Deuteronomy · Chapter 25

When there is a dispute between men and they come before the court for judgment, and they judge them — they shall acquit the innocent and convict the guilty.

כי יהיה ריב IF THERE BE A QUARREL [BETWEEN MEN] they will in the end have to approach the judges (because of a bodily injury inflicted by one on the other, since Scripture goes on to state, “and if the wicked man be worthy of lashes”, a punishment that can only follow, in the case of a quarrel, upon one of the parties receiving a blow). You must thus come to the conclusion that nothing good can come out of a quarrel. Just think: what was it that caused Lot to leave the righteous man (Abraham)? You must admit it was a mere quarrel (cf. Genesis 13:7—11; Sifrei Devarim 286:1). והרשיעו את הרשע THEY SHALL CONDEMN THE WICKED — One might think that all who are found guilty in a law-suit are punished with lashes; Scripture, however, goes on to state, והיה אם בן הכות הרשע AND IT SHALL BE, IF THE WICKED MAN BE WORTHY TO BE BEATEN, [… THAT THE JUDGE SHALL SMITE HIM] — “if”: you learn, therefore, that sometimes he receives lashes and sometimes he does not receive lashes. Who it is that may be punished with lashes can be learnt from the context: (v. 4) “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn” — which is לאו שלא נתק לעשה a prohibition which is not attached to a positive command (cf. Sifrei Devarim 286:4; Makkot 13b).

IF THERE BE A QUARREL BETWEEN MEN. According to the tradition of our Rabbis that stripes are administered to those who are guilty of having violated negative commandments [and not in civil cases, the question arises] what is its [the stripes’] connection with a quarrel between two people? He who eats n’veilah (carrion) in his home is liable to stripes! So also he who sows his field or his vineyard with diverse seeds, or he who cohabits with any of the women forbidden by a plain prohibitive law [i.e., one not involving the court-imposed death-penalty], and all the rest of the negative commandments [are all typical of the transgressions punishable by stripes. All involve negative commandments, not civil suits as is the case in the verse before us.] Additionally, what is the meaning of the phrase and they shall justify the righteous [since a civil case does not involve questions of wickedness and righteousness]? Therefore, the Rabbis have interpreted the verse as referring to plotting witnesses. Scripture says: “In case, If there be a quarrel between two men, and they come high unto judgment and they will judge them through the testimony of two witnesses, as we have been commanded. [Afterwards, two other witnesses came to court and testified that the first pair of witnesses were elsewhere at the time when the event they testified about allegedly took place. Thus the person found guilty as a result of the original testimony is shown to be ‘righteous’ while the plotting witnesses have been proven ‘wicked.’] Then the judges will justify the righteous [through the second pair of witnesses] and condemn the wicked contrary to the first judgment; then it shall be if the wicked man [i.e., the first pair of witnesses] deserve to be beaten. ” This applies to where the command and ye shall do unto him, as he had purposed to do unto his brother cannot be carried out upon them — such being the case if they testified [against a priest] that he is the son of a divorced woman [and therefore not qualified to be a ministering priest in the Sanctuary], or that he is a slave or a bastard [who is prohibited from the priesthood or from marriage to a Jew], or if they testified against someone that he transgressed one of the negative commandments [which are punishable by stripes] — in all these cases they [the plotting witnesses] are punishable by stripes. It is possible that there be a quarrel between men resulting in stripes — such as where someone assaulted his fellow [causing a damage of] less than a perutah, or that he cursed his fellow with the Name of G-d, or that someone exacted a utensil necessary for the preparation of food as security for a loan, and similar cases. Scripture speaks of the common occurrence that the party to a dispute [with his fellow] will bring him to court and he will be punished with stripes because of him. Now, the reason for the forty stripes, according to the Midrash, is because he transgressed against the Torah which was given in forty...

"And they shall judge them" — the judges, similar to [the use of an implied subject in] "he shall not take a millstone as pledge" (Deut. 24:6).

כי יהיה ריב בין אנשים, “if an argument between two men results in their taking their case to the court;” Nachmanides writes, basing himself on a long standing tradition, that the penalty of 39 lashes is administered for deliberate transgressions of negative commandments when no specific penalty has been decreed by the Torah. Why would the Torah expand on this penalty when speaking about a fight between two people, when the same penalty is applied for people who eat meat that has not been slaughtered, or who indulge in a number of other forbidden activities? Furthermore, what law did these two people break when they engaged in a fight? The whole structure of our verse, which speaks about exonerating someone after judgment had been given and labeling the second party as “wicked” is problematic. Why do we need a verse telling us that the person found “justified” be so declared as such by the judges? Such considerations prompted our sages to understand the whole paragraph as dealing with a scenario involving a second set of witnesses appearing after initial judgment having been given. This second set of witnesses challenges the witnesses on the basis of whose testimony the guilty party has been convicted by claiming that those witnesses had been with them in a different location at the time the fight was supposed to have occurred, so that they could not have witnessed that fight at all. Normally, in such a case the first set of witnesses would be given the penalty that they had intended to be applied to their victim. (Deut. 19,19) When this is impossible, such as when they claimed that seeing the accused party was the son of a legally forbidden union and could not partake of certain privileges reserved for children of legitimate unions, then the court will impose the penalty of 39 lashes, as it is impossible to change those witnesses’ legal status in the community. The judges, when reversing the conviction, will have to make a public statement that the party originally convicted of the crime in question had in fact been righteous and had remained righteous throughout. According to a homiletic approach the reason why the number of lashes is described as being “40,” (excluding the 40th), is that the guilty party had violated a commandment that Moses had been given during the 40 days he had been on Mt Sinai without food and drink. Moreover, by sinning, the guilty party had condemned himself to death as it takes 40 days in the womb of its mother for the embryo to begin to evolve into a living human being. The 40 lashes are intended to absolve the sinner from further guilt.

And it shall be, if the guilty one is liable to flogging, the judge shall have him lie down and be flogged in his presence, according to the measure of his offense, by number.

והפילו השפט AND THE JUDGE SHALL CAUSE HIM TO FALL DOWN — This teaches that one is not lashed whilst standing or sitting but only when bending (Makkot 22b). לפניו כדי רשעתו [AND THE JUDGE SHALL … SMITE HIM] IN FRONT ACCORDING TO HIS WICKEDNESS (כדי רשעתו may mean “as much as is sufficient for his wickedness”, i.e., for one part of his wickedness, רשעתו being singular) — in front (on his chest) corresponding to one part of his wickedness, and on his back corresponding to two parts: hence they (the Rabbis) derived that one must give him (anyone sentenced to lashes) two-thirds on his back and one third on his chest (Sifrei Devarim 286:6; Makkot 22b, 23a). בְּמספר BY A NUMBER — but it (the word) is not punctuated בַּמספר by the number; this shows that it is connected with the following word, to read בְּמִסְפַּר ארבעים [“he shall smite him”] … by the number of forty, (i.e. by the number leading to forty), not, however, a full forty, but a number that leads up to the full total of forty, i.e., forty less one (Makkot 22a).

"The son of beating" — with a ḥireq [under the bet], like "son of Nun" (some say: "son"); its meaning is like "son of worthlessness" [i.e., a wicked man]. Similarly, "he was a son of a night," meaning he was guilty. In my view, "to beat him" [refers to one] who struck his fellow. "And the judge shall cast him down" — this is in the imperative, and likewise "and he shall strike him" and "testify before him." "According to the measure of his wickedness, in number" — that is, of the lashes. It would seem to us that there are offenses for which one might receive ten, or twenty, or fewer, or more, and the proof is "according to the measure of his wickedness" — only he shall not add beyond forty. But for the received tradition [halakhah], that alone is the truth. Some say the meaning of "his wickedness" refers to lashes that are severe or light, and all are [reckoned] by the number forty.

והפילו השופט, he will stretch him out on the post. [The lashes are not applied when the victim is standing upright, but when he is at least inclined. (Makkot 22) Ed.]

אם בן הכות הרשע, "if the person found guilty (the wicked one) is convicted he is to receive 39 lashes, etc." The reason the Torah wrote the word בן with the vowel chirik instead of the customary vowel segol is that he who administers the lashes must evaluate if the victim is physically able to absorb these lashes without injury. In the event that the health of the individual in question cannot absorb the normal number of lashes, i.e. that he is not ben hakkot, he receives only as many lashes as are compatible with maintaining his level of health (compare Makkot 22).

בן הכות, “deserves to be punished by physical lashes;” the expression is similar to בן מות, “deserving of the death penalty,” the word בן here with the vowel chirik under the latter ב, is similar to the one in the name of Joshua, i.e. יהושע בן נון, “Joshua, son of Nun,” or אגור בן יקה, in Proverbs 30,1. והכהו לפניו, “and he has to strike him in his presence.” The man carrying out the court’s judgment must do so in the presence of the judge who had convicted the sinner. (Compare Talmud, tractate Makkot folio 22.) כדי רשעתו, “according to the measure of his wickedness.” This sounds somewhat indefinite, as if the judge could impose different penalties of lashes for different sins. The conclusion of the Talmud is that under no circumstances must the number 39 be exceeded. Possibly, the degree of force used to apply the lashes varies with different sins.

כדי רשעתו במספר, “according to his wickedness, by a count.” Seeing that the vowel under the letter ב in the word במספר is a semi-vowel sheva, it is clear that that word belongs to the word ארבעים in the verse which follows. In other words: “the number is close to 40, but not precisely 40.” This is where our sages got the number 39 for the number of strokes to be administered. The deeper significance of this number 39 is that a dead person needs to be resurrected; a person who committed a sin and transgressed against the laws of his master is guilty of death. His soul is subject to the karet penalty. The penalty of 39 lashes substitutes for the death penalty and is equivalent to the dew (טל=39) which G’d is reputed to employ to bring the dead back to life (compare Chagigah 12). The Talmud Megillah 7 states that people who qualified for the karet penalty but have endured the penalty of מלקות instead are thereby saved from having to endure the karet penalty after their death. In other words, this corporal punishment is a form of atonement for a greater penalty. It is as if the guilty party had already received the טל של תחייה, the life-restoring dew in advance. There is another reason for this number. The culpability for sins through trial on earth commences with age 13. The number of strokes administered is 39, i.e. three times the number 13. This equals the numerical value of the word טל. Culpability by the heavenly tribunal only commences with age 20. Three times 20 is 60. This is what Baba Metzia 85 refers to when it describes that Elijah (the apparition of Elijah traversing the earth) was struck with 60 brands of fire for having divulged celestial secrets to mortal man. If the sages are in the habit of always referring to 40 lashes instead of to 39 lashes, or “40 minus one lashes,“ such as when they describe the various kinds of forbidden categories of work on the Sabbath as “40 minus one” (Shabbat 73), the reason is that they wanted to model their speech as closely as possible on the language of the Torah itself, seeing the Torah wrote ארבעים יכנו, “he shall strike him with 40 (lashes).” The reason the Torah adds the words כדי רשעתו, “in accordance with his wickedness,” is that the ferocity with which these lashes are administered depends on the severity of the sin for which it is administered (compare Ibn Ezra).

