is because it is forbidden to see it during time of prayer when the heart cleaves to the Glorious Name, because ugly things give rise to ugliness in the soul and they confound the intent of the pure heart, but when it is hidden from the seeing eye there is no harm.

"Nocturnal [emission]" — the mem is a servile prefix; its form is like "from his hereditary field" (מִשְּׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ).

מקרה לילה, “due to nocturnal emission of semen during the night;” the letter מ in the word מקרה here is a prefix not part of the word itself, just as it is in the word משדה in Leviticus 27,16: משדה אחוזתו, “part of his ancestral field.”

And it shall be, toward evening he shall bathe in water, and when the sun sets he may come within the camp.

והיה לפנות ערב BUT IT SHALL BE WHEN EVENING COMETH ON, [HE SHALL LAVE HIMSELF WITH WATER] — He should immerse himself close before the setting of the sun, for under no circumstances is he clean without having waited for the sunset (cf. Sifrei Devarim 256:2).

"Toward evening" (לִפְנוֹת עֶרֶב) — in the sense of "for the day has turned" (כִּי פָנָה הַיּוֹם, Judg. 19:9). This also supports the view of the Sages of blessed memory. Those who dispute them say that לִפְנוֹת means "before" (לִפְנֵי), but they say nothing of substance. And some say its meaning is "when the evening begins to turn" — and behold, after the verse said "toward evening" it then says "and when the sun sets," indicating that [this takes effect] before the evening. Similarly, "toward morning" (לִפְנוֹת בֹּקֶר) means before the sun rises.

A designated place shall be for you outside the camp, and you shall go out there, outside.

ויד תהיה לך THOU SHALT HAVE A יד [WITHOUT THE CAMP] — Understand the word יד as the Targum does: ואתר (and you shall have a place). Similar is, (Numbers 2:17) “Each man at his place (ידו)” (Sifrei Devarim 257:1). מחוץ למחנה WITHOUT THE CAMP — i.e. outside the area enclosed by the clouds of glory.

"And a place" (וְיָד) — [יָד here means] a place, as in "the bank of the Jordan" (יַד הַיַּרְדֵּן). This too is a proof that no one with a nocturnal emission was to leave the camp of Israel — and indeed no person at a time of bodily need, and certainly not children. The proof is that the verse says, "And they sent out from the camp every leper, and every one with a discharge, and every one defiled by a corpse" — meaning, all who impart impurity to others, but not one who is impure only for that day.

ויד תהיה לך, as per Onkelos, a site, location.

And a peg shall be for you upon your weapon, and when you sit down outside you shall dig with it, and you shall turn and cover your excrement.

על אזנך [AND THOU SHALT HAVE A PIN] על אזנך — i.e. besides (על, “in addition to”, not “upon”) your other implements. אזנך has the same meaning as זין in the phrase כלי זין.

"The aleph of אָזְנֶךָ" — it is an additional letter, from the root of "and the harlots washed." "And you shall cover it" — for anything visible to the eye that is repulsive produces an image of disgrace in the soul.

ויתד תהיה לך על אזנך, “you shall have a paddle amongst your weapons;” seeing that only men were going out to fight a war, and seeing that they had the Holy Ark with them when they went to war but were not able to build separating walls, which would have insulated the Ark from exposure to the ritually impure, the people who had nocturnal seminal emissions were required to leave the camp. But when the Israelites wandered for forty years in the desert, there were men, women and children in the camp. Therefore, separating walls were built to separate the Ark and the Tent of meeting from the camp. In the desert those who were ritually impure did not have to leave the camp of the Israelites (but only the camp of the Levites) because of the ever-present danger. In the army everyone had to dig his own hole outside the camp to bury his excrement and cover it, but during the forty years in the desert, everyone dug his own hole in his backyard within the camp of the Israelites.

ויתד תהיה לך על אזנך, “you are to have a shovel in addition to your gear (weapons).” The letter א at the beginning of the word אזנך is an addition, not part of the root. The basic word is זין, weaponry. The shovel is supposed to be an integral part of your equipment in war, no less important than your weapons. This commandment reflects he spiritually high level of a Jewish camp. It reflects the awareness by the Jewish soldiers that the Shechinah is in their midst. At the same time, the need for the shovel indicates that the Torah speaks of a period when the people had already become guilty of sins seeing that during the years when they did not sin there was no need for a shovel as the manna was completely absorbed by their bodies so that there was no excrement which had to be covered up. Not only that, but it also absorbed the taste of other foods. After the Israelites had begun to sin, they did need shovels to clean up after themselves. I have already discussed this matter in Numbers 11,5. Our sages in Yuma 75 explain that when the Israelites defecated they did not do so sideways or forwards but behind themselves so as not to expose their excrement to the clouds of glory which accompanied the Israelites on both their flanks and in front of them.

“And you shall have a shovel [yated] with your azeinecha [weapons].” In Tractate Ketubot (5b), Bar Kapara expounded: What is meant by And you shall have a shovel [yated] with your azeinecha? Do not read it as “azeincha” [your weapons] but as “oznecha” [your ears], because if a person hears something improper, he should place his finger in his ears, as they resemble pegs [or stakes]. And it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael (ibid. 5b): Why is the entire ear hard but its lobe soft? So that if a person hears something improper, he can fold the lobe into it. The lobe is at the end of the ear, and it is soft because a wise person will make his ear hear the end [consequence] of a dispute, for any dispute that is not for the sake of Heaven will not endure in the end. Remembering this outcome helps him abandon the quarrel and make himself like a man who does not hear. However, the words of Bar Kapara require explanation, for what did he see that made him completely remove the verse from its simple meaning, disconnecting it from both what comes before and after? And his interpretation of “azeinecha” as referring to the ear is something that the ear cannot bear to hear [i.e., it is difficult to accept]. And what seems most likely to me is that he intended to interpret this verse, in relation to what is said When you go out as a camp against your enemies, guard yourself from any evil thing and our Sages interpreted (Sifrei Teitzei 119) evil thing meaning “evil speech,” namely that one should guard oneself from slander [lashon hara]. And the Yalkut brings regarding this the verse You will be hidden from the scourge of the tongue (Job 5:21). And the Ramban explained the reason for this: so that strife should not increase among them, and they should not strike each other with a greater blow than [they would receive from] the enemies. And it was difficult for Bar Kappara that it says guard yourself from any evil thing, [meaning] evil speech, but it does not explain how one should guard against it. Therefore, he saw fit to say that the verse and you shall have a spade among your tools explains the nature of the guarding, and it is as stated You will be hidden from the scourge of the tongue. This means that one should hide and conceal oneself, like one who hides his face from it, and act as if not hearing, and be among those who are insulted but do not insult in return, who hear their disgrace but do not respond, and through this one will quiet the quarrel. As one sage said: “No man has ever insulted me except once,” meaning that he did not respond to those who insulted him, and through this silenced them so they would not return to expose his nakedness a second time. And through this he “covered his excrement,” namely the disgrace of his shame, which is undoubtedly comparable to vomit and excrement. And this is the primary “weapon” of a person, for through silence he will be victorious, not by responding in kind. And according to this understanding, “your weapons” is like its plain meaning, a weapon, and in the letter vav [and] of and a stake [veyated] this entire exposition is hinted at. For every vav adds to the previous matter, telling you that protection from all evil speech of slander is to place one’s finger, which resembles a stake, into one’s ear — this is one’s weapon that saves from the scourge of the tongue. And Scripture says that similarly there is another stake in addition to the standard weapon, with which one digs in the earth to cover one’s excrement. So too, the vav extends to include a similar case: the finger that resembles a stake, with which one digs in the ear to make oneself as if not hearing, and thereby covers one’s shame and filth, as it is written and he who covers shame is prudent (Proverbs 12:16). The finger is an additional weapon beyond the standard weapons with which one fights in ordinary battles with the hands. But in a battle coming from the scourge of the tongue, nothing is better than hiding with one’s finger, and this is one’s weapon against the mouth that speaks slander and archers who shoot with the arrow of their sharpened tongue. There is no shield against them except silence. In this way, there is no need to change the word your weapons, for it is literally a weapon, and Scripture placed this protection next to the verse speaking about covering excrement because they are both the same matter.

על אזניך, in addition to your other equipment.

For the Shechinah of Hashem your God walks within your camp to save you and to hand your enemies over before you; and your camp shall be holy, and no offensive matter shall be seen among you, lest His Memra turn away from doing good to you.

ולא יראה בך THAT HE SEE NOT IN THEE — that the Holy One, blessed be He see not in thee ערות דבר A NAKEDNESS OF ANYTHING.

