Halakhah su Deuteronomio 23:78

It is written: "You shall cover your excrement because Hashem, your God walks in the midst of your camp … your camp shall be holy and there should not be seen in you any unclean thing."¹Deuteronomy 23:14–15. From here our Sages, of blessed memory, infer that wherever Hashem, our God walks with us, meaning when we are engaged in a sacred matter such as reciting the Shema, or prayers, or study, Torah, or the like, the place must be holy. No uncovered excrement should be found there nor any nakedness be visible in the presence of the person reciting the Shema or praying.

From the perspective of Jewish law, severance of the vas deferens poses a serious problem with regard to the permissibility of resumption of marital relations. The verse "Lo yavo pezu'a daka u-kerut shafkhah be-kehal ha-Shem—He that hath wounded testicles or severed membrum shall not enter into the assembly of God" (Deuteronomy 23:2) constitutes a negative commandment prohibiting a person afflicted in this manner from engaging in sexual intercourse. The biblical terms ''pezu'a daka" and "kerut shafkhah" employed in formulating this prohibition are understood by the Gemara as denoting a mauled or severed membrum, testicle, or vas deferens. Thus Yevamot 75b declares: "Raba stated: 'Wounded' applies to all, 'crushed' applies to all and 'severed' applies to all. 'Wounded' applies to all, whether the membrum, the testes or the cords of the testes were wounded. 'Crushed' applies to all, whether the membrum, the testes or the cords of the testes were crushed. 'Severed' applies to all, whether the membrum, the testes or the cords of the testes were severed." Moreover, seclusion (yiḥud) of a male with a woman with whom intercourse is prohibited is forbidden even if the woman is his lawfully wedded wife (other than with his wife who is a niddah with whom intercourse is permitted subsequent to her immersion in a mikveh). Moreover, a kohen is forbidden to marry a woman who has consorted with a man who has been maimed in this manner.⁴See Rambam, Hilkhot Issurei Bi‘ah 18:3.

I investigated further and found that with regard to one who has a discharge in the night or in the day, or one who touches any contamination which renders him unclean, Scripture says “he is unclean until dusk” (Leviticus 22:6), which must be the end of the day. For if the day began with dawn, then one who has a discharge at night should become clean at the end of the “day,” namely, at dawn.

It is forbidden to say or think about sacred matters in a place that contains feces or other foul-smelling substances, as the Torah states: “You will return and cover your excrement. This is because Lord your God walks among you in your camp…. Your camp must therefore be holy” (Devarim 23:14-15). This law contains many details, and we will learn only a few of them.

However, regarding the matter of lashes, there is a difference between [the examples]. As all those [simply] specified in one negative commandment only receive one [set of] lashes - for example, "the wage of a harlot and the price of a dog"(Deuteronomy 23:19); and "leaven and [...] honey" (Leviticus 2:11); "the case of a stranger [or] an orphan" (Deuteronomy 24:17), and all that is similar to them. But the negative commandments that [also] have a general category and are specified at the beginning or end [of the category] - for example, this negative commandment that specified "uncooked and boiled" and is [then] generalized, "Do not eat [...] but only roasted with fire"; and so [too], with a nazerite (Numbers 6:4), "from anything that is obtained from the grapevine [...] may he not eat," and afterwards it specifies, "seeds [...] or skin," ('and grapes wet and dry,' Numbers 6:3) - with these and those similar to them, we give lashes for each and every one. [This is] because the inclusion of the specification that was not needed, indicates lashes for each one [of them], as we have said. And the teacher was prolific in his proofs about this in the ninth shoresh in his Book of the Commandments - that the calculation of commandments is not the same as the calculation of [which commandments require] lashes [independently]. And that which I have said that Ramban, may his memory be blessed, will count each of the ones specified by their names individually - each one by itself - only when they are separate in their content, as we have written; [it] is, for example, [in the case of] 'leaven and honey,' [and] 'the wage and the price.' But in a case where it is the same content - even if they are specified by different names - they are only counted as one commandment. For example, "All male first-borns that are born in your herd and in your flock" (Deuteronomy 15:19) is only one commandment to sanctify all of the first-borns; and the specification is [also] only one commandment. And so [too], "All tithes of the herd or flock" (Leviticus 27:32) is only one commandment to separate to give the tithes of these animals. And so [too], "Judges and officers" (Deuteronomy 16:18) is only that we should establish justice through these people and it is one commandment. And so [too], "An honest balance, honest weights, an honest ephah, and an honest hin" (Leviticus 19:36) is all one commandment, that we should not lie about measures.