“In number, forty shall strike him.” They whip him two-thirds from behind and one-third from the front (Makkot 23) because every sinner turns his back to the Divine Presence and treats the Eye above as if it does not see. And there are sinners who brazenly face God, as it is written A wicked man hardens his face (Proverbs 21:29). And just as the Torah was stricter with a thief than with a robber, imposing double payment upon him because he denies the Eye above and does not [even] equate the servant and his Master, which is not the case with a robber (Bava Kamma 79b), so too double [punishment] is imposed upon him — to be lashed twice as much from behind and one part from the front, because with every sin there is doubt whether he brazenly faced [God] or whether he turned his back to God, in which case his sin is doubled. And some say one in front of him [lefanav, which also means before him], that he should remember one thing before him, that he came from a putrid drop, and two behind him [le’achorav, which also means after him], that he should remember that he is going to a place of worms, and to remember before whom he is destined to give judgment and accounting, and these are after him, and this is correct. The reason for the number 39: It is because he denied the One [Echad], [the letters of] which corresponds to the number 13, and he denied the Torah which is interpreted through 13 methods, and he rebelled against the good inclination which comes after 13 years. Every sinner has a spirit of folly enter him and he lacks the understanding [binah] which comes at the age of 40. Therefore it says And if the son [ben] is — if we examine the understanding that comes in the 40th year, and he is as if he did not reach the 40th year, by this you will know that it is appropriate to give him lashes in a number that is not exactly 40, but close to this number, because he is a person without understanding.

Forty stripes he shall flog him — he shall not add more; lest he add to flog him beyond these with a great blow, and your brother be degraded in your eyes.

לא יסיף HE SHALL NOT EXCEED — From here is derived the prohibition referring to one who strikes his fellow man (Sanhedrin 86b; cf. Ketubot 33a). ונקלה אחיך WHEN THY BROTHER SHOULD SEEM VILE [UNTO THEE] — All the time it has been calling him “wicked” (vv. 1 and 2), but as soon as he has received the lashes it calls him “thy brother”! (Sifrei Devarim 286:14).

The reason [Scripture says] "and your brother shall be degraded" is that this is something well known and decreed by Hashem — that forty is the limit for one who bears [lashes] as punishment by divine law, and not according to the judge's will.

מכה רבה, more than the victim’s general constitution can bear. ונקלה אחיך, if he were to be unable to control his bowel movements on account of his pain..

ארבעים, “forty;” the number 40 is symbolic of the forty days Moses spent on Mount Sinai when he received the Torah, so that it takes forty lashes to cleanse the sinner of the guilt he had accumulated by having deliberately violated a negative commandment by committing an act which must be interpreted as rebellious. (Tanchuma Bamidbar section 23.) יכנו, “he will beat him;” on his body, not on the garment or garments he is wearing. The part of the body where these lashes are to be applied is between the shoulders of the sinner. לא יוסיף, “he must not exceed this number;” why was this repeated seeing that we read it already in Deuteronomy 4,2, where it appeared as a general rule? According to the Rabbis, it means that whereas the sages do not have the right to increase this mode of punishment, they may impose fewer lashes, such as when the health of the sinner is fragile, and similar considerations. This is also why the Rabbis divided the areas of the body to which these lashes are to be applied, to shoulder, chest, and the upper back where it joins the shoulder.

ארבעים יכנו ולא יוסיף, “he shall strike him forty and he shall not add.” This amount of lashes is a judgment by itself, a heavenly decree [not the result of an assessment by the judges of the severity of the sin. Ed.] The judge is bound to sentence the guilty party to this sentence only, and the convicted party must endure it. One must not increase the number of lashes so as not to humiliate the convicted party. Our sages in Makkot 22 elaborate on the precise manner in which this beating is administered. The two hands of the victim are bound in two opposing directions to a kind of wooden board. The person administering the lashes takes hold of the guilty party’s clothing, exposing his chest. A stone is placed underneath him from behind. The person deputized to perform the beating (known as חזן הכנסת) stands over the prisoner with the belt made of calf-leather in his hand (and proceeds). This belt is folded over and folded over again so that it is actually four strips of belt. In addition there are belts of donkey hide interspersed to connect the other four strips with the ones made of calf-hide. The handle of the belt is one handbreadth wide and one handbreadth long. The beatings are administered one third to his chest and the other two thirds to his back. The reason the portion of not muzzling an ox while it is in the act of threshing is written immediately after this verse is to teach that the belt should be made of calf-hide. The reason why the measurements of one handbreadth width and length respectively, and the total number of leather strips in that belt (whip) are important, is connected to the fact that a handbreadth is four fingers wide. When we fold this over we get eight finger widths and when we do this a third time we have 16 fingerbreadths. There is not a single commandment in the Torah the violation of which does not involve a minimum of violating 16 covenants. Hence the number 16 has a deep symbolic significance in the administering of the penalty for violating a negative commandment. (compare Sotah 37) The reason that two (kinds of) belts which interconnect upwards and downwards between the calf hide belts are used is to allude to the violation by the sinner of both his undertaking implied in the word נעשה and the word נשמע “we will do and we will hear (learn),” which was the formula by which the people of Israel had accepted the Torah. The reason both calf-hide and donkey-hide is used is to combine “ox and donkey.” This is an allusion to the lament of the prophet Isaiah that whereas both an ox and a donkey are smart enough to know and respect their owners, only the sinful Jewish people appear not to possess such minimal intelligence (Isaiah 1,3). Anyone who transgresses the commandments of His Maker deserves to be disciplined by lashes from a belt consisting of both calf-hide and donkey-hide. In the Jerusalem Talmud Makkot there is a comment that the fact that the belt was folded is derived from the words והפילו השופט, “the judge shall cast him down” (verse 2), suggesting that the word והפילו may be read instead as והכפילו, “he shall double him over.” As to the reason why one third of the lashes are administered to the chest and the remainder to the back, this is based on the verse והכהו לפניו כדי רשעתו, which is understood in Makkot 23 as “corresponding to one wickedness in front and the other two thirds on his back.” The word יכנו, להכותו are understood as referring to two beatings. Had the Torah wanted all the strokes to be administered to one part of the body only it should merely have written the word והכהו לפניו, “he will beat him on his front (chest).” As it is, the word for striking is used three times instead of merely once, i.e. והכהו, יכנו, להכותו. This teaches that one third of the strokes are to be administered to the chest and the other two thirds to the back. A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Bamidbar 23: ”why did the Torah pick the number 40 for the strokes to be administered? A human fetus is formed during a period of 40 days. The Torah also was only given to Israel after Moses had been taught it for 40 days. He who violates the Torah which took 40 days to reveal deserves 40 strokes for violating the Torah. You will find that when sin came into the world the punishment involving the universe comprised 40 elements, 10 endured by Adam, 10 by Chavah, 10 by the serpent and 10 by the earth. Therefore, when man violates a negative commandment his punishment comprises 40 elements (compare Tanchuma Bamidbar 23). [The Midrash does not elaborate. Ed.] The figure 40 again surfaces in connection with the punishment of the Jewish people for accepting the majority report of the spies. Israel was punished by having to remain in the desert for 40 years. פן יוסיף, “lest he add (strokes).” Seeing the Torah repeats this expression for the second time, Rabbi Yonah the holy one, deduces that if one strikes a fellow or one’s wife one violates two negative commandments. (compare Shaarey Teshuvah by Rabbeinu Yonah section 3, item 77). The first negative command-ment is the one introduced here as לא יוסיף, whereas the second one is introduced by the words פן יוסיף. We know that this latter formula is a negative commandment as we have a rule that the word פן or השמר or אל always introduces a negative commandment (Makkot 13). מכה רבה, ”a great blow;” even adding one single stroke of the belt is called “a great blow.” There is an allusion in the word to the 365 negative commandments. In the event of violation there are many of these commandments which do not carry the penalty of corporal punishment for a variety of reasons. The number of negative commandments the violation of which results in 39 lashes being administered is 207, corresponding to the numerical value of the word רבה. This is why the Torah here chose the expression מכה רבה. If you will analyse the mystical dimension of the subject you will discover another allusion in the expression מכה רבה. It is the allusion to the “great corporal punishment,” i.e. the fire in Gehinom, purgatory. This fire derives its power from the attribute of Justice in its most ferocious form. This attribute is known as כה, and this is why the plagues with which Pharaoh and the Egyptians were smitten were introduced with the word כה (Exodus 4,22; 7,17 et al.). The milder form of retribution orchestrated by the court for violation of the aforementioned 207 negative commandments is a form of atonement, saving the sinner from becoming exposed to the ferocious element of the celestial attribute of Justice. It is one of the manifestations of G’d’s loving concern for us that He arranged for such a punishment to take the place of something far harsher. The reason that even a single extra stroke would be considered as מכה רבה, is that the number 40 atones for what would have become exposure to the fires of purgatory. If an additional blow [additional to 39. Ed.] is administered the victim already began to taste some of that מכה רבה unique to purgatory. The party administering same would be guilty in the extreme. ונקלה אחיך בעיניך, “and your brother would be degraded in your eyes.” Until the moment when he received the additional blow, the Torah referred to him simply as רשע, wicked, i.e. והרשיעו את הרשע, (verse 1), or והיה אם בן הכות הרשע or כדי רשעתו (verse 2). As soon as the guilty party has submitted and received his punishment the Torah once more refers to him as אחיך, “your brother.” Our sages use this verse to prove that all the people whose transgression would have made them guilty of the karet penalty will be exonerated if instead they subjected themselves to the penalty of 39 lashes (Megillah 7, our author repeats this). They understand the words ונקלה אחיך in the sense of “after degrading oneself one is once more entitled to be regarded as ‘your brother.’” This exoneration which the sages in Megillah speak of does not apply to the corporal punishment administered by the court nowadays, known as מכת מרדות, striking the rebellious for violating rabbinic commandments. Its purpose is only to shame the party into not violating the statutes of the rabbis which were introduced in their capacity as authorized agents of the Torah again. Ezekiel 16,63 makes it plain that feeling ashamed of one’s sins is a precondition of exoneration, i.e. “that you may remember and feel shame and have no more excuse because of your humiliation when I have forgiven you all that you have done.” What we described applies to the administering of the thirty nine lashes with the guilty person having his hands tied, etc., etc., as we described the procedure during the period of the Talmud. You will note that the numerical value of the letters in the word אחיך is 39, just as the numerical value of the letters in the word אלה, in verse 3 is 39 if you count the letters each as 1 plus their numerical values.

You shall not muzzle the mouth of an ox while it is threshing.