"An unseemly matter" (עֶרְוַת דָּבָר) — whether by act or by speech. "And He will turn away from behind you" — the meaning is that He will not go before you, for so it is written.

והיה מחניך קדוש, both free of ritual impurities as well as from repulsive things, even though not ritually impure. ולא יראה בך ערות דבר, a description of Jewishly unfit offspring or some other impediment to G’d’s Shechinah resting over the Jewish people, as our sages (Kidushin 70) said: “the Shechinah rests only over the ancestrally pure Jewish families.” They added that anyone who can trace his ancestry to King David, (folio 76) by his ancestor having been a soldier in his army, is acceptable without question. מאחריך, if you were to turn your rear to Him by ignoring these laws and thus insulting Him.

מתהלך בקרב מחנך, “Who walks in the midst of your camp;” the reference is to the Holy Ark which Moses had made in order for the people to have such an Ark to take with them when going out to war. (Rashi on Deut. 10,1)i

מתהלך, for also the Holy Ark containing a copy of the Torah went out to war with the army, as is written: וכלי הקודש וחצוצרות התרועה בידו, ”with the holy vessels and the trumpets in his hand (Numbers 31,6) [Pinchas accompanying the 12.000 men on the punitive expedition against Midian. Ed.]

You shall not deliver a slave of the nations into the hand of his master, if he has fled to you from his master.

לא תסגיר עבד THOU SHALT NOT DELIVER [UNTO HIS LORD] THE SERVANT [WHO IS ESCAPED FROM HIS LORD UNTO THEE] — Understand this as the Targum has it: עבד עממין the servant of the heathens. Another explanation is: that it implies even a Canaanite servant belonging to an Israelite who fled from outside the Land (from a foreign country) into the Land of Israel (Gittin 45a).

THOU SHALT NOT DELIVER UNTO HIS MASTER A BONDMAN THAT IS ESCAPED. This is connected with the section above that [when you go forth against the enemy] if a slave flees from his master against whom the host has gone forth and saves himself by fleeing to your camp you are not to deliver him to his master for money that he may give you. And since it states, he shall dwell with thee, in the midst of thee, in the place which he shall choose, it appears that it is a commandment that he become a free man and that we should not enslave him. The reason for this commandment is that with us he will worship G-d and it is not proper that we return him to his master to worship idols. Moreover, it is possible that he [the bondman] may show them the entrance into the city, for in that way they will capture many cities through slaves and captives fleeing from there. And our Rabbis have said [that this prohibition is applicable] even [to] a Canaanite bondman who belongs to an Israelite who fled from outside the Land into the Land of Israel, for this one too, should preferably work for those who dwell in the Land of G-d and be saved from working for those that dwell in an unclean land, and where not all commandments are binding.

"You shall not deliver up a slave" — when they go to war, it may happen that a slave flees to their camp who is not an Israelite. "From his master" — nor is [the master] an Israelite, for [the slave] has come for the honor of Hashem, whose name is called upon Israel. And if an Israelite delivers him up to his master, this constitutes a desecration of the Name. Therefore, "you shall not wrong him."

לא תסגיר עבד אל אדוניו, after the Torah had spoken of the sanctity that must be prevalent in an encampment of Jewish soldiers in war, it switches to matters which are apt to happen in such surroundings, explaining how to correct deviations. One of these is how to deal with a gentile slave who has escaped from his master and taken asylum among the Jewish people; another is the subject of loose women who have infiltrated into the encampment of the Jewish army, an everyday occurrence in gentile armies. (verse 18)

לא תסגיר עבד אל אדניו, “do not hand over to his master a slave who had escaped from him.” This verse was inserted here as it was the habit during wartime that many slaves used the confusion reigning to escape from their masters. [They chose the land of Israel as a favourite destination, as they knew they would be treated there humanely. Ed.]

לא תסגיר עבד אל אדוניו, “Do not extradite a slave to his master.” The master the Torah speaks about here is a Gentile. The slave has fled from outside the boundaries of the land of Israel and sought refuge in the land of Israel. It is forbidden to hand over such a slave to anywhere outside of Eretz Yisrael out of love and fondness for the land of Israel. The court, or other authorities, force the owner to write a document releasing the slave in question and to free him to an Israelite. The former slave will sign a document in return obligating himself to compensate his former master accordingly (compare Gittin 45).

לא תסגיר עבד לאדוניו, “Do not turn over a slave (who has escaped from his master) to his owner.” According to Nachmanides the reason why this verse is appropriately written at this point, is that that during the confusion which reigns during a siege or battle, many slaves use the opportunity to escape from their masters. A soldier who leaves his own camp in order to relieve himself, is liable to encounter such fleeing slaves in the no-man’s land where he answers a call of a nature. The Torah, especially has in mind, that the soldier in question not turn over the escaping slave by collecting a fee for this from his master, and thereby engage in slave-trading. עמך ישב במקום אשר יבחר, “he shall dwell with you in a location of his choice;” it is a positive commandment that this slave live as a free human being. The reason why this law has been given, and especially has been mentioned at this point, is that the former slave is to be encouraged to join us Jews in serving Hashem, instead of our turning him over to his former master and thereby increasing the number of pagans serving idols. Furthermore, by turning him over to his former master, there is a chance that this slave has become privy to information that might help the enemy to invade our country or to infiltrate the encampment of the Israelite army. History is full of stories of such “slaves” having been used as spies by their masters. Our sages interpret this verse as applying primarily to a Canaanite slave who has fled his master seeking refuge within Israel. Even though, basically, the Torah decreed that we must kill these people, here where the initiative comes from the Canaanite who is aware that he will likely be treated far more humanely by Jews, the Torah encourages us to bring him closer to Hashem by allowing him to embrace Judaism.

He shall dwell with you, among you, in the place that he chooses, in one of your cities, wherever it is good for him; you shall not wrong him.

במקום אשר יבחר, “in a place of his choice;” a place where he could find an opportunity to earn a livelihood. לא תוננו, “do not treat him unfairly.” The Torah bids us to treat him fairly, just as it had bidden us to treat all aliens fairly, escaped slaves or not.

Let him dwell with you, and observe the commandments among you; teach him the law, and put him in a school in the place that he chooseth in one of your cities: employ (or, have business with) him, that he may do well, and trouble him not by words.

There shall not be a woman from the daughters of Israel [given] to a slave man, nor shall a man from the sons of Israel take a slave woman.

לא תהיה קדשה THERE SHALL BE NO קדשה [OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ISRAEL] — i.e. a prostitute, — one who is devoted to and ever ready for illicit intercourse (cf. Rashi on Genesis 38:21 s. v. הקדשה; Rashi on Exodus 19:22 s. v. יתקדשו). AND THERE SHALL BE NO קדש (OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL] — one ever ready for pederasty (Sanhedrin 54b). Onkelos, however, rendered the verse by לא תהא אתתא מבני ישראל לגבר עבר, “A woman of the daughters of Israel shall not become the wife of a slave”. Such a woman may also be termed a קדשה. because she, too, becomes a prostitute to illicit intercourse, since no marriage ceremony with her (קידושין) can for him have a hold on her (can be a valid ceremony), — for you see, they (the slaves) are compared to asses, as it is said, (Genesis 22:5), “Abide ye here עם החמור”, which is taken to mean (Kiddushin 68a), “[Abide ye here] עם החמור", “O ye peop1e who are like asses”. And the second half of the verse Onkelos renders by ולא יסב גברא מבני ישראל אתתא אמה “and no man of Israel shall marry a bondwoman”, which is also an adequate translation, since he, too, becomes a קדש, “one devoted to illicit intercourse” through her, since every intercourse with her is an illicit intercourse, since his marriage to her is not binding (cf. Rashi on Kiddushin 69a s. v. או דיעבד קאמר).