Although most authorities do not fundamentally object to IVF, at least for married couples, several major problems do arise during IVF procedures,⁸See Rav Asher Weiss’s and Rav Gidon Weitzman’s essays in Techumin (23:220-230) regarding the performance of IVF-related procedures on Shabbat. Rav Weiss rules that the halachic status of choleh she’ein bo sakanah (victim of a non-life-threatening illness) applies to the couple (which entails certain leniencies, as we discussed in an earlier chapter), and Rav Weitzman cites many other authorities who share this view. Nevertheless, Rav Weiss notes that in practice, it is always preferable to perform all necessary procedures during the week, as halachic questions can arise during every step of a procedure on Shabbat. including procuring the husband’s sperm in a halachically acceptable manner, the permissibility of paying a woman to donate an ovum (if one’s Rav permits using a donated ovum), and concern for the possible mamzeirut (illegitimate status) of the donor (if permitted),⁹Concern for mamzeirut (described in the Sifrei’s comments to Devarim 23:3) could arise if we were to worry that the donor is a Jew born from an illicit relationship (other than nidah) punishable by kareit (such as adultery or incest). Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, Rav David Feinstein, and Rav J. David Bleich all told me (in 1991) that we generally need not worry about this problem when doing IVF (see Techumin 10:281), as the majority of donors (rov) are not mamzeirim. Nevertheless, if we know for sure that a particular donor was a mamzeir, the resulting child would presumably also be a mamzeir (see Tzitz Eliezer 15:45). Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Even Ha’ezer 3:11) claims, however, that a man cannot transmit mamzeirut to children whom he fathers without a sexual act. Accordingly, were a mamzeir to donate sperm for IVF, the child would not be a mamzeir. However, other authorities give no indication of accepting Rav Moshe’s opinion. and the credibility of a non-observant or non-Jewish doctor’s assertion that he used the sperm and/or ovum of a particular person.

And after it has been explained that His saying, "Do not eat any of it raw or boiled" is [only] one commandment; and likewise all of the negative commandments that arise from the prohibition for the nazirite of all that comes out from the vine are one commandment, since they are all details, as is explained in the Gemara; and they likewise said that, "any leaven and any honey," is one commandment - we should also count, "No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted" (Deuteronomy 23:4), as one commandment. And likewise, His saying, "You shall not ill-treat any widow or orphan" (Exodus 22:21). And likewise, His saying, "You shall not subvert the rights of the stranger or the orphan" (Deuteronomy 24:17). And likewise, His saying, "he may not diminish her food, her clothing or her conjugal rights" (Exodus 21:10). Each of these negative commandments is one commandment. This means to say that each of these is exactly like, "Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in any way," and like, "for no leaven or honey may be turned into smoke as an offering." There is no difference between them. And likewise, His saying, "You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the sale revenue of a dog" (Deuteronomy 23:19), is one commandment. And likewise, His saying, "Drink no wine or other intoxicant, etc. And to differentiate [...] And to instruct" (Leviticus 9-11). That is to say, with one negative commandment did He prohibit [a priest] to enter the Sanctuary or to give instruction while drunk. And that is one of the divisions of the second type of general negative commandments. And the second division is [made up of cases with] words exactly like those of the previous division. However [in such cases], it is the traditionally received explanation that we give separate lashes for each and every one of those connected matters. And that is that when he does them all - even at one time - he is given lashes for each and every one as a distinct prohibition. Of this type is His saying, "You may not eat within your gates of the tithes of your new grain or your wine or your oil" (Deuteronomy 12:17). They said in Keritot (Keritot 4b), "[If one] ate the tithe of grain, wine, and oil (outside Jerusalem), he is liable [separately] for each and every one." And they raised a difficulty and said, "But is one given lashes for a general negative commandment?" And the answer was, "The verse is written superfluously. How is this? It is written, 'And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place where He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, the tithe of your grain, etc.' (Deuteronomy 14:23); why did He need to come back and write, 'You may not eat within your gates?' And if you shall say that it is to [make it into a full-fledged] negative commandment - if so, let the verse say, 'You may not eat them within your gates.' Why did the verse need to go back and write all of them ('your new grain or your wine or your oil')? We hear from this, that it is to separate [it into three distinct commandments]." And there, after give and take, it is clarified that it was not necessary for Him to say, "and parched grain" (Leviticus 23:14), such that it was truly mentioned to separate - that one would be liable for parched grain on its own. And in the Talmud, they asked by way of rejection, "Maybe one is separately liable to receive lashes for parched grain" - for it is truly mentioned for this - "whereas for bread and fresh stalks, one is [only] liable for one [set of] lashes?" So they answered, "For what law did the Merciful One write, 'parched grain,' in between [the others]? To tell you that one who eats bread, parched grain and fresh stalks is liable for each and every one [individually]."

