Essay su Deuteronomio 22:78

Ex. 23:4–5 exhorted people to attend to their enemy’s lost or overburdened animal. Here the law is expanded (and applied to one’s neighbor’s animal) to include taking care of the animal, and indeed of any lost object, until the owner makes inquiry. At issue is loss of work for the owner.

As Greenstein (1984a) explains, hybrids in various areas were understood as appropriate only for God (or, in the case of clothing, the priests).

Paralleling Num. 15:37–41—but this time with no rationale. In Numbers, the “tassels” were to serve as a constant reminder of the divine commandments.

The definition used here is the classic biblical one: a married woman and a man, married or not. In Mesopotamia it was possible to pay off the aggrieved husband, but not in ancient Israel, where adultery was seen as attacking the moral foundations of society and perhaps also the symbolism of the close relationship between God and Israel.

In this case a woman is all but married, yet a distinction is made between an urban and a rural setting in terms of her fate. Note that her consent is not an issue here; as a betrothed woman, she had no right to give it (Frymer-Kensky 1992a).

The difference here, of course, is that the woman does not “belong” to a man. The rape must result in marriage, but since no husband’s privilege has been violated, the crime is neither a capital one nor even a criminal one. It is, however, seen as a “disgrace” (see Gen. 34:7).

This prohibition touches on a frequent theme in Leviticus: the improper mixing of categories.

Another indicator of the humane concerns of Deuteronomy. There is an obvious parallel between the language here and that of the Fifth Commandment (honoring parents): “prolonging days” and “going-well” as a result of following these laws.

Deuteronomy, with its concern for human life, prevents the shedding of innocent blood once again.