THERE SHALL BE NO ‘K’DEISHAH’ OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ISRAEL — “one who is devoted to and always prepared for illicit intercourse. NOR SHALL THERE BE A ‘KADEISH’ OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL — one who is always prepared for pederasty.” This is Rashi’s language. Now, if this prohibition constitutes an admonition against the woman so engaged and warns her against being “devoted to and always prepared for illicit intercourse,” then an unmarried woman who has [illicit] intercourse with a man unpremeditatedly and secretly is not among those guilty of transgressing a negative commandment! So also in the matter of the kadeish, why did Rashi mention that he is devoted to “and always prepared” [for such sin] — even one who permits himself to be so abused in an innermost chamber is guilty of extirpation [if there are no witnesses] and death by the court [if there are witnesses]! Moreover, it would have been proper for Scripture to state, “There shall not be among you a k’deishah, nor shall there be among you a kadeish,” for the expressions of the daughters of Israel and of the sons of Israel make it appear that the verse discusses another nation!It appears to me concerning this prohibition that it constitutes an admonition addressed to the members of the court that they should not permit one of the daughters of Israel to sit in public view at the crossroads for the purpose of illicit intercourse, or prepare herself a tent of prostitution as is customary in foreign lands where they sit at the door with timbrels and harps, similar to what is written, Take a harp, go about the city, thou harlot long forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered. And similarly Scripture warns the court concerning a kadeish. And in line with the plain meaning of Scripture, even if he should lie with women in a tent which he prepared himself for such illicit relations or that he should sit in public view at the crossroads [on the lookout for such women], he warned the court [against permitting such activities].It appears to me that such is the opinion of Onkelos [who rendered the verse: “A woman of the daughters of Israel shall not become the wife of a slave, and no man of Israel shall marry a bondwoman”]. But he [Onkelos] combined with this prohibition the matter of a slave and bondwoman who live with Israelites in [common law] marriage, because everyone knows concerning this slave who married the daughter of an Israelite that his betrothal of her is invalid and yet she remains with him like a wife with her husband, and if so she is a k’deishah in broad daylight. Now, I have seen in the Sifre the following text: “There shall be no ‘k’deishah’ of the daughters of Israel — you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations. Nor shall there be a ‘kadeish’ of the sons of Israel — you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations. Now, I could have reasoned: if the k’deishah [commits] a minor transgression [seeing that the punishment fo...

The section of the cult-prostitute (קְדֵשָׁה) is juxtaposed here on account of the [foregoing passage about the] slave. Those who transmit the religious tradition say that the קָדֵשׁ is the one who is lain with [passively], and the proof is from the sons of Israel. And Elihu said, "and they are bound together with cult-prostitutes (קְדֵשִׁים), for their soul corresponds to their life" — thus קְדֵשִׁים corresponds to what is designated (נוֹעָד). And it is written, "And there was also a קָדֵשׁ in the land" — "the houses of the קְדֵשִׁים" — and there it is written "where the women wove." Now I do not understand the meaning of קְדֵשָׁה [on this interpretation], but when we search out the true meaning of the word carefully, it is known that she is available to every passerby — and the proof is "Where is the קְדֵשָׁה?" Therefore, the קָדֵשׁ would be the equivalent of the practice of the Egyptians. And let the one who understands, understand. Because of the [foregoing passage about the] קְדֵשָׁה, the section of the harlot's hire is juxtaposed next.

לא תהיה קדשה, “there must not be Jewish harlots;” the verse is appended here on account of the previous verse having dealt with escaped gentile slaves, many of whom might have been forced to be harlots.

לא תהיה קדש, “there must not be a harlot amongst the daughters of Israel.” This is the prohibition for women not to be sleeping around, and the second half of the verse applies equally to men and is an instruction to the court not to allow men or women to offer their sexual services on the streets.

לא תהיה קדשה מבני ישראל, “There shall not be a promiscuous woman among the daughters of Israel.” Rashi interprets the reason for Moses choosing the word קדשה, related to קדוש, holy, for such a woman as being that among the Israelites there must not be people who dedicate, “sanctify” their lives by practicing promiscuity. ולא יהיה קדש, “neither shall their be a male dedicating his life to promiscuity, making sexuality his aim in life.” This is a warning against practicing homosexuality. Nachmanides writes that if that were so, i.e. forbidding public promiscuity as a negative commandment were meant to apply only to married women who had sinned by indulging in illicit sex, not to devote their lives to harlotry, one would conclude that an unmarried woman indulging in such activity in the privacy of her home had not transgressed the commandment legislated in verse 18. One would arrive at a similar conclusion concerning the males of whom the Torah speaks in verse 19. He cannot understand what made Rashi use the expression מזומן, dedicated to, oriented in that direction, seeing that even an occasional indulgence in homosexual relations is punishable by the harsh penalty karet or execution, as we know from Leviticus Furthermore, turning to the text itself, why does the Torah (Moses) not write: “there shall not be amongst you, etc.,” and writes instead בבנות ישראל, “among the daughters of Israel.” Nachmanides continues writing that in view of the points he raised he believes that the entire legislation in these two verses is addressed to the court dealing with such offenders. The courts must not allow any Jewish woman/girl to publicly offer her services as a prostitute, or for such a person to rent or own a dwelling devoted to the pursuit of such activities. The court is similarly warned to enforce parallel legislation making it difficult for males to do something similar. Looking at the plain meaning of the text, the Torah appears to prohibit even normal sexual relations between a man and a woman married to one another if such activity takes place in a house that is known to serve as a brothel. The court must see to it that women offering their services as sex objects are apprehended and prevented from doing so in public.

קדשה, a harlot; an unmarried woman engaging in adultery (with a married man) קדש, a male sleeping promiscuously with women without bothering to marry them. Since the women in question do not sleep with him exclusively they are not even concubines.

You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the exchange price of a dog into the sanctuary of Hashem your God for any vow, for both of them are an abomination before Hashem your God.

אתנן זונה [THOU SHALT NOT BRING] THE PROSTITUTION HIRE OF A WHORE [… INTO THE HOUSE OF THE LORD, THY GOD FOR ANY VOW] — This means, if he (the paramour) gave her a lamb as the hire of her prostitution it is unfitted for sacrifice (Sifrei Devarim 261:1; Temurah 29a). ומחיר כלב [THOU SHALT NOT BRING …] THE PRICE OF A DOG [INTO THE HOUSE OF THE LORD …], if one has exchanged a lamb for a dog (Sifrei Devarim 261:2; Temurah 30a). גם שניהם FOR EVEN BOTH THESE ARE [ABOMINATION UNTO THE LORD, THY GOD] — The words גם שניהם taken as גם שנוייהם are intended to include in the prohibition the things into which they (whatever is given as hire) are changed, as, e.g., if he gave the woman wheat and she made it into flour (Temurah 30b).

THOU SHALT NOT BRING THE HIRE OF A HARLOT, [OR THE PRICE OF A DOG, INTO THE HOUSE OF THE ETERNAL THY G-D FOR ANY VOW]. Harlots are wont to do good deeds with their hire, thinking thereby to atone for their sins, as our Rabbis mentioned in their proverb, “She commits illicit sexual intercourse for apples and she divides them among the sick.” Therefore the Torah prohibited a harlot’s gift to be brought for any vow, for now they sin more and more. Similarly the matter of the price of the dog is that hunters using dogs and watchmen of walls raise brazen dogs that harm the public, and the owners vow [to contribute] their value [to a cause which they consider sacred], as an atonement for their soul. Such is still the custom among men who ride to the hunts that they place the waxen image of their dogs before an idol that they may be successful with them. And the commentators [as mentioned by Ibn Ezra] have said [that the reason for the prohibition is] because they [i.e., these payments] came about in a contemptible manner. GAM SHNEIHEM’ (‘EVEN THEY BOTH’) [ARE AN ABOMINATION TO THE ETERNAL THY G-D]. “Even they both — this includes the products into which they have been processed, such as wheat which she made into flour.” This is Rashi’s language. But in the Gemara the Rabbis have said that the School of Shammai forbid it and the School of Hillel permit it. Instead, the verse [in accordance with the teaching of the School of Hillel] is to be interpreted as follows: “They [are forbidden] but not their young; they [are forbidden] but not the products into which they have been processed.” And the purport of the expression gam shneihem is that since one of them is indeed a great abomination — namely, the hire of a harlot, since the harlotry was committed for it — [while the price of a dog might be considered less of an abomination] the verse states that “even both of these” [including the price of a dog] G-d will reject. Similarly, He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous, ‘even they both’ are an abomination to the Eternal; the verse attaches the smaller offense [i.e., he that justifies the wicked] to the bigger one [he that condemns the righteous]. So also, then they shall both of them die, as I have explained [there, that the man is the greater sinner of the two, and therefore the verse states that even she is also to die].Or it may be that the purport [of the expression gam shneihem] is that since he had already warned against the disqualifications of the offering through blemishes, and stated concerning them, Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Eternal thy G-d an ox, or a sheep, wherein is a blemish, even any evil thing; for that is an abomination unto the Eternal thy G-d, he supplemented here saying that the hire of the harlot and the price of the dog — although in themselves perfect — that they too are the abomination of the Eternal like those [blemished offerings]. This is the correct interpretation. So also, The hearing ea...