And after it has been explained that His saying, "Do not eat any of it raw or boiled" is [only] one commandment; and likewise all of the negative commandments that arise from the prohibition for the nazirite of all that comes out from the vine are one commandment, since they are all details, as is explained in the Gemara; and they likewise said that, "any leaven and any honey," is one commandment - we should also count, "No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted" (Deuteronomy 23:4), as one commandment. And likewise, His saying, "You shall not ill-treat any widow or orphan" (Exodus 22:21). And likewise, His saying, "You shall not subvert the rights of the stranger or the orphan" (Deuteronomy 24:17). And likewise, His saying, "he may not diminish her food, her clothing or her conjugal rights" (Exodus 21:10). Each of these negative commandments is one commandment. This means to say that each of these is exactly like, "Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in any way," and like, "for no leaven or honey may be turned into smoke as an offering." There is no difference between them. And likewise, His saying, "You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the sale revenue of a dog" (Deuteronomy 23:19), is one commandment. And likewise, His saying, "Drink no wine or other intoxicant, etc. And to differentiate [...] And to instruct" (Leviticus 9-11). That is to say, with one negative commandment did He prohibit [a priest] to enter the Sanctuary or to give instruction while drunk. And that is one of the divisions of the second type of general negative commandments. And the second division is [made up of cases with] words exactly like those of the previous division. However [in such cases], it is the traditionally received explanation that we give separate lashes for each and every one of those connected matters. And that is that when he does them all - even at one time - he is given lashes for each and every one as a distinct prohibition. Of this type is His saying, "You may not eat within your gates of the tithes of your new grain or your wine or your oil" (Deuteronomy 12:17). They said in Keritot (Keritot 4b), "[If one] ate the tithe of grain, wine, and oil (outside Jerusalem), he is liable [separately] for each and every one." And they raised a difficulty and said, "But is one given lashes for a general negative commandment?" And the answer was, "The verse is written superfluously. How is this? It is written, 'And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place where He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, the tithe of your grain, etc.' (Deuteronomy 14:23); why did He need to come back and write, 'You may not eat within your gates?' And if you shall say that it is to [make it into a full-fledged] negative commandment - if so, let the verse say, 'You may not eat them within your gates.' Why did the verse need to go back and write all of them ('your new grain or your wine or your oil')? We hear from this, that it is to separate [it into three distinct commandments]." And there, after give and take, it is clarified that it was not necessary for Him to say, "and parched grain" (Leviticus 23:14), such that it was truly mentioned to separate - that one would be liable for parched grain on its own. And in the Talmud, they asked by way of rejection, "Maybe one is separately liable to receive lashes for parched grain" - for it is truly mentioned for this - "whereas for bread and fresh stalks, one is [only] liable for one [set of] lashes?" So they answered, "For what law did the Merciful One write, 'parched grain,' in between [the others]? To tell you that one who eats bread, parched grain and fresh stalks is liable for each and every one [individually]."

It is prohibited to recite sacred words in the presence of erva (nakedness), as the Torah states: “Your camp must therefore be holy. Let Him not see any erva among you and turn away from you” (Devarim 23:15). Regarding a man who sees another man or a woman who sees another woman, it is only prohibited to recite sacred words in view of the other’s privates. Therefore, if a woman is sitting on the floor or a chair in a manner that conceals her private part, even if she is naked, another woman may pray or speak sacred words in her presence (MB 75:8).