לא תחסם שור THOU SHALT NOT MUZZLE THE OX [WHEN HE TREADETH OUT THE CORN] — Scripture is speaking of what usually occurs, but the same law applies to any cattle, non-domesticated beast and fowl that are doing some work that is connected with food. But if so why does it (Scripture) state “ox”? To exclude a human being from being subject to this law! (i.e. that if he restrains a workman from eating whilst engaged on some operation connected with food, the master is exempt from flagellation usually inflicted on one who transgresses a negative commandment) (Bava Metzia 88b). בדישו WHEN HE TREADETH OUT THE CORN — One might think that one might muzzle it previous to that (lit., outside, i.e., before it starts working)! Scripture, however, states, “thou shalt not muzzle an ox” — which implies thou shalt not muzzle it under any circumstances (Bava Metzia 90b). Then why is threshing mentioned?. In order to tell you the following: What is threshing? Its characteristic is that it is done on a thing the work on which is not yet complete to make it liable to tithing and the giving of Challah, and which grows from the ground. So, too, this prohibition applies only to all operations which have similar characteristics: Thus there are excluded from the prohibition “not to muzzle” (i.e. you may restrain from eating) workmen who are engaged in milking, in cheese-making, or in pressing the moisture out of thick milk, all of which operations are done on things which do not grow from the ground; there are excluded, also, the workmen who are engaged in kneading, or in breaking the dough up into pieces for baking, for the work on it is then completed so that it becomes liable to Challah. There are also excluded the workmen engaged in separating dates and figs from the mass, for the work on them is then completed so that they become liable to tithing (Bava Metzia 89a).

"In its threshing" — those who dispute [the plain sense] said that the bet means before the threshing, but there is no need [for that interpretation].

לא תחסום שור בדשו, “do not muzzle the ox while it is engaged in treading corn.” Rashi claims that this wording is meant to exclude human beings. You may muzzle the mouth of a human being under such circumstances {Sifri) If you were to argue that seeing that the Torah permitted human labourers engaged in assisting the owner in harvesting his vineyard, the Torah had made it plain that while so engaged the labourer could eat to his heart’s content, (Deut.23,25) the Rabbis stated that if the owner of the vineyard had muzzled his labourer to prevent him from eating any of his grapes, he does not have to compensate him for this financially, it is plain that our verse applies only to animals? [The Talmud, tractate Baba Metzia folio 91, states that if a farmer had violated this commandment and muzzled his ox while it was threshing, he is assessed a certain amount of monetary fine depending on the size of the animal involved, i.e. more for an ox than for a donkey, since the former eats more. The Torah does not excuse a human being from a trespass involving the penalty of 39 lashes, however. Had the Torah not written both the verse in Deut 23,25, and our verse here, I would have thought that the Torah excuses the employer of a human being only from the penalty of being subjected to lashes, but not from the financial compensation due for being denied his rights. Therefore the Torah wrote both verses to make sure that we understand that only animals are subject to this legislation and the penalty for violating it. The critical words are respectively: כנפשך “according to your heart’s desire,” and: בדשו, “while engaged in threshing.”According to Rash,i we must question why the Torah writes: בדשו, ”when he is busy threshing;” surely the rule of not muzzling someone’s mouth applies also before the ox had started to thresh, otherwise nobody would bother to observe this commandment! Besides, why was the ox singled out as an example for this commandment, surely it applies to other animals engaged in performing work with food also? The example of the ox was chosen as it is the animal that is used for such tasks more than any other. The law applies, of course, also to other animals that can be used to do threshing, It does not apply to human beings, even if these were used for threshing corn, as this is not a normal occupation for which human beings are used. The word בדשו is chosen as it applies to an activity that is as yet not completed, you may not use the product until other commandments have been fulfilled, such as tithing, setting aside challah. But it applies to activities preparing nature’s products to serve man as food, working with dough, etc. These are products that are not yet even “owned” in the full sense of the word by the farmer himself until he has given the appropriate portions to the priests, the Levites, the poor, the orphans and the widows. Anyone engaged in such a process must not be denied partaking of the product while working with it. The exception is: milking cows and making cheese. [no part of those need to be shared with the poor or the priests. Ed.]

לא תחסם שור בדישו, “Do not muzzle an ox while he is threshing.” The prefix ב in the word בדישו is similar to the prefix ב in the word בבאכם אל אהל מועד in Leviticus 10,9 where it means “when.” Just as in that verse the Torah does not mean literally “when you enter,” but refers to the priest having drunk wine prior to his entering the Sanctuary (and thereby being intoxicated), so here too the word בדישו means: “in anticipation of its starting to thresh.” Even if the owner muzzled the ox before it entered the threshing ground he is guilty of violating this commandment (compare Baba Metzia 90).

When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not become a wife outside to another man; her brother-in-law shall come to her and take her as his wife and perform the levirate duty.

כי ישבו אחים יחדו IF BRETHREN ABIDE TOGETHER, [AND ONE OF THEM DIE … THE WIFE OF THE DEAD SHALL NOT MARRY ABROAD] — This does not mean that they abide in one city but that they have one “abiding” in the world (that they were living at the same time) thus excluding from the operation of this law the wife of one’s brother who never was in his “world” (i.e. a woman may not marry her brother-in-law who was born after her husband’s death) (Sifrei Devarim 288:2; Yevamot 17b). יחדו TOGETHER — means reciprocally associated (מיוחדים) in the law of inheritance (i.e. that they become the heirs of one another), thus excluding from the duty of יבום the brother on the mother’s side (Sifrei Devarim 288:2). ובן אין לו AND HE HAS NO SON — The last two words suggest עין עליו, investigate about him whether he has descendants of any kind — a son, or a daughter, or a son’s son or a son’s daughter, or a daughter’s son or daughter’s daughter (cf. Yevamot 22b).

"When brothers dwell together" — they [the dissenters] also said that they are not literal brothers but only kinsmen, and they brought proof from Boaz — but they said nothing [valid], for there is no mention of levirate marriage there, only redemption. And what would be the meaning of "together" — whether they were in the same province, or the same courtyard, or whether they loved one another? They also said that the verse says "וְיִבְּמָהּ" [and he shall be her levir], and this is a sign that she is not actually a yevamah but only so in name, like "your yevamah has returned" — but they have spoken foolishly and senselessly, for it is explicitly stated regarding the sons of Judah that "ויבם אותה" (he was her levir), and he is her levir and she is his yevamah by virtue of their being [wives] of two brothers. And every person of understanding knows that the commandments given to Moses — those that are prohibitions — were not forbidden before [Sinai], and had a man refrained from them before Moses, that would not have been evil in Hashem's eyes, even though it is written "for all these abominations did the men of the land do who were before you" — yet we do not find a prophet who warned them. And the verse states concerning Onan that he did not give seed to his brother, "and it was evil in the eyes of Hashem" — therefore we rely on the [received] tradition that they are literal brothers. "And he has no son" — for if he has a son, there is no need [for levirate], since she [the widow] is forbidden [to the brother]. "Together" is explained in accordance with the words of the transmitters [of the tradition]. "To a strange man" — meaning outside [the family]; if the levir desires [to exempt her, she may marry whom she wishes].

ויבמה, by doing so he removes her status as yevamah from her as she is now his wife. She will be a wife in all respects including the legislation applying to divorcing her and possibly remarrying her.

לא תהיה אשת המת החוצה לאיש זר, "the wife of the deceased shall not marry a man who is an outsider (stranger), etc." This is a warning to her and to anyone who would cohabit with her that they would be guilty of 39 lashes if they ignored this negative commandment. The Torah also hints here that her brother-in-law, i.e. the potential husband in this levirate marriage, is not obligated to cohabit with her more than a single time. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yossi in Shabbat 118 who stated that he engaged in five such cohabitations from each of which a son was born. According to the Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1,1 Rabbi Yossi referred to 5 such levirate marriages he was required to endure as he had lost 5 brothers none of whom left behind any children. The additional word ולקחה, "and he shall marry her," is intended to give permission for the surviving brother who has fulfilled the duty of the levirate marriage with his sister-in-law to continue living with this woman in a regular marriage. When the Torah adds the word ויבמה, "and perform the levirate marriage on her," this is intended to counter the argument that everything which has been written by the Torah about this arrangement up until now only gave the brother of the deceasesd the option to perform this cohabitation as distinct from his duty to do so. We could have reasoned that inasmuch as under normal circumstances marrying a sister-in-law is absolutely forbidden, that the Torah relaxed this ruling only in order to give the brother-in-law permission to marry her, but did not obligate him to marry her. This is why the additional word ויבמה is necessary.

כי ישבו אחים יחדו ,“when brothers live together, etc.” the word: [“together” here is not to be understood in terms of space but in terms of time, i.e. both are alive at the same time. They share time on earth. In addition,] only brothers who share the same father are referred to in the legislation about to be revealed here. [We are familiar with the basic principle about the levirate marriage from Tamar and the sons of Yehudah in Genesis chapter 38, long before the Torah was given to the Jewish people. Ed.] That there are distinctions between brothers from the father and brothers from the mother, we know from when Joseph’s brothers on their arrival in Egypt described themselves by saying that they were all the sons of one father. (Genesis 42,11) ומת אחד מהם, “and one of them died;” the letter א, has the vowel patach; יבמה בא עליה ולקחה, “her husband’s brother shall go into her and take her as a wife;” this is a positive commandment, whereas previously this woman had been out of bounds for him as a possible wife, now she is not only permitted, but it is considered a good deed to marry her. This is the preferable solution to this widow’s problem, although the Torah offers an alternate solution, also. This is indicated by the fact that the widow has not returned to her previous status before she had become married to her deceased husband, i.e. free to marry other men. Our author refers the reader to his commentary on Leviticus 6,9 where he compared the situation to the words . ויבמה, “and he will perform the ritual of the levirate marriage with her.” This is one of the words which allows for two ways to interpret them. It is similar to Exodus 27,3, לדשנו, and other similar words. The meaning of the expression: ויבמה, therefore is: ”the period of suspended status of potential levirate marriage will come to an end” and “he will make her his wife” in the full sense of the word.

And the firstborn whom she bears shall arise in the name of his deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out from Israel.

AND IT SHALL BE THAT THE FIRSTBORN THAT SHE BEARETH SHALL SUCCEED IN THE NAME OF HIS BROTHER THAT IS DEAD. It [the true purport thereof] is not the simple meaning that they call the first son by the name of the dead, Reuben or Shimon as his name was, for in the case of Boaz it says thus, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and yet they did not call the child born [to Boaz and Ruth] Machlon. But this verse by way of the Truth, [the mystic teaching of the Cabala], is an assurance and thus it is to be understood in its simple sense. And our Rabbis found support in this verse for the following laws: that the eldest [surviving] brother contracts the levirate marriage, that a sterile woman may not be contracted for such marriage, nor the wife of a eunuch since his name was “blotted out” [when he was yet alive]. Now, all these are but Scriptural supports [for laws of levirate marriage], because the laws of the sterile widow and the widow of the eunuch are derived from the very essence of the Scriptural section [and are not derived from the Scriptural supports quoted].

"The firstborn whom she bears" — he shall be called by the name of the [deceased] brother. "And his name shall not be blotted out" — this speaks of the inheritance. I have already explained "whom she bears" in the verse about "to a foreign people."