"Hire" (אֶתְנָן) — like מַתָּן (a gift); the aleph is an additional letter, and the nun is doubled, as the pe in נְאָפוּפֶיהָ (her adulteries) and the resh in סַגְרִיר (driving rain). The meaning is: whatever the harlot received — that which the fornicators gave her — for it is forbidden. "And the price of a dog" — for this is a way of degradation. Therefore it says, "for it is an abomination of Hashem."

לא תביא אתנן זונה בית ה, “do not bring the payment received for practicing harlotry to the house of the Lord;” this verse is added here as the Torah just warned us not to tolerate Jewish harlots in our midst. The expression אתנן from the root נתן “to give,” means “gift.” It is an expression used exclusively in connection with payments made to harlots. The letter א at the beginning, which appears extraneous, is similar to the letter א in the word אזרוע in Jeremiah 32,21, instead of זרוע for “arm.” We also find such an apparently superfluous letter א in the word אתמול for “yesterday,” which appears more frequently meaning the same as תמול.

You shall not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog etc. Since dogs are also brazen, mating publicly, therefore they never know satisfaction, for the small organ is hungry when it is satiated. And the harlot has a forehead of brass, thus both of them are equal in promiscuity and impudence. Therefore, it is not proper to bring [their revenue] to a place of holiness, for there is the fence of modesty, and there is the headplate [of the High Priest] which atones for you had the forehead of a harlot (Jeremiah 3:3), while they [their revenues] still retain their impudence and recklessness, for both are an abomination to the Lord your God, meaning their transmutations [into money].

לא תביא אתנן זונה ...בית ה', “You must not bring to the Temple the proceeds from your activity as a harlot.” Nachmanides writes that these harlots would use some of the gifts they received from their customers to make donations and offer sacrifices in the Temple, to expiate for the wrongs they had done. The Torah legislates, while it cannot prevent such harlots to use some of their ill gotten gains to give charity with such money, that such proceeds from sinful activities cannot be accepted as something sacred. [In our parlance, this would be an early example of money laundering. Ed.] Instead of cleansing themselves from sin, they would sink deeper into the moral morass that they were already in. The Torah legislates something similar concerning the proceeds from selling a dog. The Torah singles out dogs seeing that people who hunt by using dogs, or people training dogs to attack potential intruders, contribute to many innocent people being harmed by such dogs. Nachmanides also quotes instances from his own experience in which people hang the images of dogs near the idols that they worship, so that a dog, in many cultures, is identified with something idolatrous. The proceeds from the sale of such dogs are equally unwelcome in the Temple. גם שניהם, “both of them.” Seeing that the first example, the price paid for a harlot’s services, or the animal paid is a greater abomination than the proceeds of the sale of the dog, Moses wants to make sure that we do not consider the latter as in a completely different class, i.e. as a far less offensive sin. Alternatively, seeing that up until now the Torah had disqualified potential use of certain animals as sacrificial offerings forbidden only if the animal had certain physical blemishes, here we hear for the first time that the animal may have a moral blemish due to the lifestyle of its owner. In the case of animals having a physical blemish the Torah had introduced the legislation with the words: לא תזבח לה' אלוקיך שור או שה..אשר יהיה בו מום וגו', “you shall not slaughter for the Lord your G’d an ox or lamb that has a blemish, etc.” (Deut 17,1) The reason given is that such a blemish is considered an abomination. Here too, the reason given for the legislation is that it would be considered an abomination to offer an animal to Hashem that was acquired in payment for committing a sin.

You shall not charge interest to your brother: interest on silver, interest on grain, interest on anything that bears interest.

לא תשיך implies a prohibition addressed to the borrower that he should not pay interest to the creditor (cf. Sifrei Devarim 262:1; Bava Metzia 75b) [and afterwards (Leviticus 25:37) follows the prohibition addressed to the creditor, “thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest”].

LO THASHICH L’ACHICHA’ (THOU SHALT NOT CAUSE THY BROTHER TO TAKE INTEREST). This also is an explanatory commandment, adding here an admonition to the borrower as well, unlike all civil cases, for if a person wishes to damage his belongings he may do so [and it should, therefore, be permitted to the borrower to give freely to the lender]. However, because of the habitual nature of this sin [of giving interest], Scripture admonishes the borrower as well. And he explained here that a heathen’s interest is permissible. This he did not mention with reference to robbery and theft, as the Rabbis have said. “Theft from a heathen is forbidden.” But borrowing for interest, which is agreed upon by both parties and is done voluntarily, was forbidden [by the Torah] only because of brotherliness and kindness, as He commanded, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, and as he said, Beware that there be not a base thought in thy heart etc. [and thine eye be evil against thy needy brother, and thou give him nought]. Therefore he said [here], that the Eternal thy G-d may bless thee, for it is an act of mercy and compassion that one does for his brother by lending him without interest, and it will be accounted to him for righteousness. The release of debts [in the Seventh year] is also an act of mercy among brothers, and therefore he said, Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it, and for him [who releases the debt of a brother] he designated a blessing, for Scripture mentions a blessing only in connection with charity and acts of mercy, and not for [the mere abstention from] robbery, theft, and fraud. He mentions interest of money, interest of victuals in order to explain that he who lends one measure of wheat for a measure and a half is [guilty of taking] true interest even if at the time of payment a measure and a half is not worth as much as was the one measure that he lent him. And he further explained, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest, meaning even building-blocks and other articles which are lent. For it might occur to one to think that “interest” applies only to money with which everything can be purchased and to victuals which sustain life, but in other things we should go according to the cash value at the time of the loan and the repayment [therefore Scripture prohibited all such interest expressly]. Now our Rabbis have interpreted the verse, Unto a foreigner thou shalt lend upon interest as being a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment [which carries the force of a positive commandment] with respect to lending to an Israelite. [They rendered this interpretation] because the verse is redundant, for he already stated ‘lo thashich’ thy brother [which implies clearly that it is permitted to exact interest from a foreigner; why then the repetition, Unto a foreigner etc.? It was to teach that an interest-bearing loan to an Israelite is in violation of both a negative and a positive commandment].

"You shall not charge interest to your brother" — since [the text] has mentioned the foreign slave, even though it is written concerning him "you shall not wrong him," you are nonetheless permitted to charge him interest. "You shall not charge interest to your brother" — there is a distinction between תַּשֵּׁךְ and תַּשִּׁיךְ: the meaning [of the latter form] is that you shall not receive from your brother what he gives you as interest — for he too transgresses the commandment against interest. Thus the verb [in this form] takes two objects. But many say that תַּשִּׁיךְ is the same as תַּשֵּׁךְ, with no difference between them, and similarly there are many [such interchangeable] verb forms in Scripture.

לא תשיך לאחיך, after warning us concerning behaviour the result of which is G’d’s withdrawing His benevolent presence from the Jewish people, He cautions us concerning the acts of loving kindness which would ensure the continued presence of His Shechinah. Two major steps in that direction are: 1) not to charge a fellow Jew interest on a loan extended to him, 2) not to be tardy in discharging the obligations assumed when making a vow in favour of G’d. (verse 22) These include vows representing donations to charity which are due without delay, seeing that there is never a shortage of people in need who have to be supported by charity. Then there is the subject of what a labourer may eat when he is surrounded by fruit belonging to his employer, as well as the matter of divorce, something that must not be given to a woman unless she has been guilty of a serious misdemeanour, i.e. ערות דבר. (24,1) A major reason for granting a divorce is the effort to prevent bastards from being born. No other reason is considered as valid to divorce one’s wife, the prophet Maleachi 2,14 reminding people that at least G’d will testify against the husband who dealt treacherously with the wife he married in his youth and now abandoned. The loving kindness performed with a newly wed (betrothed) woman is that her husband is given a chance to fulfill the commandment of making his bride joyful during the first year of their marriage. (24,5). The prohibition against taking as a pledge, i.e. collateral for overdue debts, tools needed for the debtor to make his living, such as millstones is self-evident. (24,6) Precautions against potential hazards that could hurt many people, prohibition against kidnappers coupled with the death penalty is a preventive measure, i.e. an act of kindness designed to protect parents against their children becoming the victims of such “stealing.” The isolation of people afflicted with the skin disease known as tzoraat, is all too well known. It not only prods the victim to mend his asocial behaviour, but it protects society at the same time. Cautions against tale-bearing and other forms of abuse of the power of speech are acts of kindness in respect of the potential victims of such slander. Not muzzling an ox while he threshes, is a show of understanding for the ox’s feelings in helping to provide food for its owner while himself being denied that same food. Etc. Etc.