I mention this interpretation to counter the heretics who do not believe the words of our Rabbis that the Sabbath extends from dusk to dusk. The true interpretation is what the Rabbis recorded, namely, that the Sabbath was given at Marah.⁷ “Israel was instructed in ten laws at Marah. Seven of these were accepted by the descendents of Noah. Three additional laws were courts, Sabbath, and respect for parents” (Sanhedrin 56b). The incident at Marah (Exodus 15:22–26) took place before the appearance of the manna (ibid., chapter 16). Scripture mentions “tomorrow” and not “this night,” for Scripture usually speaks of what is common, namely, that people work during the day. The meaning of “holy Sabbath” is that they should rest, and that is what they did, “The nation rested on the seventh day” (ibid. 16:30). In Jeremiah it is written: “to sanctify the Sabbath day by not working on it” (17:24). Moses mentioned “tomorrow,” which is daytime, because he addressed what is common. Similarly, “Man goes out to his activity and to his work until evening” (Psalms 104:23). Likewise, “You should not eat meat that was torn in the field” (Exodus 22:30), although the same prohibition applies to what was torn in a house. Similarly, “an occurrence at night” (Deuteronomy 23:11);⁸ This does not exclude an occurrence of the day. “an ox or a donkey fell there” (Exodus 21:33);⁹ Ox or donkey are not exclusive. and many more in the Torah like these.

While the child of a non-Jewish father possesses merely undesirable lineage, sometimes one’s lineage poses a serious problem of actual illegitimacy. For example, the child of a woman’s second marriage faces concern for mamzeirut (illegitimacy) if his or her mother remarried without receiving a valid get (divorce document) from her first husband. Should the child indeed be a mamzeir, he or she may not marry anyone other than a fellow mamzeir or a convert. In many contemporary situations, though, poskim can permit the child to nevertheless marry because they determine that the mother’s first wedding did not meet halachic standards.¹⁵See our first volume (pp. 63-90) for a discussion of the halachic status of non-Orthodox marriages. As we repeatedly note in that discussion, one must make every effort to avoid such situations of possible mamzeirut by performing a proper get even when a civil court judge or Reform rabbi officiated at the wedding. In such situations, where one may marry only due to a lenient ruling of an eminent halachic authority, Rav Malkiel Tannenbaum (Teshuvot Divrei Malkiel 3:90) and Rav Eliezer Waldenberg (Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 7:48:5:15-17) require divulging the full background to any prospective mate. Since questions of mamzeirut often depend on disputed points in Halachah, a prospective spouse could reasonably hesitate to rely upon the same view as the poseik who ruled leniently in a particular case. Hence, one may not conceal such issues from a prospective mate.¹⁶See, however, the Steipler Rav’s aforementioned discussion of the Gemara in Yevamot. The Steipler Rav addresses a case involving a man who was permitted by prominent poskim to marry despite concern that he was a petzu’a daka (one with crushed testicles; see Devarim 23:2). The Steipler Rav focuses his discussion on whether the man must tell dating partners that this injury might affect his reproductive capabilities. Interestingly, though, he does not mention any obligation to tell the prospective bride that he could marry her only due to a lenient ruling (that he is not a petzu’a daka), perhaps implicitly disagreeing with the Divrei Malkiel and Tzitz Eliezer.

Authorities have also raised concern for mamzeirut regarding the Falash Mura (and all Ethiopian Jews), assuming that they were Jewish prior to their conversion in Israel. This concern arises because they did not practice the laws of Jewish divorce.⁶A mamzeir (described in the Sifrei's comments to Devarim 23:3) is any child born to a Jewish woman from an adulterous or incestuous relationship with another Jew. This creates profound problems for communities which do not perform proper gittin (divorce documents), because a woman who marries according to Halachah remains halachically married to her first husband until receiving a get. If a woman "remarries" without a get, this constitutes adultery, and any children born from this marriage are mamzeirim. A mamzeir is prohibited to marry anyone, Jew or non-Jew, other than a convert to Judaism or a fellow mamzeir. Regarding the Karaites, who similarly did not observe Jewish divorce laws, the Rama (Even Ha'ezer 4:37) forbids marrying a Karaite even if the Karaite repents and accepts the authority of the Oral Law. He explains that Karaites are considered possible mamzeirim (mamzeirim misafek)⁷It should be noted that a mamzeir misafek is treated like a mamzeir only on a rabbinical level (Kiddushin 73a), so once any other doubt exists, there is greater room to be lenient. due to the invalid divorces that they performed throughout the centuries. At first glance, it would appear that this ruling of the Rama should apply to Ethiopian Jews.⁸Not all authorities accept the Rama's ruling against marrying Karaites. See Radbaz (Teshuvot 1:73), Pitchei Teshuvah (E.H. 4:45), Yabia Omer (8:12), and Rav Eliyahu Bakshi Doron's essay in Techumin (18:77-83). Also see Tzitz Eliezer (12:66), citing Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, and Rav Avraham Sherman's essay in Techumin (19:192-200), who prohibit Karaites from marrying Jews.