ולא ימחה שמו מישראל, in that the child born from this union will be considered by G’d as if the deceased had fulfilled the commandment to be fruitful. This is easily understood when we consider that this child is the product of a legal marriage entered into by the deceased husband of his mother. The fact that the deceased’s brother did not have to go through a marriage ceremony with the widow of his brother makes this clear to everyone. This explains why G’d would be angry at the brother who refuses to marry his sister-in-law, as he thereby deprived his deceased brother forever from fulfilling the mitzvah of being fruitful

והיה הבכור אשר תלד יקום על שם אחיו המת, “It shall be that the firstborn which she shall bear shall succeed to the name of his dead brother.” The plain meaning of this verse is the kabbalistic approach. The word שם in this verse does not literally mean “name,” i.e. that the child will bear the name of the deceased brother; rather the Torah speaks of the soul of the new infant which will replace that of the departed brother. This is the meaning of the words ולא ימחה שמו מישראל, “so that his name will not be blotted out from the Jewish people.” If the deceased would not have a replacement on earth his name would be blotted out from Israel. When the Talmud in Yevamot 24 understands the words והיה הבכור אשר תלד to mean that the reference is to the firstborn son of the mother of these brothers, this is not the plain meaning of the verse. The sages only use this sequence as implying that the oldest surviving brother is first in line to “marry” (levirate marriage) the widow of the deceased brother. This is the reason the word בכור appears in our verse.

והיה הבכור אשר תלד יקום על שם אחיו, “and the firstborn male child whom she will give birth to will replace his deceased brother (the widow’s new husband).” Nachmanides writes that this verse cannot be taken at face value, as there is no requirement to give the newly born the same name as that of his deceased uncle. The reason the verse was written in this manner is that Hashem gives His assurance that if the levirate marriage is performed according to law and the lawgiver’s intention, the newly born will become a replacement on earth for his father’s deceased brother.

יקום הבן על שם אחיו, he will arise in the name of his brother (deceased). This is the plain meaning.

But if the man does not wish to take his sister-in-law, his sister-in-law shall go up to the gate of the court before the elders and say: 'My brother-in-law refuses to raise up a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the levirate duty with me.'

השערה — Translate this as the Targum does: to the gate of the court.

"My levir" (יְבָמִי) — the truth is that the yod is the marker of the passive [i.e., the object suffix: 'the one who is a levir to me'].

ועלתה יבמתו השערה, “his deceased brother’s widow will proceed to the gate” (where the elders are in session) she will be walking behind her brother in law. השערה, it is a rule that the place where the elders are holding their deliberations is on an elevation relative to the rest of the town’s streets. (Sifri) להקים לאחיו שם בישראל, “he refuses to establish a name for his deceased brother in Israel.” The addition of the word: בישראל “in Israel,” prompted the sages to declare that the levirate marriage legislation does not apply to the two brothers who were conceived before their parents converted, but who were born after their parent’s conversion so that they were Jews from birth. (Sifri) Nevertheless, the ritual described here would not be necessary for the widow of such a husband and she is free to marry any Jewish man of her choice.

But if the man be not willing, to take his sister-in-law, then shall his sister-in-law go up to the gate of the beth din before five of the sages, three of whom shall be judges and two of them witnesses, and let her say before them in the holy language: My husband’s brother refuseth to keep up the name of his brother in Israel, he not being willing to marry me.

The elders of his town shall summon him and speak with him, and he shall stand and say: 'I do not wish to take her.'

ועמד AND HE SHALL STAND [AND SAY] — He must say this standing (Sifrei Devarim 290:3). יאמר AND HE SHALL SAY — in the Holy Language. She, too, has to make her statements in the Holy Language (Yevamot 106b; cf. Sifrei Devarim 291:6).

"And he shall stand and say" — until the elders hear him.

ועמד, “and her brother-in-law is required to stand up;” he is required to do this in order that all the elders present can hear his refusal clearly;

And the elders of his city shall call him and speak with him, with true counsel; and he may rise up in the house of justice, and say in the holy tongue, I am not willing to take her.

His sister-in-law shall then approach him before the elders, and remove his sandal from off his foot, and spit in his face, and she shall respond and say: 'Thus shall be done to the man who does not build his brother's household.'

וירקה בפניו THEN SHE SHALL SPIT BEFORE HIS FACE — on the ground (not in his face) (Yevamot 106b). אשר לא יבנה [SO SHALL IT BE DONE UNTO THAT MAN] THAT WILL NOT BUILD UP [HIS BROTHER’S HOUSE] — from here the Rabbis derived the law that one who has once given his deceased brothers wife חליצה shall not afterwards marry her, for it does not state “[Thus shall it be done to the man] who hath not built up his brother’s house”, but אשר לא יבנה: “[Thus shall be done to the man] that he shall never build up” — because he has not built up, he shall never after build it up (Yevamot 10b; cf. Sifrei Devarim 291:8).

"And she shall remove" (וְחָלְצָה) — like "remove [the breast]" (חַלְּצוּ שַׁד); the meaning is: she shall take off. "Before him" (בְּפָנָיו) — this is explained in the words of the received tradition that it means the same as לְפָנָיו ('in his presence'). The plain-sense reading is: [she removes the sandal] from in front of the sandal, similar to a text "written inside and outside" [i.e., the bet denotes the front face of the sandal].

ככה יעשה לאיש אשר לא יבנה את בית אחיו, he deserves this public embarrassment seeing he had refused to restore the house his deceased brother had begun to build when he betrothed his (now) widow. This reminds us of the statement in Shabbat 118 by Rabbi Yossi who did not refer to his wife as אשתי, “my wife,” but as ביתי, “my house.”

וענתה ואמרה ככה יעשה לאיש, "and she will say in reply: "so shall be done to any man, etc." The reason the Torah employs the term עניה, "reply," is because it is in answer to her brother-in-law who had refused to marry her.

וחלצה נעלו, “she will loosen his shoe;” this shoe must be made from leather, as we know from Ezekiel 16,10: ואנעלך תחש, “and I shod you in Tachash leather. [The skins of the animal from which this leather was made was used as the upper layer of the coverings of the Tabernacle, Exodus 26,14. Ed] This procedure has to be performed on the right foot of the brother-in-law, seeing that whenever the word רגל, foot or leg, is used without any other adjective, the right foot is meant. (Talmud tractate Yevamot folio 104) וחלצה נעלו, according to the plain meaning of the text this procedure enables her to become the heir of her deceased husband, as her brother-in-law who would normally inherit his estate had refused to “inherit” the whole estate, i.e. his widow also. The best known example in the Bible of the procedure is the story of Ruth and Boaz, in Ruth chapter 4. In answer to the heretics criticising this procedure as demeaning for women, this procedure may be understood as follows: “if you wish to perform your duty to marry me, I will serve you like a maid serves her master.” ... When he replies that he is not willing to do so, she will spit out in front of him to signal that she thinks his refusal by rejecting her is disgusting. She hints by her action that as of now she considers him as not worth any more than the spittle she has ejected from her mouth. וענתה ואמרה, she will reply and say: she does this in order 1) to shame her brotherinlaw, and b) to put her mind at rest.