לא תשיך לאחיך, “do not charge your brother interest on a loan.” (Brother=fellow Jew) In Leviticus 25,36 we read about this subject as applying to the poor even if he is a resident stranger. Here it is addressed only to fellow Jews, but includes wealthy Jews who are short of cash but not short of saleable assets. The reason that this verse appears here is that seeing we have been warned not to treat escaped gentile slaves unfairly, this does not include that we must extend loans to such people without charging interest.

לא תשיך לאחיך, “Do not pay interest to your brother.” This is a warning (prohibition) for the borrower not to pay interest for a loan received from a Jew. The corresponding prohibition for the lender not to charge interest on loans to Jews is found In Leviticus 25,37: “do not give him your money against interest.” The reason that interest is called נשך by the Torah is the verse in Kohelet 10,11 אם ישוך הנחש, “if the snake bites;” that it is something which “bites” the borrower. It is as poisonous as a snake bite, i.e. נחש. Just as the poison of the snake enters the victim and afflicts his various organs so agent chosen as punishment for this sin will attack the property of the lender as tit-for tat. נשך כל דבר, “interest of any kind.” Even words could be understood as interest payments or charges. This is how the Talmud in Baba Metzia 75 describes it: “how do we know that if someone has extended a loan to his fellow, and the borrower had not been in the habit of greeting the lender when he saw him on the street, that it is forbidden for him to make a point of being the first one to extend a greeting to the lender? it says ‘interest of any kind.’” Even using words to ingratiate oneself with the lender is forbidden. It is an overriding rule concerning anything of direct or indirect benefit to the lender that it is forbidden for the borrower to do now that he is a debtor.

לא תשיך, ”do not let the lender, your brother, take interest.” We have been taught already (Leviticus 25,36-37) that we must not lend money at interest to fellow Jews, but here Moses warns the borrower not to allow his brother, the Jew to become guilty by accepting such interest from him. This is a dimension not found in other aspects dealing with laws involving money, etc. The Torah, ordinarily, does not use preventive legislation to stop people from causing themselves financial harm. Seeing, however, that the incidence of paying and accepting interest on loans is so widespread, the Torah made an exception in this instance. It went further in the definition of what is interest, writing: נשך כסף, נשך אוכל, וגו', “regardless of whether such interest consists of actual money, or its equivalent such as food, etc.” The Torah is at pains to warn us that the concept of “interest” is not limited to the payment of cash, but includes any consideration that normally would not have been shown by the borrower to the lender had he not been in a position of owing money to the lender. Charging interest is not by itself something reprehensible, as one receives a compensation for services rendered. However, charging interest to a fellow Jew is denying that he is family, is one’s brother, and that is why the Torah keeps stressing the element אחיך, “who is your brother.” The Torah stresses that charging or paying interest when dealing with a gentile is in order, to tell us that this is a normal commercial transaction. It is not even remotely related to stealing or robbing, as it is freely given. כל דבר אשר ישך, “anything that he may take as interest.” This includes any kinds of vessels, and other items that most people would never consider as representing interest when someone gives it to them. The Torah added these words to make sure we would not think that unless paid in hard cash it does not fall under the heading of “interest.” Cash, after all, is only a means to acquiring items that we need or want to possess. Hence it is not the actual cash that is the interest, but what this cash enables you to do with it.

לא תשיך, according to the plain meaning the Torah speaks of the lender.

To a foreigner you may charge interest, but to your brother you shall not charge interest, so that Hashem your God may bless you in all your undertakings in the land that you are entering there to possess.

לנכרי תשיך UNTO AN ALIEN THOU MAYEST LEND UPON INTEREST (according to Rashi: TO AN ALIEN THOU MAYEST PAY INTEREST) — but not to thy brother. Such a prohibition which is not plainly stated but can only be drawn by inference from a positive command is itself regarded only as a positive command — so that one who pays interest to his brother transgresses two negative commands: לא תשיך in v. 20, ולאחיך לא תשיך in v. 21 and a positive command לנכרי תשיך — ולאחיך לא (cf. Sifrei Devarim 263:1; Bava Metzia 70b; also cf. Rashi on Deuteronomy 14:20).

לנכרי תשיך, you are allowed to pay interest to the gentile (on your loan from him) and you must not betray his trust by citing the prohibition to charge or collect interest. ולאחיך לא תשיך, even though according to the deal you made you obligated yourself to pay him interest and you are perfectly willing to pay same. למען יברכך, in order that you will receive G’d’s blessing instead. By not desecrating G’d’s name in your dealings with the gentile by reneging, you will merit G’d’s blessing.

לנכרי תשיך ולאחיך לא תשיך. "You may pay interest to a Gentile but you must not pay interest to your brother (the Jew)." Why did the Torah repeat here once more that we must not pay interest to a Jew when this had already been stated in verse 20? Our sages in Baba Metzia 75 say that the repetition is to teach that anyone doing this is guilty of the violation of two separate negative commandments. Perhaps the Torah meant here that although the interest you give to your fellow Jew ultimately goes to the Gentile, this is prohibited when the go-between is a Jew and the Jew does not know the Gentile in question either through having borrowed from him or through holding some kind of collateral belonging to the Gentile in question. This is also the halachah. There is also an allusion here to a subject debated by the codifiers and later authorities in Yoreh Deyah 159. Some authorities, including Rabbi Joseph Karo, hold that extending loans to pagans is permitted only when the Jew finds it difficult to make a living without doing this even though there is general agreement that the Torah has permitted the practice. The wording לנכרי תשיך may be understood as "you may extend loans with interest to Gentiles, provided that as a result of this permission you will not ultimately charge interest on loans to Jews."

לנכרי תשיך, “you may charge interest to gentiles.” (According to some authorities this is even a positive commandment. Maimonides and Sefer Hachinuch). All other nations are called gentiles when compared to the Israelites. Compare Ovadiah 11: ונכרים באו שעריו גם אתה כאחד מהם, “the gentile nations came to its gates, you were as one of them.” Compare also Judges: 19,12, and Solomon’s prayer in Kings I 8,41.

לנכרי תשיך, “to the Gentile you may (or must) charge interest.” The prohibition of charging a Jewish borrower interest is at the same time a positive commandment to charge a Gentile interest on loans extended to him. Maimonides, in Hilchot malveh veloveh 5,1 rules that our verse is definitely a positive commandment, not merely permission to accept interest from a Gentile borrower. Others, such as Ibn Ezra, interpret our verse as merely granting permission to charge interest to Gentile borrowers. This statement is supposed to be similar to that of ששת ימים תעבוד, “during six days you are to work” (Exodus 20,9) which is a permission. The Torah permitted loans to Gentiles, and it permitted charging interest on those loans. When the Talmud in Makkot 24 states that the words בספו לא נתן לנשך, “he has never lent money at interest” (Psalms 15,5) includes that the person referred to has not charged interest to a Gentile, this is not to be understood as a prohibition but is a voluntary restriction imposed upon himself by the lender. A person practicing such virtues will attain the spiritual level described as desirable in that psalm. A statement by our sages in Baba Metzia 71 that it is forbidden to lend to a Gentile against excessive interest except if the lender was a Torah scholar, has to be understood against the following background. [The whole passage is strange, compare Rashi and Tossaphot. It is assumed that the Gentile had called the Jew “wicked,” had insulted him. Ed.]. Ordinary Jews may not charge an amount of interest which would reduce the income (net) of such a Gentile by more than a third. The restriction is designed to ensure that Jewish lenders do not learn bad habits from the Gentiles. Torah scholars are not presumed to copy such bad habits. When the Sifri writes that the words לנכרי תשיך are a positive commandment, the meaning is not that the Torah imposes an obligation on an Israelite to grant loans to, and to charge interest to Gentiles, but it addresses itself (obliquely) to the Israelite charging interest on a loan to a fellow Jew as also being guilty of violating a positive commandment, (not merely a negative commandment). The verse contrasts conduct vis-a-vis a Gentile with that towards an Israelite. The words “to a Gentile you must charge interest,” are a restatement of the prohibition not to do so to a fellow Israelite. It is something called לאו הבא מכלל עשה, “a negative commandment implied in a positive commandment.” In a similar fashion we find that Sifri Re'ay 103 understands the commandment “these you may eat” dealing with permissible fish (Deut. 14,9) as meaning that all the fish not enumerated in that verse as possessing certain identifying marks such as fins and scales are forbidden for Jews to eat. The line: “these you may eat,” certainly does not mean: “these you must eat.” The Torah simply says that if we eat fish which do not have fins and scales we have violated a positive commandment called “these you may eat.” At the same time one has violated the negative commandment “these you must not eat,” which is appended to “all those which do not have, etc.” The same holds true for the commandment dealing with interest in our Parshah. Our sages interpret the words ולאחיך לו תשיך, “and to your brother you must not charge interest,“ as referring to people acting like your brother, i.e. including recent converts, people who have now become like your brother seeing they are bound by the same rules of conduct as your brothers. At the same time this phraseology excludes the descendants of Esau as, though they are biologically related, they do not adopt the rules of conduct of your brethren. Hence one may or must charge interest on loans made to Edomites. Although in Numbers 20,14 Moses had described the Jewish people as “your brothers,” when speaking to the Edomites, the legal status of these people changed after they demonstrated that they did not consider themselves as “brothers.” It became perfectly permissible to charge interest on loans to Edomites. There is a statement by the prophet Ovadiah 11 ”on that day when you stood aloof, when aliens carried off his goods, when foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were as one of them.” This underscores the point we just made. The whole reason for the prohibition of charging interest is based on our obligation to keep fellow Jews alive, to relate to them with deeds of loving kindness seeing the Torah wrote וחי אחיך עמך, “ensure that your brother will be able to live alongside you” (Leviticus 25,36). No such directive exists concerning Gentiles. A Jew who has decided to practice idolatry is also not subject to the law not to charge interest on loans to him. Seeing that the Torah made it clear that such a person’s very body is unprotected by Biblical injunctions, his property is most certainly not protected by Torah law! We find confirmation of this in Avodah Zarah 26: “one may push drowning idolaters (Jews) down into the pit and one is not allowed to pull them up (in order to save their lives).” On the other hand, accepting loans from such people and paying interest on such loans is probably forbidden as opposed to natural born pagans. The reason is that the Jewish heretic was born with the obligation to conduct himself as Jew, whereas the same cannot be said of the natural born pagan. Our sages in Sifri Ha'azinu 308 interpret the word (Deut. 32,5) בניו מומם as meaning: “although they are blemished they are still His children;” in other words, loans accepted from such people are considered as loans extended by Jews. At the very least, if one accepts a loan from such a Jewish idolater one violates the negative commandment ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול, “do not place obstacles in the way of a blind person. “