The Kapaḥ edition of Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah contains an entirely different reading. According to that version, Rambam declares, "They disagree only with regard to a war against nations which wage war against [Israel] in order to weaken [those nations]." The situation described cannot be understood as one involving actual hostilities against Israel because, as stated by Me'iri, a war of defense constitutes a milḥemet mizvah even according to the Sages. Such defensive war is recognized by Rambam himself as constituting a milḥemet mizvah as indicated by his inclusion of war "to deliver Israel from an enemy who has attacked them" in the category of milḥamot mizvah in his codification of this concept in the Mishneh Torah. Hence the situation depicted as a milḥemet reshut undertaken "to diminish the heathens so that they shall not march upon them" must involve circumstances in which the heathens have as yet not engaged in actual hostilities but whose aggressive intentions are announced or are readily apparent.¹⁹Rema’s ruling is, of course, entirely consistent with the position espoused by Arukh ha-Shulḥan he-Atid. However, as noted earlier, the preponderance of rabbinic authority is contra the position of Arukh ha-Shulḥan he-Atid. Thus, for example, Ḥazon Ish, as noted, declares that war “to deliver Israel from an enemy” constitutes a milḥemet miẓvah only when the enemy has actually “come upon them”—terminology directly contradictory to that employed by Rema.
It should be noted that, in a statement dated 9 Tammuz 5742, the Chief Rabbinate Council of the State of Israel declared the war of Shalom ha-Galil to constitute a milḥemet miẓvah. The war is described as necessary “to deliver Israel from an enemy” and Rema, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 330:6, is cited as broadening this category to encompass deliverance from a putative attack. It is, however, difficult to determine whether that proclamation is intended to be understood as halakhic or hortative in nature. The same statement continues with a discussion of the conduct of the Israeli Defense Forces and cites the verse “and your camp shall be holy” (Deuteronomy 23:15) in what can only be described as a homiletic vein. In its halakhic context, Deuteronomy 23:15 constitutes an exhortation to implement certain hygienic measures. This statement was published in its entirety in the Algemeiner Journal, July 16, 1982, p. 5. An English translation appeared in the London Jewish Chronicle, July 23, 1982, p. 35. The circumstances depicted in the Kapaḥ version of the Commentary on the Mishnah are roughly the equivalent of a state of belligerence as distinct from a state of war.

And that is that He commanded us to send away the impure from the camp. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "that they remove from camp anyone with tsaraat or a discharge" (Numbers 5:2). And this camp is the camp of the Divine Presence, outside of which are the compartments of the courtyard - as we explained at the beginning of the Order, Tahorot, in the Commentary on the Mishnah. And it is written in the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 1:1), "'That they remove from camp' - this is a prohibition for the impure not to enter the Temple while impure." And this command was already repeated with a different language, "If anyone among you has been rendered unclean by a nocturnal emission, he must leave the camp" (Deuteronomy 23:11) - meaning the camp of the Divine Presence. And the language of the Mekhilta is, "'Instruct the Israelites that they remove from camp' is a positive commandment. From where [do we know that] it is a negative commandment? 'And they shall not defile the camp' (Numbers 5:3)." And in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 255:4), "'He must leave the camp' - that is a positive commandment." (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 3.)

Charity is in the category of vows. Therefore, if you say, "I will donate money to charity" or "this coin is charity" you must immediately give it to the poor, and if you delay [giving it to them] you are in violation of the commandment, "You must not delay,"²⁵Deuteronomy 23:22. because you could have given it immediately. If there are no poor people available, you may set the money aside until you find some poor people. If you pledge charity in the synagogue which is to be entrusted to the treasurer, you are not in violation²⁶You are not in violation of the law stated above, that you must immediately give it to the poor. until the treasurer demands the money. Then [if you do not give it] you are immediately in violation; unless you know that he doesn't need the money for immediate [distribution] but will merely hold it in his possession.