וחלצה נעלו מעל רגלו וירקה בפניו, “she will remove the shoe from his foot and spit out before him;” The Torah requires the sister-in-law (who has been rejected) to both remove the shoe of her brother-in-law and to spit on the ground in front of him (Yevamot 104). The Talmud adds that her spittle must be visible to the attending judges. According to the plain meaning of the text the reason underlying these whole procedures is the concern with the property of the deceased, preventing both it and his widow from passing to some other hands outside the family seeing the deceased left no heirs. This is why the Torah added: “so that she shall not become the wife of someone from the outside, a strange man.” (verse 5) The Torah presumes to know the mind of the deceased who would have wanted one of his brothers to take control of his estate and his widow rather than that they pass into the hands of strangers. The reason for the procedure called חליצה, a device enabling the widow to remarry if none of her brothers-in-law is prepared to preserve the soul of their departed brother by marrying her, is that as long as one of the surviving brothers is willing to enter into the yibum relationship with her, the deceased brother is not truly considered as having died, seeing there is someone willing to perpetuate the seed of the deceased. The moment that there is no surviving brother willing to do this, the deceased is truly considered as dead and one has to mourn him. This is why the widow removes the shoe from her brother-in-law, a traditional sign of mourning. A Midrashic approach: the legislation of the levirate marriage is a part of the Torah known as חקים, i.e. defying our understanding by means of our intellect. Our sages stated specifically that the spittle required by the widow is one of the inscrutable laws of the Torah known as “statutes” (Tanchuma Mishpatim 7), seeing that the Torah wrote (Leviticus 19,19) “you shall observe My statutes.” Every one of these “statutes” is a law which serves Satan, i.e. the evil urge and the Gentile nations use it as an excuse to challenge our faith in G’d and our obedience to His commandments. The following is a list of such חקים which have defied our efforts to find a rationale. שעטנז, בשר חזיר, רוק היבמה, הרבעת כלאים, שור הנסקל, עגלה ערופה, צפרי מצורע, פטר חמור, בשר וחלב, שעיר המשתלח, פרה אדומה. (the prohibition to weave wool and linen and wear the result; eating pig’s meat; the spitting out by the widow of a childless brother if rejected as partner in a levirate marriage; mixing different species of plant seeds or mating different species of animals together; the redemption of a firstborn male donkey; the ox which has gored and has to be stoned to death. The calf killed in expiation of murder committed by persons unknown. The birds offered (one) as a sacrifice and one allowed to escape after the termination of the affliction called tzoraat; mixing milk and meat in any form; the scape-goat legislation of the day of Atonement, the red heifer as an instrument of purification but defiling its handlers. All of these examples are enumerated by Tanchuma in Mishpatim. A Kabbalistic approach: the institution of the levirate marriage is of great value to the soul of the departed. It is a known fact that a soul derives added enjoyment when it is allowed to resurface (be re-incarnated) as a member of the family it had once belonged to seeing it already feels that it belongs. This is why the Torah writes in its introduction of this subject: “when brothers dwell together” (verse 4). Our sages (Yevamot 17) interpret these words as meaning that the rule of the levirate marriage applies only if both brothers lived on earth at one and the same time, however, briefly. If the youngest brother had been born after the oldest had died (or any other brother had died) then this mystical link does not exist between these brothers and the legislation does not apply to them. The underlying reason for חליצה, i.e. the removal of the shoe of the surviving brother who refuses to perform the levirate marriage with his sister-in-law, the widow of his brother, is that his refusal is considered an act of cruelty towards the soul of his deceased brother. The removal of his shoe is a symbolic act signifying severance of reciprocal feelings of brotherliness. The very expression וחלצה, is similar to Hoseah 5,6: “the Lord withdrew from them,” (the Israelites who vainly tried to mollify Him with their sacrifices) seeing they had betrayed the Lord. Also the expression נעלו normally translated as “his shoe,” has a dual meaning, is the same as the word נעל, “locked out,” as in “locked the door.” The surviving brother had “locked out” the soul of his deceased brother. The reason the Torah writes (the apparently superfluous words) מעל רגלו “from his foot,” is an allusion to the fact that the foot, leg, is the reason for someone moving somewhere, going away. In this instance, that foot had become the cause for the soul of the deceased brother having to move to another family in preparation of his soul’s transmigration. The subject of the רקיקה “spitting out,” is a symbol for something despicable similar to spitting out. It is something revolting for the despicable spittle to have to travel the length of the spine, the symbol of the body which serves as the clothing of the soul. This is why our sages decreed that the spittle of the widow referred to has to be what is known as רוק תפל, “tasteless spittle,” i.e. totally colorless liquid. In order that this be the case, the widow in question was prevented from eating for a period of time before she performed the act of חליצה and spitting out before her brother-in-law. It was important that no one think that she spat out because she had eaten something that had disagreed with her. By spitting out רוק תפל, this colorless tasteless spittle, she symbolized that the moisture of the body [which alone makes the body viable, alive, Ed.] had departed from the deceased due to the cruel conduct of his brother. The people of the town would henceforth perceive this “brother” as a cruel individual and the name בית חלוץ הנעל, “the house of the one whose shoe was removed,” which the Torah applies to that person remained as an ongoing indictment of his behavior. You should know that the whole subject of the levirate marriage is a manifestation of G’d’s loving kindness towards His people. It is designed to ensure that as many of them as possible will enjoy the hereafter and the supernatural light available in those regions. Our sages in Sanhedrin 90 have already stated that “all Jews have a share in the world to come.” [This means that all Jews have been born with that potential; it may be forfeited due to their conduct on earth.] The subject is discussed in greater detail by Elihu in Job 33, 29-30: “truly G’d does all these things to a man two or three times; to bring him back from the Pit, that he may bask in the light of life.” In other words, a soul may experience seeing the light of the (terrestrial) world two or three times in order to save him from ultimate and absolute darkness. (oblivion) In fact, even G’d Himself is on record as responding to Job telling him to heed the word of Elihu. Compare Job 38, 13-14: “so that it seizes the corners of the earth and shakes the wicked out of it? It changes like clay under the seal till its hues are fixed like those of a garment.” In verse 12 of that same chapter G’d had challenged Job: “did you ever command day to break, assigned dawn to its place?” G’d meant if Job had ever been able like He was able to shake out the wicked from the earth and to replace them with other human beings in their place. These similes are all a reference to the re-appearance of souls which had not merited life in the hereafter after their first round on earth, by enabling them to improve their ways when given new “garments” i.e. new bodies on a second trip on earth. Having understood all this it is not difficult to comprehend the institution of yibum as an opportunity for the soul of the departed to be given another lease on life on terrestrial earth to make up for the errors that soul had committed while clothed in a different body in a previous incarnation. It is hardly possible for anyone to quarrel on the basis of logic with understanding the concept of yibum in this fashion. The concept of transmigration of souls is an ancient tradition having its root already at the time of Moses. In the Sefer Habahir item 195 you find this spelled out when the author writes: “why do we encounter the apparent paradox of the righteous experiencing a life of difficulties whereas the wicked appear to enjoy a life of ease? The reason is that the person whom we respect as a righteous individual was a wicked individual in his youth, and is only now being punished for this.” This raises the question of whether we punish a person for what he did in a period of his life when he was still immature. Did not Rabbi Simon say that the heavenly tribunal does not punish anyone under the age of 20? To this Rabbi (Nechuniah?) replied that he had not meant immaturity in his present life on earth, but sins committed when the soul of this individual now leading a blameless life had been in another body on a previous occasion. Upon hearing this his colleagues wanted to know: ”how long will you speak in riddles?” He replied: imagine for yourselves a person who had planted a vineyard in his backyard hoping that it would produce only grapes. When he found out that some of the vines produced some evil smelling berries instead of the hoped for grapes, what did he do? he carefully cleaned out the offending vines and planted the vines a second time. When he found that he had not been radical enough in his treatment of the vines, he proceeded to repeat the procedure a third time. When he failed again he did not give up but continued to treat every infected vine. When the students asked the Rabbi how many times G’d would repeat this procedure, he told them that G’d would repeat His attempts even 1000 times if necessary. He based himself on Psalms 105, 8: דבר צוה לאלף דור, “G’d commanded a matter even if would take 1000 generations” (to be carried out). This is the true meaning of the statement by our sages that G’d did not give the Torah until after 974 generations (Chagigah 13) i.e. that during each of those generations [of former worlds which G’d destroyed after they did not live up to His expectations Ed.] G’d planted the “vineyard” but it did not take. אשר לא יבנה, “who refuses to rebuild, etc.” This verse proves that the procedure of the levirate marriage is an act of kindness by the Lord towards the deceased. We know that the universe is built on the premise of loving kindness, i.e. Psalms 89,3: עולם חסד יבנה. This is why the procedure of yibum is described here in terms of יבנה, “building.” Kohelet 8,10 also refers to this phenomenon when he writes: “and when I saw the wicked buried and newly come, etc.” Solomon referred to the transmigration of the souls of those whose bodies had already been buried. The word בכן in the verse from Kohelet we just quoted has the same numerical value (64) as the word חסד, lending further support to our interpretation of what Solomon referred to in that verse. [The letter ו at the beginning is only a preposition. Ed.]

וחלצה נעלו, in order thereby to acquire the inheritance of his deceased brother, as we know from the situation of Boaz (Ruth 4,7-8) [according to the view of Levi in Baba Metzia 47 that chattels of the party transferring the property, מקנה, are used for that purpose. This is not the halachically accepted view. Ed.]

And his name shall be called in Israel: 'The house of him who had his sandal removed.'

תקרא שמו וגו׳ AND HIS NAME SHALL BE CALLED [IN ISRAEL “THE HOUSE OF HIM THAT HATH HIS SHOE LOOSED”] — It is a duty of all those standing there to exclaim: חלוץ הנעל “O, you who have had your shoe drawn off!” (Sifrei Devarim 291:10; Yevamot 106b).

When men fight together — a man and his brother — and the wife of one of them approaches to rescue her husband from the hand of the one striking him, and she reaches out her hand and seizes him by his private parts —

כי ינצו אנשים WHEN MEN STRIVE TOGETHER, they will in the end come to blows, as it goes on to state “[and the wife approacheth to deliver her husband]” out of the hand of him who smiteth him: No good can come out of a quarrel (Sifrei Devarim 292:1; cf. Rashi on v. 1).

"When men fight" — the opposite of "when brothers dwell together," for these men are strangers or brothers. "His private parts" (בְּמְבוּשָׁיו) — his testicles, from the root of shame (בּוּשָׁה); and it is an act of brazenness to expose a hidden thing, which is nakedness, and moreover it is a dangerous place.

וקרבה אשת האחד להציל את אישה, [the author, obliquely, established a conceptual link between this paragraph and that preceding it. Ed.] Even though the Torah had not only given permission to the widow in the yevamah legislation to publicly embarrass her brother in law for failing to do his duty by marrying her, but had even commanded her to do so, in this instance, when a wife tries to save her husband’s life by resorting to tactics which embarrass his opponent she is punished for doing so.

להציל את אישה, in order to save her husband, etc. It is interesting that instead of writing: "the wife stretches out her hand in order to save her husband," the Torah reversed the order by writing: "in order to save her husband she stretches out her hand." This teaches that if the woman had no other way of saving her husband except by grabbing his adversary's private parts she is not culpable. She is only free from guilt if the adversary was clearly threatening the life of her husband, not if he merely engaged in a brawl with him. The Torah managed to convey all this by writing the word "to save (the life of) her husband" prior to describing what the woman actually did.

אשת האחד, “the wife of the one,” (of the two men fighting one another) as opposed to the wife of the messenger from the court. (According to the Sifri, the altercation may have been the result of one of the men having been convicted of receiving 39 lashes, and the wife attacks the messenger from the court who was supposed to carry out the sentence.) The text wants to make plain that this is not the scenario here. והחזיקה במבושיו, “and she takes hold of his private parts;” seeing that the Torah singles out the man’s private parts I might have thought that the woman will be punished only for the fact that she chose to attack those parts; in order to show that this was only one example, but the same applies to other parts of the body, the word והחזיקה, “she takes a firm hold,” has been added.

והחזיקה במבושיו, “and she takes hold of his private parts;” a reference to parts of the male reproductive organ, the testicles, something causing the owner embarrassment on occasion. Onkelos translates the expression as בבית בהתתה, “the housing of his shame,” similar to Genesis 49,8 where Yaakov commends Yehudah for not being ashamed to admit he had been wrong. The Torah punishes the woman in question by writing: “you shall cut off her (offending) hand.” Clearly, the text is not to be understood literally, but it means that financial compensation be paid to the victim for the embarrassment he sustained. In all matters like this the Torah never decrees that the offending party be deprived of limbs or organs but that the value of the offending organ (or the organ lost by the injured party) be paid as compensation (Sifri 293). We have other similar examples of such legislation such as “an eye for an eye,” “a tooth for a tooth,” etc., where the sages always understood the wording to refer to compensation in financial terms (Baba Kama 83). The woman in question is certainly not guilty of having her hand cut off (even symbolically), seeing that what she did was only in order to save her husband. Nonetheless, the Torah does impose a financial penalty for her indiscreet behaviour.

you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall show no pity.

וקצת את כפה THEN THOU SHALT HEW OFF HER HAND — i.e., she must pay money that is the equivalent of the shame to which he has been put (Bava Kamma 28a), all according to the social position of the person who put him to shame and of him who was shamed (Bava Kamma 83b). But perhaps this is not the meaning, but that you should cut off her hand, literally?! It states, however, here לא תחוס, “thine eye shall not pity her” and it states there (Deuteronomy 19:21) in the laws concerning the plotting witnesses “thou shalt not pity them”; now, what is the case there? It is monetary compensation (see Rashi on that passage)! So, too, monetary compensation is here intended (Sifrei Devarim 293:2).

"And you shall cut off her hand" — like [the principle of] "an eye for an eye": if she does not pay a ransom, her hand shall be cut off. "Your eye shall not pity" — [this applies] even if she is poor.

וקצותה את כפה, “you shall cut off her hand;” this penalty excludes the wife of the court messenger who had been sent to beat a condemned person. If this person attacks her husband (the court messenger) and she defends him by taking hold of that person’s private parts, she will not be convicted. (Talmud tractate Baba Kamma folio 28) [After looking up the folio quoted in the Talmud, I have come to the conclusion that the point that the Talmud is making there is that if an authorised messenger from the court is attacked and forced to defend himself, he will not be held culpable even if he had attacked the other party by hurting his private parts when he had no other option. Ed.]

You shall not have in your pouch a weight and a weight — a large one and a small one.