למען יברכך ה' אלוקיך, “in order that the Lord your G’d will bless you;” by doing a deed of loving kindness with one’s brother, such as helping him with an interest-free loan, one acquires the merit that qualifies one to receive a special blessing by Hashem. It is considered צדקה, i.e. the same as if one had actually handed over money as alms, as a contribution to a charitable institution. Foregoing repayment of overdue loans at the end of the last year of the sh’mittah cycle is also an act of charity a requirement that only applies to one’s fellow Jew, because he is to be treated as one’s brother. This is why Moses follows this legislation up with the specific permission, or even commandment, according to many authorities, to charge interest on loans to gentiles, and, of course, permission to pay interest if we need to get a loan from gentiles. It is interesting that the Torah promises special blessings from Hashem only in connection with abstaining from charging interest, not when refraining from stealing, robbing, or overcharging unwary customers.

When you make a vow before Hashem your God, you shall not delay in fulfilling it, for Hashem your God will surely require it of you, and it will be counted as sin in you.

לא תאחר לשלמו [WHEN THOU SHALT VOW A VOW UNTO THE LORD THY GOD] THOU SHALT NOT DELAY TO PAY IT — beyond three festivals after the vow has been made. Our Rabbis have deduced it (the fact that one does not transgress the prohibition before three festivals elapse) from a Scriptural text (Rosh Hashanah 4b).

"When you vow a vow" — because [the text] mentioned [the prohibition of] the hire of a harlot in connection with "any vow." "For He will surely exact it from you" — a parable after the manner of human beings: He will seek out what you have vowed. "And it will be a sin in you" — [meaning] a punishment.

כי תדור נדר לה' אלוקיך, you are, of course, expected to honour your undertakings without reinforcing them in the form of a vow or oath. When you made a vow to G’d, however, not only are you obligated to pay up, but the payment must be made without undue delay. כי דרוש ידרשנו, He will demand it of you, so that if that becomes necessary you are already guilty of a sin of omission.

והיה בך חטא. "and you will be guilty of a sin." We can understand this in accordance with the Talmudic statement in Shabbat 32 that failure to honour one's vows may result in the death of one's wife or children while they are still minors." The word חטא means that something is lacking, missing [such as to miss a target להחטיא. Ed.]. Looked at from this perspective, failure to pay one's vows results in one's being deprived of something else which is his, such as the wife whom our sages describe as אשתו כגופו, "a person's wife is like his own body." One has a tendency to look upon one's minor children as one's property. The appropriate punishment for people who do not honour their vows to G'd then is to remind them by depriving them of something else they hold dear.

כי תדור נדר, “When you shall vow a vow, etc.” It is possible that this verse appears here as we read previously (verse 19) about a harlot not being allowed to fulfill a vow she had made to the Lord by using money earned from practicing her trade. והיה בך חטא, “and you would wind up having committed a punishable sin instead of a good deed.”

“You shall not delay in fulfilling it, etc.” Since a person’s evil inclination is particularly powerful regarding vowed matters, and as long as his vow remains upon him, the evil inclination provokes him even more. They say to him, “Is it not enough what the Torah has forbidden to you? Don’t add to it by increasing the provocation of the evil inclination within you.” Therefore it says, You shall not delay in fulfilling it — not to remain for many days in its trap. And that is why it says, And if you refrain from vowing, there will be no sin in you — meaning the evil inclination that causes you to sin. But if you delay in fulfilling it, then the Lord will surely demand it of you, and whatever the Holy One, blessed be He, demands of you, the evil inclination incites you not to seek Him. Therefore, it will be a sin in you for certain, because this evil inclination will find a place to provoke you and say, “This is not a complete obligation upon you, and for the sake of a mere statement should there be an obligation upon you to do it?” And after this, it will come to incite and lead you astray from the rest of God’s commandments as well. And what it says, it will be a sin in you is similar to what our Sages said (Shabbat 105b): There shall not be within you a foreign god — this refers to the evil inclination. And the command there shall not be in you means that you should not provoke it within your soul. Another explanation of “if you delay in fulfilling it.” For if it displeases you to diminish your wealth, know that the Lord will surely demand it from you in another way, and you will lose so much money according to the value of the vow. Thus, the mark of sin will be upon you, and you will not gain the money either, as you will lose it elsewhere.

But if you refrain from making a vow, there shall be no sin in you.

BUT IF THOU SHALT FORBEAR TO VOW, IT SHALL BE NO SIN IN THEE. Because those who bring a burnt-offering and sacrifices for G-d receive a good reward for it, as it is written, I will offer unto Thee burnt-offerings of fatlings, with the sweet smoke of rams; I will offer bullocks with goats. Selah; I will come into Thy House with burnt-offerings. He also said concerning freewill offerings, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him, and again He said, of a sweet savor unto the Eternal. And if so, vows serve as encouragement [to the observance] of a commandment, and it is written, I will pay my vows unto the Eternal, yea, in the presence of all His people. Therefore Scripture states here: “Beware of your vows, for although they serve as encouragement in bringing offerings to G-d which will be accepted favorably on your behalf, yet you may come to sin if you vow and do not fulfill, or you delay fulfilling it. But if you do not vow, no sin can attach to you in the matter, for even if never in your lifetime do you bring a [vow-] offering, it will be no sin in thee. If so, observe that which is gone out of your lips, according to the word which proceeded out of your mouth, and do afterwards as you have spoken, to fulfill all that your spirit caused you to willingly bring forth from your mouth.” Solomon said it in the same way: When thou vowest a vow unto G-d, defer not to pay it; for He hath no pleasure in fools; pay that which thou vowest. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. Solomon states that G-d has no pleasure in fools who think that they do a good deed when they utter many vows to serve as encouragement to fulfill a commandment which they plan to do and they do not consider in their hearts, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, “Perhaps I will not be able to fulfill all these vows.” Instead he thinks that the desire he had at the time of his vow will be accounted to him for good. Therefore Solomon warned again, Suffer not thy mouth to bring thy flesh into guilt, neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error; that is to say, do not make many vows, [for if you make them and you do not have the means to fulfill them] you will have to say before the cruel angel sent against you, “It was an error, I meant to bring them.” You pledged them with a perfect heart and now you are unable to do so, but G-d will be angry at thy voice and — the aforementioned angel — will destroy the work of thy hands.