Indeed, a significant number of authorities, both early and late, state explicitly that the prerogatives of the monarch are not limited to kings of Israel but extend equally to non-Jewish kings as well.²⁴One authority, R. Zevi Hirsch Chajes, Torat Nevi’im, chap. 7, develops the position that disobedience to the edict of the monarch may legitimately be punished not because lèse majesté is punishable per se, but on other grounds entirely. According to R. Chajes, disobedience of the king’s law, if widespread, would lead to anarchy; hence the violator of the king’s law is, in effect, a rodef, i.e., his actions endanger the lives and safety of all members of society. He may, therefore, be put to death by virtue of the “law of pursuit.” According to R. Chajes, this line of reasoning serves to make Jews legitimately subject to the penal authority of non-Jewish courts. It is clear that for R. Chajes non-Jewish courts enjoy the selfsame penal authority as do Jewish courts in the administration of “the king’s justice.” Many of these authorities explain that the principle dina de-malkhuta dina is predicated upon the concept of the "king's law" which they regard as binding not only when decreed by kings of Israel but even when promulgated by non-Jewish monarchs as well.²⁵See Ramban, Rashba, Ran and Ritva in their respective commentaries to Baba Batra 55a; R. Meir ha-Kohen of Saracusto, Shitah Mekubeẓet, Baba Kamma 97b; Teshuvot ha-Rashba, II, no. 134 and III, no. 109; Migdal Oz, Hilkhot Melakhim 4:1; Radbaz, Hilkhot Melakhim 4:1; Derashot ha-Ran, no. 11; R. Shimon ben Ẓemaḥ Duran, Teshuvot Tashbaẓ, I, no. 158; R. Joseph Karo, Teshuvot Avkat Rokhel, no. 47; R. Moshe Trani, Kiryat Sefer, Hilkhot Gezeilah 8; Taz, Yoreh De‘ah 157:8 (the comment of Migdal Oz, Even Boḥen 1:73, with regard to the position of Taz appears to be inaccurate); R. Elijah of Vilna, Bi’ur ha-Gra, Ḥoshen Mishpat 369:34; R. Abraham Rodrigez, Teshuvot Oraḥ la-Ẓaddik, Ḥoshen Mishpat, no. 1; Rabbi A. A. Kaplan, Divrei Talmud, I, 171-172; and Shmuel Shilo, Dina de-Malkhuta Dina, pp. 65-79. On the other hand, one authority explicitly rejects the thesis that gentile kings enjoy the prerogatives of “the king’s law”; see Tosafot, Sanhedrin 20b, and cf., Dvar Avraham, I, no. 1, p. 14f. Radbaz, Hilkhot Melakhim 3:8, states that monarchical prerogatives are vested solely in a king who is “enthroned by a prophet or who is accepted by all of Israel.” On the basis of a narrative recorded in Bereshit Rabbah 94:9 and Va-Yikra Rabbah 19:6 it would appear that the question of whether or not lèse majesté vis-à-vis a gentile king constitutes a capital crime was a matter of dispute between King Jehoiakim and the Sanhedrin. The Midrash relates that Nebuchadnezzar demanded of the Great Sanhedrin that the rebellious Jehoiakim be delivered to him and he would depart in peace. Jehoiakim, viewing his relationship to Nebuchadnezzar as that of a vassal to a lord rather than as that of a subject to a sovereign, reacted by citing the verse, “You shall not deliver a servant to his master” (Deut. 23:16). The members of the Great Sanhedrin, however, countered by comparing the matter with the turning over of Sheba ben Bichri (II Samuel 20:1-22) for execution in punishment for lèse majesté against King David. See R. Chajes, Torat Nevi’im, chap. 7 and this writer’s Hebrew article, “Be-Inyan Tenu Lanu Eḥad mi-Kem,” Or ha-Mizraḥ, Tishri 5743; cf., Minḥat Ḥinnukh, no. 296, s.v. u-mevu’ar. Nevertheless, as stated earlier, authority to legislate and to administer punishment for infractions of such legislation is not tantamount to authority to ignore rules of evidence as well. It remains to be established that even a Jewish monarch is empowered to administer punishment on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