אבן ואבן [THOU SHALT NOT HAVE IN THY BAG] DIVERSE STONES — i.e., weights. גדולה וקטנה A GREAT AND A SMALL — i.e. thou shalt not have a large one that contradicts the small one, — that one must not buy (lit., take) goods by the larger and sell (lit., give it back) by the smaller (Sifrei Devarim 294:1).

"In your bag" — a place for scales, or [alternatively,] he produces [a false weight] from the bag in a deceptive manner. The first interpretation is correct, and the proof is "one bag shall there be for all of us," meaning one weight. It is derived from the root of "you shall be counted" (תְּכֻסּוּ) with respect to the lamb — though if it is from a different root, many have explained it as a kind of purse; but there is no need [for that].

גדולה וקטנה, “large or small.” Rashi comments here that the Torah speaks of two stones used as weights, both having the same markings. The deception practiced by this is that when selling, the merchant uses the smaller stone when weighing the goods for his customer, whereas when he is buying he is using the larger stone when weighing what is due to him. When the Torah writes that we are not to have two weights, the meaning is that when these two stones, one weighing 1.25 liter (a weight used in those days) and the other .75 liter, are both put on one side of the scale, together show the weight of 2 liter; but one is smaller and the other, larger - thus hiding the deception when they are each used independently. This is what he meant when Rashi wrote that “the larger stone contradicts the smaller stone.” בכיסך, not literally in your pocket, but in the place where weights are normally kept. (Ibn Ezra)

גדולה וקטנה, “a large one and a small one.” The large stone (weight) is not to be used to deceive by it being used when you take merchandise, and the smaller stone when you give back merchandise. According to Sifri 162 you may read the words together with the beginning of the next verse, i.e. “if you use different weights on different occasions hoping to thereby enrich yourself at the expense of your customer you will wind up having nothing, “i.e. (לא יהיה לך כלום) (compare Rashi).

“You shall not have in your pocket different weights, a large one and a small one.” One should be exact, if the explanation is that large means larger than appropriate and small means smaller than appropriate, and both are false, as one weighs for oneself with the large weight and for others with the small weight; if so, it is difficult to understand why the verse says a perfect and just weight you shall have, since the descriptor perfect definitely refers to the weight that is smaller than appropriate, which needs to be completed to make it perfect and not lacking. Why did the verse not mention something that contradicts the large weight? You must say that the word just is said in opposition to the falsely large weight. But this is difficult, for just is the opposite of both [improper weights], so why the need for perfect? Rather, this must be the explanation: large refers to the properly measured weight, and small refers to one that is lacking what is appropriate. And what is said, a perfect and just weight, all refers to the small weight, for the phrase just was interpreted by our Sages (Bava Batra 88b) as “be just with what is yours and give to him.” Therefore, the verse says through the literary device of “not only this but also that”: you shall have a perfect weight that is not lacking, so that you do not shortchange your fellow at all. And not only should you not shortchange him, but even just — be just with what is yours and give him more than what should properly come to him. If this is the case, that the large weight is the proper one, why does it say you shall not have in your pocket the large one? Why should the proper weight not be in his pocket? And there is another difficulty: why does it say for an abomination to the Lord your God are all who do these things, all who do injustice? Why the repetition? And since it says all who do injustice, this implies that all who do these things is not injustice, and we need to understand what this means. The explanation of this matter is as Solomon said, Differing weights and differing measures — the Lord detests them also both (Proverbs 20:10). If both are false, what is meant by both — why would we distinguish between them, and what is the meaning of also? Rather, it certainly speaks of one that is false and one that is true, teaching that even the honest one is called an abomination because the honest weight enables him to weigh with the false one. For if he did not have the honest weight, he would be afraid to weigh for everyone with the small false one, because all buyers upon returning home would find their weight lacking, and many complaints would come to the court against him saying, “He weighed for all of us with the small one.” What can you say — perhaps it became short in your homes? But would it become lacking in everyone’s home? This is not common. What does he do? He goes and weighs for some with the small, deficient weight and for others with the larger, honest weight. And if the people for whom he weighed lacking come to court, he will claim in court, “Look, I have sold to many people,” and he will ask those for whom he weighed honestly to testify that they are not missing anything, thus contradicting those who claim he weighed lacking. Consequently, the judge will conclude that the lack must have happened in the complainants’ homes, for otherwise, “what makes one man different from another?” (Sanhedrin 65b). Why are these not missing anything? And when the court sends for his weights, he will send the honest one, and it will be found that without the honest weight, he could not have sold to everyone with the small one. So he maintains the honest weight to validate his falsehood, which is why even the honest one is an abomination. This is what Rashi explains: “The large one that contradicts the small one,” because through the large one, he can contradict the actions of the small one in court. Therefore, it says, “For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord” — even regarding what he weighed honestly, for this too is an abomination since he only weighs honestly in order to deceive the world. All who do evil refers to the false weight, but the first one [the honest weight] is not evil, and nevertheless it is an abomination. Regarding this, Solomon said, The Lord detests them also both to include the honest weight. And with this, the juxtaposition of “Remember what Amalek did to you” is resolved. Rashi explains: If you were deceitful with measures and weights, be concerned about enemy provocation, as it says Scales of deception are an abomination to the Lord (Proverbs 11:1). And it is written afterward When arrogance comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom (Proverbs 11:2). However, this raises difficulties: What is the connection between enemy provocation and weights? Furthermore, did Amalek attack them because they were deceitful with weights? Also regarding the proof text, why call them scales of deception [mirmah] when “scales of falsehood” [sheker] would be more appropriate? What is this disgrace that is mentioned, and how does the end of the verse but with the humble is wisdom connect to its beginning?Rather, surely he calls the large, correct stone scales of deception because one weighs with it in order to deceive, as mentioned. The person who uses such weights is hiding his wrongdoing from others and treating the Divine eye as if it doesn’t see. And so is God’s measure, as it says Though hatred is covered with deception, its wickedness will be exposed in the assembly (Proverbs 26:26). As they said regarding the Sotah (9a), “She acted in secret, so the Holy One, Blessed be He, reveals her disgrace.”Similarly, He says to these deceivers: “You commit oppression and robbery in secret, so the Holy One, Blessed be He, sends the enemy who will take all that is yours openly, and then retroactively your disgrace will be revealed, for everyone will know in retrospect that you secretly accumulated wealth unjustly.” This is what it means: When arrogance comes — this refers to the enemy who comes with deliberate intent and openly — then comes disgrace — your disgrace will be brought to light. This is what it concludes in the Yalkut in the name of the Mekhilta (Beshalach 1:8): “Rabbi Eliezer says: And Amalek came — he came openly, for all the troubles that came did not come except in secret, but this coming was with an open face.” These are his words. This is strong proof for our explanation that whatever Israel did in secret, Amalek came openly to bring their disgrace to light, for the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not execute judgment without justice. When He sends the enemy to take what is yours, it was certainly because in secret you committed oppression and perversion. Those who do such things think they are wise in doing evil, just as in our generation people consider someone clever if they are shrewd in deception. But Scripture says Your brother came with deceit — not with wisdom — and took what was yours (Genesis 27:35). However, whoever fulfills walk humbly with your God and does not deal falsely with his fellow even in private is called wise. This is what it means by but with the humble is wisdom, which is the opposite of the dishonest scales mentioned earlier. And because of this matter, Amalek came, as it is said (Exodus 17:7–8) And because they tested God saying, ‘Is God in our midst or not?’ And Amalek came. And it concludes in the Yalkut (in the name of the Mechilta Beshalach ch. 6–7): “Rabbi Eliezer says, ‘If He provides all our needs, we will serve Him, etc.’” From this we learn that they were not confident in God to give them all their needs, and presumably they were involved in matters of deception that they couldn’t reverse through legal judgment, and they treated the Eye above as if it didn’t see, as it is written, Is God in our midst or not? Therefore, Amalek came and fought with Israel at Rephidim, which they [the Sages] interpreted (ibid. ch. 1:8) as meaning “weakness of hands [rifyon yadayim],” referring to the weakening of the judges’ hands because they couldn’t legally extract what was stolen in secret. Similarly, here it says, And you were weary and tired and did not fear God [Elohim]. This refers both to God Himself, because for matters entrusted to the heart it says, and you shall fear your God, and to elohim [as] judges, because one who has a large and small stone [for dishonest weighing] cannot be caught in his lies by judges. Therefore, Amalek cut off the circumcision and threw it upward (Tanchuma 10), because the purpose of the external circumcision is to bring a person to circumcise the foreskin of his heart. When their hearts are filled with deceit by burying their weights in salt, then there is no benefit even in the external circumcision as long as they are uncircumcised of heart. Moreover, according to our Sages (Tanchuma, Parshat Tzav 14), circumcision completes the name of Shaddai, but they spoke doubtingly, saying, Is God in our midst or not? If so, there is no need for circumcision, and this is easily understood. Only the stragglers behind you were caught by Amalek, those whom the cloud expelled because of their sin, for every deceitful person is pushed away from the Divine Presence, as it is said (Psalms 5:5), Evil cannot dwell with You. And one who speaks falsehoods cannot be established before His eyes (Psalms 101:7), all the more so one who commits falsehoods. This is [the meaning of] at Rephidim — with weakened hands, meaning those lacking strength who were weary and tired because they were not carried on eagles’ wings like those within the cloud, among whom there were none weary or stumbling. In a homiletic interpretation one can say, just as the section Remember what Amalek did to you is adjacent to the section on weights and measures [mishkalot], so too we read Parashat Zachor after Parashat Shekalim, which comes as atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf that was made from gold shekels because they were excessively greedy for money, as explained above in Parashat Ki Tisa (30:13). Anyone who is greedy for money will also deceive with weights and measures, and because of this sin Haman [who was from the seed of Amalek] came against Israel with silver shekels. And Mordecai commanded that they should not lay their hands on the plunder in order to rectify this sin. This is not the place to elaborate further on this matter.

לא יהיה בכיסך אבן ואבן, “You must not have in your pocket two stones purporting to weigh the same but designed to deceive the customer.” Ibn Ezra explains that the word בכיסך is a reference to the pouch in which weights are kept. The word is derived from כסס, and is used in the sense of uniform weights in Proverbs 1,14 כיס אחד יהיה לכולנו, “let us all have a common purse.” It also appears in a slightly different form in Exodus 12,4 where it refers to the number of people arranging to receive equal shares of a Paschal lamb.

גדולה וקטנה, the vendor make himself two weights each marked as representing the same measure, but one being smaller than the other. When using both simultaneously, i.e. filling each next to the other, the total quantity is correct, but one represents more than half, the other less. It is therefore easy to deceive a customer who has once observed that when the two are used together they give the correct measure. This is why the Torah demands that “each” measure must be true in quantity of weight, i.e. אבן שלמה, “a true weight, etc.,” instead of “true weights.”

You shall not have in your house a measure and a measure — a large one and a small one.

לא יהיה לך THOU SHALT NOT HAVE — This suggests: if YOU do so (if you have false weights), לא יהיה לך you will have nothing (you will become impoverished, being deprived of your property, as you have deprived others of theirs) (cf. Sifrei Devarim 294:3).