וכי תחדל לנדר לא יהיה בך חטא. "If you refrain from making vows this will not be considered as a sin for you." This can also be understood in light of a statement in Gittin 7 that "if a person experiences that his income is barely sufficient he should give some away as charity. If he has ample income he must certainly be charitable." In addition to this the Talmud states in Ketuvoth 66 that "if one wants to "salt away" one's money he will find that it decreases." It is a psychological truth that inasmuch as man is very fond of his money he is loath to part with it. A person may wish to counteract his natural tendency to hang on to his money by making a vow to G'd so as to obligate himself against his avaricious nature to give some of his money away for a worthy cause. This is why the Torah has to warn us that the consequences of not living up to the promises one has made in the form of a vow may be devastating. Concerning paying a vow late the Torah says that the party guilty of this is guilty of a sin, i.e. he may experience being deprived of someone his is fond of. Concerning people who fail to give charity the Torah says וכי תחדל לנדר, that even if the failure to make vows may result in your not donating to charity and this in turn may result in your own money-supply diminishing in worth or amount, at least you will not suffer the additional disaster of losing someone dear to you, such as when והיה בך חטא applies to you..

וכי תחדל לנדור, “if you refrain from making vows, etc.” There was no need to tell us that if one does not make vows that one will not become guilty of violating same, i.e. sinning; the words לא יהיה בך חטא, “you will not be guilty of a sin,” refer to what was written in verse 22, i.e. “if you make a vow, etc.” The Torah warns that the very fact that you do make vows is what may lead to your ultimately becoming guilty of the sin of not honoring your vow or being late in honoring it. Unfulfilled vows are apt to cause numerous sins, especially if the vow was not unreservedly for the sake of heaven. Our sages at the beginning of the first chapter of Chulin (folio 2) interpret the verse in Kohelet 5,4 to mean that better than even keeping to the terms of the vow is not to make a vow in the first place. If one wants to bring an offering to G’d, one should do so at the time when one decides on it without first making a vow about it. (Nedarim 9). They also say in Nedarim 22 that even people who make vows and kept them on time are called “sinner.” They base themselves on this verse, i.e. that the only way to avoid being called “sinner” in relation to the subject of vows is by not making any vows.

וכי תחדל לנדור, “And when you refrain from making gifts in the form of a vow,” you would, in the first place, only phrase a gift you want to make (mostly to the Temple treasury) in the form of a vow, as the vow reminds you not to tarry with discharging the duties you imposed upon yourself. Seeing that your intention in making such a vow was honourable, laudatory, if you are prevented by circumstances beyond your control to keep to the terms of your vow, the Torah tells you that this will not be held against you. However, if you simply refrain from honouring a vow made, without the excuse that circumstances beyond your control had prevented you from honouring it, or honouring it on time, then you have violated the law that whatever you undertake, be it in the form of a vow or a simple statement, you are obligated by the Torah to keep such undertakings. The Torah views such commitments as not only undertakings to your fellow, but as undertakings toward Hashem. In light of all that has been said, the Torah counsels that you would be better off if you were not to make a vow at all.

The utterance of your lips you shall observe and perform, just as you vowed before Hashem your God, the freewill offering that you spoke with your mouth.

מוצא שפתיך תשמר THAT WHICH HATH GONE OUT OF THY LIPS THOU SHALT KEEP — This is intended to add a positive command to the prohibition of delaying one’s vows (mentioned in the previous verse) (Rosh Hashanah 6a).

"The utterance of your lips" — in any matter in which the Name is invoked. "A freewill-offering" — for every vow (נֶדֶר) is a freewill-offering (נְדָבָה), but not every freewill-offering is a vow; this matter is clear. "Which you have spoken with your mouth" — once the utterance has gone forth, you cannot retract it.

מוצא שפתיך תשמר, "You shall carry out what you have promised with your lips." The Torah suggests that you should wait before making a vow, a promise, until you are in a position to honour it forthwith. In that event it is perfectly acceptable for you to make vows. This is why the Torah writes immediately adjoining ועשית כאשר נדרת, "and you will do in accordance with what you have vowed." The famous teacher of the Mishnah Hillel conducted himself according to this principle by not designating the lamb he would offer as a passover offering as such until he had reached the Temple yard where it was to be slaughtered (compare Pessachim 86). Another meaning of our verse may be this: the words מוצא שפתיך תשמר mean that you should be very careful before you say anything (as it may be in the nature of a commitment). If, however, you did say something, treat it as if it were as sacred as a vow, i.e. כאשר נדרת לשם אלוקיך נדבה, "as if you had made a sacred vow to the Lord your G'd, instead of merely a voluntary gift of a secular nature." The Torah uses the expression נדבה to indicate the generous frame of mind you were in when you made this promise. We know that this is the general meaning of the word נדבה from Exodus 25,20: "which he donates in his heart," or Exodus 35,21: "which his spirit had donated." אשר דברת בפיך, "as you have said with your mouth." We may understand this in light of Zohar volume three page 294 commenting on Kohelet 10,20: "for a bird of the sky may carry the sound, etc." When a man merely entertains some thoughts, his lips already move without his being aware of this. This is what the Torah alludes to with the words: "which you uttered with your mouth." If the meaning were not what the Zohar suggested what point is there in the Torah adding the word: "with your mouth?" Who does not know that one speaks with one's mouth? Our sages in Rosh Hashanah 6 interpret our verse in a different manner. After all, there are 70 legitimate ways of interpreting the written Torah.

מוצא שפתיך תשמור, “that which has come forth from your lips you should observe and do.” “Observe” what you have vowed not to do and “do” what you vowed to do but make sure that you do this for the sake of Heaven. כאשר נדרת, “as you have vowed, voluntarily.” No one forced you to make such a vow, so that not honouring it, or delay in honouring it is entirely your fault.