“On condition that I am rich, and found to be poor or poor and found to be rich”; “On condition that I am a Priest¹³¹The priest is the principle functionary in the divine services. They engage in cultic ceremonies which are conducted mainly in the Temple (in Jerusalem prior to 70 A.D.). In general the priest’s post is authorized by hereditary right and they constitute a distinct class separate from the rest of the people. The Hebrew term used to designate a priest is Kohen. According to sections of the Torah the right or priesthood is maintained exclusively for one family of the levite tribe, the family of Aaron.
In modern times the priest has the following privileges:
a) the right to be called first to the reading of the Torah.
b) the privilege of having the phrase, bi-reshut Kohen (with the permission of the Kohen) added to the Grace after Meals.
c) the laws prohibiting contact with the dead except for close relatives and met mitsva are in full force.
d) the laws prohibiting marriage to a Zonah, a halalah, a proselyte, a divorcee, a widow who has received ḥalizah are still in effect.
e) he is entitled to the priest’s position at the ceremony of the redemption of the first born male.
Reform Judaism does not follow all the traditional laws applying to a Kohen. and found to be a Levite¹³²The tribe of Levi was singled out as the servants of God in the Temple. They were chosen “in place of all the first born among the Israelite people” (Num. 3:40-43). Though priests came from one family of the tribe of Levi all Levites served as attendants to the Priesthood. The superiority of the family of Aaron over the Levites is clearly stressed in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. Since the destruction of the Temple the Levite has no special privileges except being called second after the Kohen to Torah, and washing the hands of the Kohen before the latter blesses the people. Their first born sons need not be redeemed. or a Levite and found to be a Priest;” Netin¹³³Usually non-Jewish temple slaves. Traditionally they were considered descendants of the Gibeonites. This group was considered a second type of those in the prohibited category. and found to be a Mamzer¹³⁴Usually translated as “bastard” but the true definition is found in Kidushin 3:12 “If she cannot contract a legally valid marriage to this man, but can contract a legally valid marriage to others, her offspring [from the former] is a mamzer. A mamzer is the issue of a couple whose sexual relationship is forbidden according to the Torah and is punishable by excommunication or death. A mamzer is also the descendant of a mamzer. According to Deut. 23:3: “A mamzer shall not enter the congregation of the Lord” and may not marry a legitimate Jew or Jewess. Legally the status of a mamzer is no different than any other Jew except with regard to marriage. The mamzer is eligible to hold any public office and he or she maintains their appropriate inheritance rights. or Mamzer and found to be Netin; a town dweller and found to be a city dweller or a city dweller and found to be a town dweller; “on condition that my house is close to a bath” and it is found to be far, far and it is found close; “on condition that I have a slave girl” or “grown daughter or a baker” and he does not have, on condition that he does not have and he has; “on condition that he has a wife and sons”¹³⁵(children). and he does not, on condition that he does not have and he does have; in all of these, or if he said I betrothed you to me with this cup of wine and it is found to be honey or honey and it was found to be water, for example that it was covered and she did not recognize it until afterwards, in all these and similar events even if she said “in my heart I intended to be betrothed to him,” even if the condition is not fulfilled she is not betrothed. It makes no difference if she accepts the betrothal; it makes no difference if she told the agent to accept for her with conditions and the agent changed it, and the same holds true if she deceived him, even if he said¹³⁶(afterwards). “In my heart I intended to betroth her” even though she fooled me, she is not betrothed. [Note: Except if afterwards she explicitly said so at the time of betrothal and the husband heard and was silent (Tur) and similarly if she deceived him (and he said explicitly, even if it was not the case) the betrothal is betrothal.] However if he married her¹³⁷(without conditions). and he said “I thought that she was a Kohenet and she is a Levitess,” or¹³⁸(I thought). a Levitess and she is a Kohenet, rich¹³⁹(I thought). and she is poor, poor¹⁴⁰(I thought). and she is rich behold she is betrothed.