לא יהיה לך בביתך איפה ואיפה, after having mentioned the ways in which the benevolent presence of the Shechinah can be assured for the Jewish people, the Torah reminds you that if G’d hates corrupt justice this is not an isolated instance of what G’d hates in interpersonal relations, something we call “civics,” He even hates it when someone owns and keeps instruments which are designed to be used in a corrupt, deceptive, manner, so that even without putting these instruments to use the owner/keeper has become guilty of violating a negative commandment. G’d’s presence, Shechinah, cannot tolerate neighbours who even think of using such means to deceive others.

You shall have full and accurate weights, you shall have full and accurate measures, so that your days may be prolonged upon the land that Hashem your God is giving you.

אבן שלמה וצדק יהיה לך THOU SHALT HAVE A PERFECT AND JUST WEIGHT — This again suggests: if you will do this, (using just weights and measures), you will have (יהיה לך) much (cf. Sifrei Devarim 294:3).

"Complete" (שְׁלֵמָה) — that no part of it be lacking. "And a just ephah" — that it conform to the standard measure of the market. "In order that your days may be lengthened" — for it is well known that every kingdom of justice shall endure, for justice is like a building and injustice is like its demolition; in a moment the wall falls.

אבן שלמה וצדק יהיה לך, “a perfect and honest weight you shall have.” If you make sure to have honest weights, and your business will be based on fairness you will have alot, i.e. יהיה לך [as opposed to the previous לא יהיה לך, Ed.].

שלמה וצדק, one single chunk, (not composites) true and fair.

For an abomination before Hashem your God is everyone who does these things — everyone who acts falsely.

"Everyone who does these things" — an ephah and an ephah, a stone and a stone; and the general principle is: everyone who does wrong, in speech or in deed, in secret or openly.

כל עשה אלה, כל עשה עול. "are all who do this, anyone who commits a wrong." The verse refers to people who use deceptive weights or measurements. The Torah means that anyone committing other wrongs is no better than people using deceptive weights or measurements. We should not think that the Torah singled out people who use deceptive weights and measurements for the description תועבה, "abomination," a term used as a rule for violation of sexual mores or for violating the laws of ritual impurity and forbidden foods.

כל עושה אלה, “are all who do this.” This refers to what the Torah described earlier, i.e. uneven weights and measures, etc. כל עושה עול, “anyone doing something corrupt.” This refers to other ways of cheating.

Remember what Amalek did to you on the way, when you were going out from Egypt —

זכור את אשר עשה לך REMEMBER WHAT [AMALEK] DID UNTO THEE — If you use false weights and measures then you must apprehend the provocation of the enemy, as it states (Proverbs 11:1): “A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, etc.”, and there is written immediately after this (v. 2): “If intentional sin comes, shame comes”(Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 8).

REMEMBER WHAT AMALEK DID UNTO THEE. I have already mentioned the Midrash which the Rabbis interpreted in the Sifra: “I might think that it means, ‘in your heart.’ But when Scripture states, thou shalt not forget, forgetfulness of heart is already stated. How then can I fulfill the injunction Remember? It must mean ‘by verbal utterance.’” It is also stated in the Sifre, “Remember what Amalek did unto thee means verbal [remembrance]. Thou shalt not forget means [remembrance] in the heart.”But I know not what is this remembrance through the spoken word. If it is to say that we are to read the section of Amalek in public, then we might deduce therefrom that the duty of reading on the second [Sabbath in the month of Adar the section] Remember what Amalek did unto thee is by law of the Torah! So also we shall have in that case a Scriptural support for the reading of the Scroll [of Esther on Purim]! The correct interpretation appears to me that the verse states that you are not to forget what Amalek did to us until we blot out his remembrance from under the heavens, and that we are to relate it to our children and to our generations, saying to them, “Thus did the wicked one do to us and therefore we have been commanded to blot out his name.” Similarly, in the affair of Miriam, we were commanded to make it known to our children and relate it to the generations. And although it would have been appropriate to conceal it in order not to speak of the shortcomings of the righteous, yet Scripture commanded that it be made known and revealed so that the admonition against slander be put in their mouths because it is a great sin and causes many evils, and people are in the habit of stumbling therein, just as the Rabbis have said: “All people are [suspect] of a shade of slander.”Ki Thavo

זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק, "Remember what Amalek did to you, etc." The reason the Torah singles out Amalek is because this nation was unique, attacking the Israelites by seeking them out, not even knowing where they were to be found. Just as an eagle flies far and wide to search for prey, so the Amalekites marched through hundreds of miles of desert in order to locate the Israelites.

זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק, “Remember (constantly) what Amalek has done to you.” The reason the paragraph dealing with Amalek was written at this point is to teach that if your business practices are corrupt you will have reason to worry about provocation by enemies. Our sages base this on the sequence of Proverbs 11,1: “dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord,” followed in verse 2 of the same chapter by: “evil is followed by disgrace in its wake.” It seems to me that this is also the reason why the phrase: “for it is an abomination to the Lord,” did not follow the words: “you shall not have in your house different measures,” but was only written later. Had the Torah written these words immediately, the paragraph would have concluded with the promise of long life (verse 15). The Torah preferred to conclude this paragraph with the words: “anyone acting in a corrupt fashion,” so that the reminder of the attack by Amalek could follow it immediately. This would serve as a reminder that when we are attacked by enemies the chances are that we have ourselves to blame for not living up to the ethical standards of the Torah. It also teaches that Amalek did something evil to us, seeing the Jewish people had done nothing to provoke such an attack. Amalek traveled a long way from its home in order to attack the Jewish people and it did not respect the covenant with G’d. The expression אשר קרך is related to the word מקרה, “something unrelated to known causes (coincidence).” The Midrashic interpretation derives the word from קר, cold; the meaning is that Amalek chilled the hot dish in the pot, i.e. the whole world was under the impression of the invincibility of G’d and His people, an impression which Amalek sought to undermine, to prove as wrong.

זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק, “keep on remembering what Amalek has done to you.” Nachmanides writes, quoting our sages (Sifri) on our verse that the word זכור is to be understood as remembering by mouth, i.e. reading the appropriate verses in the Torah, whereas the words לא תשכח, at the end of the paragraph refer to remembering in one’s heart. Nachmanides continues that he does not understand what Sifri has in mind when he says that זכור refers to “remembering” by mouth. If it referred to the reading of the paragraphs in the Torah dealing with Amalek’s attack in a public reading, this is a long established custom on the Sabbath before Purim, (as well as the reading of the actual report in Beshalach which is read on the morning of Purim.) He therefore concludes that what is meant is that we (subsequent generations) must not forget what Amalek has done to us until the time comes when the memory of his erstwhile existence has been expunged from history. While Anmalek or his descendants still exist on earth, we must make sure that in educating our children we impress upon them who he was and what he hoped to accomplish, namely the extinction of the Jewish people by any means possible. The same holds true for what happened to Miriam. In spite of the fact that we normally gloss over shortcomings of our righteous forbears, in this case the moral ethical advantage to be derived from remembering that episode outweighs the danger of thereby detracting from Miriam’s many merits. The sin of badmouthing people is such that we must be on our guard against it at all times, and demonstrate by the example of Miriam that even the greatest people are liable to trip up. We, who cannot measure up to such people must therefore be especially on guard against becoming guilty of that sin.

how he encountered you on the way and killed among you all who were lagging behind you, while you were faint and weary, and he did not fear from before Hashem.

אשר קרך בדרך HOW HE MET THEE BY THE WAY — The word קרך is connected in meaning with מקרה “a sudden happening”, i.e., he came against thee by surprise. Another explanation is: it is connected in meaning with the term קרי, nocturnal pollution and uncleanness, because he polluted them by pederasty. Yet another explanation is that it is connected in meaning with the expression קור in the phrase קור וחום “cold and heat” and it means: he made you cold and lukewarm after the boiling heat you had before. For all the nations were afraid to war against you and this one came and began to point out the way to others. A parable! It may be compared to a boiling hot bath into which no living creature could descend. A good-for-nothing came, and sprang down into it; although he scalded himself he made it appear cold to others (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 9). ויזנב בך means, smiting the membrum; he cut off the membra and threw them up provocatively towards Heaven (God) (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 10). כל הנחשלים אחריך [AND HE SMOTE THE HINDMOST OF THEE] EVEN THOSE THAT WERE FEEBLE BEHIND THEE — i.e., those who were enfeebled because of their sins and whom the clouds had expelled from the protection they afforded (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 10). ואתה עיף ויגע AND THOU WAST FAINT AND WEARY — faint through thirst, for it is written, (Exodus 17:3) “And the people thirsted there for water” and it is written immediately afterwards (v. 8) “Then came Amalek”. ויגע AND WEARY — from the journey (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 10). ולא ירא AND HE FEARED NOT — Amalek feared not אלהים GOD so as to refrain from harming you (Sifrei Devarim 296:7).

"Who encountered you" (אֲשֶׁר קָרְךָ) — from the root of "all things that befell them" (כָּל הַקּוֹרוֹת אוֹתָם). "And he cut off your tail" (וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ) — he cut off your rear, namely those who were stragglers behind you who did not have the strength to march. The word נְחָשְׁלִים may well be like נֶחְלָשִׁים [weakened], just as כֶּבֶשׂ and כֶּשֶׂב [are interchangeable forms]. "And you were weary" — for [Amalek] came at Rephidim and the people were thirsty for water, as is written. "And exhausted" — from the journey. "And he did not fear" — this refers back to Amalek; it is a past-tense verb, like "for it is too heavy for you" (Exod. 18:18), "for Isaac was old" (Gen. 27:1), "as he loved" (Gen. 27:9).

אשר קרך בדרך, "who happened to you on the way, etc." This expression may be understood on the basis of Rosh Hashanah 3 where we are told that the cloud of G'd was continuously enveloping the Israelites so that no one knew the exact whereabouts of this people until the death of Aaron when this cloud dissipated. At that time the Canaanite (Amalekites dressed up as Canaanites) attacked the Israelites. In view of this, how did the Amalekites locate the encampment of the Israelites? To answer this question the Torah writes אשר קרך בדרך, "who chanced upon you on the way." The Torah goes on with ויזנב בך, "and he struck your hindmost ones, the ones who trailed behind." The Torah means that the cloud did not permit the Amalekites to penetrate into the camp of the Israelites; however, they struck only those whom the cloud had expelled as unfit for this kind of protection. When the Torah speaks of הנחשלים אחריך, "the weaklings behind you," it refers to the spiritually weak Israelites. ואתה עיף ויגע, "and you were tired and exhausted." You were still עיף from your long and hard bondage in Egypt, and יגע exhausted from your trek through the desert. ולא ירא אלוקים, "and he did not fear G'd." This fact inspired more fear in you than the combined fatigue and exhaustion you had experienced. We know from Isaiah 33,14: "the sinners in Zion are frightened," that people who are aware of having sinned will experience fear as opposed to those who are serene in their knowledge of leading a blameless life. The Torah is at pains to describe Amalek in terms which will cause us to hate him by describing his surprise attack on the Jewish people, his exploiting a time when the Israelites were tired and exhausted, pouncing upon them like an eagle. At that time they were also deprived of the power of the righteous who ensured that through their conduct G'd's cloud would completely envelop and protect them.