מוצא שפתיך תשמור ועשית, “you must fulfill what has crossed your lips and perform it.” According to the plain meaning of the text, these words refer once more to the vows discussed previously. Up until now the Torah had only forbidden being late in honoring one’s vows but had not said anything about the vow having to be carried out. Actually, we would have expected the Torah to write something like: “when you make a vow, carry it out and do not be late in paying it.” The meaning of the words מוצא שפתיך, is the actual vow. The words תשמור ועשית, refer to carrying out all the conditions of the vow, i.e. כאשר נדרת לה' אלו-היך, “as you vowed to the Lord your G’d in the free-willed gift of your heart.” The additional words אשר דברת בפיך “as you said with your mouth,” mean that you will not omit any detail of what you promised to do. The Torah says all this to demonstrate how seriously it takes a vow. This is why the penalty for failing to keep such a commitment is so extreme, i.e. it is considered a sin against one’s soul. Compare Numbers 15,31 הנפש ההיא עונה בה, “that soul, his sin is upon him.” There are a few other instances where the Torah describes the ongoing sin in such terms such as when a poor person whom we have abused cries out to G’d in anguish about the treatment he has received from us when we held back his wages (Deut. 24,15). There are a few more such examples. The penalty may be that known as נפש תחת נפש, “a life for a life,” an example of the punishment matching the crime. When the Torah describes a sin in terms of involving נפש, you have to be on guard. Whenever the Torah uses the term נפש in such situations it is a reference to the life of the body of the sinner. Delaying payment of a vow is considered as a trespass against the essence of G’d. [Compare what author wrote in connection with Numbers 30,3 near the end of the kabbalistic approach where the author explained why a vow is something more serious than forbidding oneself something on oath. Ed.] This is why the Torah writes the unusual “for the Lord your G’d will demand it of you.” This is the essence of the “King” Who supervises all the details of what goes on. He demands accounting for blood spilled (Psalms 9,13) both in this world and in the world to come. This is why the words דרוש ידרשנו ה' אלו-היך מעמך have been repeated. A Midrashic approach: on the line מוצא שפתיך תשמור ועשית, the first two words refer to the positive commandment, whereas the word תשמור refers to the negative commandment not to violate the terms of the vow. The word ועשית is an admonition to the court to ensure that you keep your vows. If for instance, you vowed to offer certain sacrifices, the court may force you to honour your vow by beating you until you respond by saying that you are willing to keep your vow. This is based on Leviticus 1,3 יקריב אותו לרצונו, “he will offer it (willingly),” as interpreted by Rosh Hashanah 6. If the subject of the vow were charitable donations the donor is most certainly forced to fork over what he had promised even if the court has to put up some of his property for sale to satisfy his vow (Rosh Hashanah 6). The delay permitted then is even shorter as the poor people for whom the donations were intended cannot afford to wait. The Talmud in Baba Batra 8 says that such taking of pledges from the donor to make good on his vows may even be performed on the Sabbath eve. The words כאשר נדרת refer to regular vows, whereas the subsequent words לה' אלו-היך refer to sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings. The words ה' אלו-היך occur in connection with each one of those offerings. The word נדבה refers to a free-willed gift, as implied by the word. The words אשר דברת, refer to donations made to the Temple treasury, items not suitable for the altar. The word בפיך is a reference to charitable donations. The sages derive this meaning from Isaiah 45,23 יצא מפי צדקה דבר ולא ישוב, “from my mouth has issued forth righteousness, a word that shall not turn back.” A Kabbalistic approach: the words מוצא שפתיך correspond to פי ה'; just as man expects G’d to make good on what He promises, so G’d expects man to make good on his promises, even if these promises were not reinforced by an oath or something similar. The sages, in Shevuot 36 have said that when the word “no” appears twice this is equivalent to an oath. They illustrate this with Isaiah 54,9 אשר נשבעתי מעבור מי נח עוד על הארץ “as I swore that the waters of Noach nevermore would flood the earth, so I swear that I will not be angry, etc.” Also, when Noach had offered the sacrifice thanking G’d for his being saved from the deluge, the Torah speaks of G’d “smelling” the fragrance of the offering (Genesis 9,21) “I will not again curse the earth on account of man, and in the same verse, I will not again smite all living creatures as I have done.” This formulation is absolute and irrevocable. If the statement appears only once, though it is not an oath, it is nevertheless something that is binding on the person who has made it. This is why the sages in Baba Metzia 44 have stated that anyone who reneges on his promises invites the penalty of מי שפרע i.e. the same G’d who brought retribution on the generation of the deluge. They also said that we are all children of the Lord and have been sanctified by an oral covenant directed at the mouth which is situated between our ten fingers, as well as the covenant of the Brit Milah which is situated between the ten toes. The mouth is the seventh orifice (from the head down) after the two eyes, the two ears and the two nostrils. We know that the number seven represents sanctity, both in terms of the Sabbath, the seventh heaven as ערבות, His abode, etc., etc. He has chosen the seventh day of the week as His holy day. He has chosen man’s mouth to be the instrument to sing the praises of His Holy Name. This is the reason for לא תחללו את שם קדשי, “do not desecrate My Holy Name,” (Leviticus 22,32). The mouth was given to us to pronounce the praises of the Lord, not to be used profanely. It is most inappropriate to abuse our lips to tell lies and thereby to deny one of the covenants G’d has made with us. The psalmist prides himself (Psalms 44,18) for not having been false to G’d’s covenant. When the Israelites transgressed commitments taken upon themselves with their mouths, Moses upbraided them by saying: “why are you violating the covenant you have made with the Lord?” (Numbers 14,41) For all these reasons Moses says in our Parashah: “be sure to observe and carry out what emerges from your lips.” There is no need for us to be told here that we have to keep the negative and positive commandments which were commanded to us by G’d. Self-imposed vows rate higher than the commandments which we are obliged to keep without having volunteered to do so. The vows are holier than the ordinary commandments, this is why the Torah has to warn especially against not honoring them. This is what is meant by the words כאשר נדרת לה' אלו-היך נדבה, the inspiration to make these voluntary vows originates in the highest celestial regions and is known as the סוף הבנין, “the ultimate stage of the structure,” or the level of the emanation תפארת, the highest associated with anything even remotely physical. This is what is described as תרומה in Exodus 35,5 of which the Torah writes כל נדיב לבו יביאה את תרומת ה', “everyone whose heart prompts him will bring the offering of Hashem.” This generosity is part of what the people who heard the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai were imbued with as a result of that experience. This is meant by אשר דברת בפיך, i.e. “which you uttered with your mouth.” This is a reference to the קול, רוח, ודבור perceived by the people at Mount Sinai. This is what prompted the sages to interpret the words אשר דברת as being a reference to קדשי בדק הבית, items donated for the use of the Temple treasury (compare Sifri).

When you enter your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat grapes as you desire, to your fill, but into your vessel you shall not put any.

כי תבא בכרם רעך WHEN THOU COMEST INTO THE VINEYARD OF THY FELLOW MAN, [THEN THOU MAYEST EAT GRAPES AT THY FILL] — Scripture is speaking of a laborer (who is engaged in gathering in the grapes, but not of one who is doing other work in the vineyard, nor of one who enters the vineyard with no intention to do work; cf. Rashi in the next passage) (Bava Metzia 87b). כנפשך means as much as you like. שבעך AT THY FILL — but not excessive eating (Bava Metzia 87b). ואל כליך לא תתן BUT THOU SHALT NOT PUT ANY IN THY VESSEL — From here we may derive that Scripture is referring only to the period of the vintage, to the time when thou puttest grapes into the owner’s vessel, — then thou mayest eat but not put any into thy vessel; but if he comes to hoe or to weed (i.e. to do other work than harvesting) he must not eat of the grapes (Bava Metzia 89b).

"When you come into your neighbor's vineyard" — to harvest, you are permitted to eat. This section is juxtaposed [to the foregoing] because from what is your own you are obligated to give in a vow, while from what belongs to others you may not take for yourself. "Your vessel" (כֶּלְיְךָ) — [this form is] like עֶדְיְךָ (your ornament).

ואל כליך לא תתן, "but you may not put any of them into your vessel." The Torah prefaces the word כליך with the conjunctive letter ו to remind us that there was another commandment which immediately preceded this commandment. We refer to the prohibition to overeat from the grapes of the vineyard of your employer. We derive this prohibition from the fact that the Torah wrote שבעך "to your satisfaction," i.e. not more than your fill. After this the Torah added: "neither shall you put any into your vessel."

כי תבא בכרם רעך, “when you came into your neighbour’s vineyard, etc.” The reason why this subject is discussed here is to contrast it with your having vowed something. When you make a vow it can only be concerning something that you own; when you enter your neighbour’s private property anything you remove comes under the heading of “taking.” (Ibn Ezra) [Ibn Ezra assumes that you have business in your neighbour’s vineyard, seeing you have been hired to help harvest the grapes. Ed.] ואכלת ענבים כנפשך ,“you may eat as many grapes as you desire;” provided the owner has not specifically forbidden you to do so. (Meiri) The sages disagree about the significance of the sequence in which the Torah’s laws have been written, i.e. if the order implies a legal linkage to what preceded it. According to Rabbi Joseph in the Talmud tractate Yevamot folio 4, the laws in the Book of Deuteronomy are an exception in that even the scholars who hold that elsewhere such a linkage does not exist, concerning such sequences in the Book of Deuteronomy they agree that the order in which these laws have been written are of some legal significance. He quotes as examples all the laws written in these chapters, including even the command to wipe out the memory of what Amalek did to the Israelites when they had come out of Egypt. (Deut.25,19)

כי תבא בכרם רעך, “when you enter the vineyard of your fellow,” The Torah speaks of a worker hired to help with the harvesting of the grapes (Baba Metzia 87). Our sages there continue to understand the word כי תבא עליו השמש (24,15) which clearly speaks of a worker, as proof that here too (only) a worker is meant. Otherwise, everyone could help himself to the grapes in any vineyard any time. This is also the way Onkelos translates our verse, i.e. ארי תתגר, “when a trader,” i.e. someone who has legitimate business in that vineyard. ואל כליך לא תתן, “but you must not put any of it into your vessel.” This would be considered robbery. The Torah made a concession only concerning the desire of a person to eat on the job when he is tempted greatly to immediately gratify his appetite. Had the Torah not given its blessing to the laborer to eat ad hoc, he would have done so as a thief, something far worse. This is why the Torah adds the significant restriction כנפשך שבעך, “until you have satisfied your immediate craving.” The expression שבעך is reminiscent of Proverbs 13,25: “the righteous eats to his heart’s content;” Solomon means that he does not eat as a glutton, only to still his hunger. The same considerations apply to the laborer working in a grain field as outlined in verse 26. He must use his hands and not a tool (sickle) in order to cut down grain for personal consumption.

When you enter your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck ears with your hand, but a sickle you shall not raise against your neighbor's standing grain.

כי תבא בקמת רעך WHEN THOU COMEST INTO THE STANDING CORN OF THY FELLOW MAN [THOU MAYEST PLUCK THE EARS WITH THINE HAND] — In this case too, Scripture is referring to a labourer in the field (cf. Sifrei Devarim 267:1; Bava Metzia 87b).

"Your neighbor's standing grain" — to harvest. "And you shall pluck" (וְקָטַפְתָּ) — like "those who pluck mallow" (הַקּוֹטְפִים מַלּוּחַ). "Ears" (מְלִילוֹת) — [grain] known from [the context of] the place. "Sickle" (חֶרְמֵשׁ) — a word of four [root] letters. On account of "you shall not wave" (תָּנִיף), those who dispute [the Sages' ruling] said that [this plucking applies only] to those who pass along the road.