ויזנב בך, “and attacked the hindmost of you.” Amalek chased after the Jewish people until he caught up with the slowest moving ones. (Ibn Ezra) [The people had not yet been organised into army groups, etc., as we learned in the Book of Numbers. Ed.] הנחשלים, as if spelled הנחלשים, “the weakest of them.” ואתה עיף ויגע, “while you were tired and worn out.” There is no reason for your being surprised at his taken advantage of you at that time, as he exploited the fact that you were worn out from long marches. (Mechilta) Another interpretation of the words: ולא ירא אלוקים, “he displayed no fear of G-d,” these words are addressed by Moses to the Jewish people; he tells them that if they at the time had observed the commandments that they already knew about, Amalek could not have done them any harm and could not even have caught up with them.

ויזנב בך, “he attacked those at your tail end.” It is as if it had cut off your tail. The ones described as “your tail” are the weaker members of the people who trailed the main body (Ibn Ezra). It is a well known tactic of armies who are not strong enough to engage the main body of their opponents in battle, to whittle away at the ones at the tail end of the column, the weak ones, the tired ones. This is the plain meaning of these words. A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Ki Teytze 9 is that the words ויזנב בך represent an attack on the זנב, i.e. he cut off the foreskins of these people and threw them heavenwards saying: “take what you have chosen.” The Amalekites did this to the individuals who, because of individual sins committed, had been excluded from the protective cover of the ענני הכבוד, the clouds of glory enveloping the main body of the Jewish people. Another Midrash in Tanchuma Ki Teytze 5 describes the meaning of the words: “remember what Amalek did to you” in the following terms: There are (here) two mentions of the word זכר “remember” in connection with Amalek. You are to remember what Amalek did to you, and to blot out the memory of Amalek. You are also to remember My promise to blot out Amalek (Exodus 17,14). The word: “the memory of you,” is comparable to the memory of ash זִכְרֹנֵיכֶם מִשְׁלֵי אֵפֶר לְגַבֵּי חֹמֶר גַּבֵּיכֶם, [i.e. it is completely forgotten, if used in the negative sense; if you try and emulate Avraham this “memory” will be accounted something positive, meritorious for you. Ed.] G’d said to Israel: ”be very careful with the two commandments involving ‘remembrance’ which I wrote here.” The one remembrance is written here and the other in Exodus 17,14 where G’d Himself promises to blot out the memory of Amalek. If you do what I tell you to do here you will be true descendants of Avraham your forefather who described himself as dust and ashes in Genesis 18,27. If not, prepare yourselves to be like the people of total insignificance described in the verse in Job and you will be enslaved as labourers in Egypt] burdened with חומר ולבנים, “clay and bricks.” In Psalms 129,3 the slavery in Egypt is also paraphrased as על גבי חרשו חורשים, “ploughmen ploughed across my back.” [The word גבי as well as the word חומר provides the link to the verse in Job 13,12 quoted. Ed. I find the message of the Midrash confusing as it appears to warn of matters which are already past history. The people addressed here are after the redemption from Egyptian bondage, Ed.] The Midrash goes on in several paragraphs to describe that what happened to Amalek and especially to Agog their king as retribution for when Amalek had attacked the Jewish people in the desert. [The reader is referred to Tanchuma Ki Teytze sections 7-9. Ed.]. ולא ירא אלו-הים, “and he had no respect for G’d.” These words refer to Amalek again. During the time that the Israelites were at Refidim, tired and thirsting for water, Amalek came to attack them. According to Midrash Tanchuma Ki Teytze 10 the words: “and he did not fear G’d,” mean that the people of Amalek (descendants of Esau) had a tradition that they could be defeated only by descendants of Rachel seeing that we have a verse in Jeremiah 49,20 אם לא יסחבום צעירי הצאן, “(hear then the plan G’d has devised against Edom) surely the shepherd boys shall drag them away.” These latter words are understood to refer to the youngest of the tribes of Israel, the ones which have been described as נער, (compare Genesis 37,2 where Joseph is described in these terms). We find that also Edom is described as junior in Ovadiah 2, קטן, “junior,” and it is appropriate that a junior such as Edom be defeated by another junior. The reason is that Joseph who attained prominence and remained loyal to G’d although in the environment of two sinners (Pharaoh and Potiphar) without learning from their deeds, is so superior to Esau who grew up between two righteous people (Yitzchak and Avraham) and still did not learn from the good deeds of those righteous people. The Torah testifies that Joseph said: “I fear the Lord,” (Genesis 44,18) as opposed to Amalek. No wonder that the one was doomed to fall by the hand of the other. [If Moses chose the נער Joshua to battle Amalek this was because he was a descendant of Ephrayim, a son of Joseph. Ed.]

אשר קרך בדרך, meaning “accidentally,” unforeseen. The construction קרך from the root קרה is parallel to the construction עשך from the root עשה, Deut. 32,6 הוא עשך ויכוננך, “He has shaped you and made you durable.”

ויזנב בך כל הנחשלים, “and he (Amalek) cut down the stragglers in your rear.” They would cut of the organ that had been circumcised and threw it into the air shouting: “this is what you chose, take it!” According to our author this is what the psalmist refers to in Psalms 79,12 when he said: והשב לשכנינו שבעתים אל חיקם, pay our neighbours back sevenfold for the abuse they have flung at You o Lord. Another interpretation of that verse understands it as the Amalekites having ridiculed the Torah as per Psalms 12,7: מזקק שבעתים, “which is refined sevenfold.” [How could Amalek have ridiculed the Torah which had not been revealed yet to the Jewish people at that time? Ed.] ולא ירא אלוקים, “and he did not fear G–d,” by cheating with weights. [According to this interpretation the subject in this verse is not Amalek but Israel.] The Torah had used the expression ויראת אלוקיך, “you shall fear the Lord your G–d,” when warning us not to cheat with weights and measurements] If the Israelites had heeded this warning, Amalek would not have been allowed to harm them when attacking them. Our author quotes Proverbs 11,1: מאזני מרמה תועבת ה' ואבן שלמה רצונו, “dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord; an honest weight pleases Him,” as support for his interpretation. Solomon continues in the verse following in Proverbs, by saying: בא זדון ויבא קלון, “evil is followed by disgrace in its wake;” and the Torah, immediately before inserting the paragraph of Amalek’s attack, had written that all the people guilty of the sins listed in the previous paragraph had committed an abomination against the Lord. (Compare Tanchuma, section 8 on our portion)

Therefore, when Hashem your God grants you rest from all your surrounding enemies in the land that Hashem your God is giving you as a heritage to possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under the heavens — you shall not forget.

תמחה את זכר עמלק THOU SHALT WIPE AWAY THE REMEMBRANCE OF AMALEK, — both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep (a quotation from I Samuel 15:3, stating how the Amalekites were to be destroyed), so that the name of Amalek should never again be mentioned even in connection with a beast, in that one could say: “This beast belonged to Amalek” (Pesikta Zutrata).

"When Hashem your God grants you rest" — the meaning is that this commandment is contingent upon [the time] after they inherit the land and the land is at rest from war on all its borders; for as long as they are engaged in wars with those near them, they are not obligated to fight Amalek. "You shall blot out the memory of Amalek" — this corresponds to [the command] "and you shall kill man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep" (I Sam. 15:3), so that no one shall say "this ox was from the spoil of Amalek." The words of the Torah are the general rule, and the words of the prophet Samuel are the specification. "Do not forget" — after "remember," for added emphasis; this is the practice of many commandments in the Torah.

תמחה את זכר עמלק, by killing even their livestock, as King Sha-ul was commanded in Samuel I 15,3. This was intended to avenge the unprovoked attack by Amalek against G’d when, by attacking His people, they demeaned His image, besmirched His honour.

!תמחה, “blot out!” do so before Amalek can attack the Temple. When the Torah, in Exodus 17,14 had written that G-d had said that He would blot out Amalek, it referred to the period after Amalek had successfully attacked the Temple. (early version of Tanchuma)

והיה בהניח ה' אלו-היך לך, “it will be when the Lord your G’d grants you rest, etc.” The Torah speaks about a period after the land of Canaan has been conquered, תמחה את זכר עמלק, “you are to blot out the memory of Amalek.” We have to understand this in the terms in which the prophet Samuel issued the directive to King Shaul to make war against Amalek in Samuel I 15,3. We read there: “kill all that belongs to him; spare no one, but kill alike men and women, infant and suckling, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.” The reason the prophet specified all this was so that no one would ever be able to point to an animal and say: “this is one of the surviving animals of Amalek.” [If he were to utter the name of Amalek as something still extant this would mean that the commandment to blot out his memory would not have been fulfilled. compare Mechilta end of Beshalach. Ed.] The Midrash also claims that the Amalekites made for themselves animals by means of sorcery, changing their genes to different species. This is why Samuel did not content himself with a general description fitting all animals. He used divinely inspired wisdom in order to outsmart them. מתחת השמים, “from beneath the heaven.” Moses meant that G’d will blot out their power from beneath the heaven. This is also in consonance with the prophecy of Bileam (Numbers 24,20) “its end will be utter destruction.” The word אובד in that verse is a noun, i.e. someone who is capable of destroying, “the Lord.” The Torah had already stated in Exodus 17,14 that G’d said that He personally would blot out the memory of Amalek from beneath the heaven. The reason why the Torah uses two words there, i.e. מחה אמחה, is that first G’d will blot out Amalek under the heaven, i.e. אמחה, whereas afterwards it is the turn of the Jewish people to blot out Amalek’s memory on earth, i.e. תמחה, “you will blot out.” The words לא תשכח, “do not forget,” mean: “do not forget to blot out his memory.” This paragraph commenced with the commandment to remember something and concludes with the commandment not to forget something. It is a promise that a time will come when the existence of Amalek will be totally forgotten, i.e. during the messianic era. Even though the plain meaning of the text appears to suggest that we should not forget Amalek, i.e. what this people did to us, the mystical dimension, the רמז, corresponds more to the cantillation our sages provided for the words. This is why you find the tone sign tipcha under the word לא where you would have expected the tone sign mercha if the Torah had intended the two words לא תשכח to be read together. In other words, the word תשכח stands all by itself and is not connected to what came before. The fact that the letter ת in that word has a dagesh indicates that a time will come when the memory of Amalek will disappear from our minds. This is also what David had in mind when he wrote (Psalms 9,7) “the enemy is no more; ruins everlasting; You have torn down their cities, their very names are lost.” This is the time when G’d’s Holy Name and His throne will be complete, i.e. the following verse: “וה' לעולם ישב כונן למשפט כסאו, “But the Lord abides forever, He has set up His throne for judgment.”