It may cogently be argued that yet another prohibition is associated with the act of cohabitation with a gentile. This prohibition is based upon Deuteronomy 23:18: "Lo tiheyeh kedeshah mi-benot Yisra'el ve-lo yiheyeh kadesh mi-benei Yisra'el." This passage is rendered in standard English translation as "There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel." Rashi, following one opinion presented in Sanhedrin 54b, does indeed understand the term "kadesh" as referring to a male prostitute who makes himself available for homosexual activity. Rambam, Sefer ha-Mizvot, lo ta'aseh, no. 350, records the latter part of this verse as an injunction against homosexual relations. However, this passage was not universally understood in this manner by Jewish exegetes. Rambam, Hilkhot Ishut 1:4, understands the first section of this verse as establishing a prohibition against fornication. Sexual intercourse between unmarried persons constitutes a violation of this commandment according to Rambam. Targum Onkelos translates this verse as follows: "No Jewish woman of the daughters of Israel shall marry a slave and no male of the children of Israel shall marry a female slave." Maharam Schick and others point to the fact that the verse in the original Hebrew does not specify cohabitation with a slave.⁵See commentary of Ramban, ad locum. They observe that Targum Onkelos speaks of a slave simply as an example of the type of sexual liaison to which reference is made. Instead of rendering a literal translation the Targum offers an example of a sexual relationship between individuals who cannot be united in matrimony with the implication that all comparable relationships are likewise included in the prohibition. Fornication between an unmarried male and an unmarried female does not fall within the scope of this prohibition according to the Targum because such persons are eligible to contract a valid marriage. The prohibition, for the Targum, is limited to a situation in which matrimony is halakhically precluded but includes cohabitation between any male and female who are halakhically incapable of contracting a valid marriage. A liaison between a Jewish male and a non-Jewish female slave or between a Jewish woman and a male slave is merely an instance of such a relationship. According to this analysis, Targum Onkelos' example of a slave serves as a general paradigm applying to all situations in which marriage between the two individuals is a halakhic impossibility. It follows, therefore, that since Jewish law does not under any circumstances recognize the existence of a matrimonial relationship between a Jew and a non-Jew, the prohibition "lo yiheyeh kadesh" is applicable in all cases of intermarriage.

Professor Moshe Silberg, formerly a justice of the Israeli Supreme Court, has advanced an interesting proposal which, in his opinion, would obviate this problem. His written views on this matter were published in the now defunct Israeli weekly, Panim el Panim, 5 Iyar and 4 Sivan, 5731. Justice Silberg recommends a form of civil marriage to be restricted to bastards. This proposal, he contends, is compatible with the provisions of Halakhah concerning liaisons with bastards. His suggested innovation centers around Rambam's ruling, Hilkhot Issurei Bi'ah 15:2, to the effect that sexual intercourse between a bastard and a person of legitimate birth is a culpable offense only within the framework of a matrimonial relationship. Rambam maintains that the prohibition "A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of God" (Deut. 23:3) refers solely to validly contracted marriages. Migdal Oz, ad locum, explains that Rambam renders the term lo yavo as "he shall not enter," the form of "entry" to which reference is made being marriage. Rabad, in a gloss to this ruling, disagrees sharply with Rambam and asserts that all cohabitation with a bastard is proscribed by this prohibition. Rabad apparently translates the term "lo yavo" literally as referring to the sexual act (bi'ah). Professor Silberg urges rabbinic authorities to accept Rambam's position as authoritative. This would open the way for a form of civil marriage to be contracted in a manner which would regularize the relationship in the eyes of civil authorities, but would not constitute a halakhically valid marriage. From the point of view of Halakhah, the woman entering into such a relationship would have the status of a concubine.

Professor Silberg himself notes a number of objections which may be raised with regard to his proposal but expresses the hope that rabbinic scholars will somehow resolve these difficulties. In the first place, Rabad and other authorities take issue with the basic premise and assert that all forms of sexual intercourse between mamzerim and those of legitimate birth are proscribed. According to Migdal Oz, Rambam merely rules that the statutory forty lashes are not to be inflicted as punishment for cohabitation outside of the marital relationship; Rambam does not declare such cohabitation to be permissible. Migdal Oz asserts that, according to Rambam, such cohabitation is forbidden by rabbinic edict. Thirdly, Rambam himself maintains that the prohibition "There shall be no harlot among the daughters of Israel" (Deut. 23:18), encompasses fornication with unmarried women. Finally, it is not at all clear that concubinage can be sanctioned within the framework of Halakhah. Professor Silberg notes that the late Sephardic scholar, Rabbi Ya'akov Moshe Toledano, at one time advocated reinstitution of concubinage as a means of ameliorating certain social and halakhic problems but subsequently withdrew this recommendation. Actually, a similar suggestion was originally formulated by R. Ya'akov Emden, She'elat Ya'avez, II, no. 15, in response to the threat posed by the licentiousness of the Sabbatians. Needless to say, this proposal never gained wide acceptance within the community of rabbinic scholars.

If there is "nakedness" behind a [glass] lamp and one sees it through the [glass] walls [of the lamp], it is forbidden to recite [Sh'ma] in front of it, as is written, "...let Him not find anything unseemly among you" (Deut. 23:15) and here, it is seen.

To Be Careful of Excrement at the Time of the Recitation of the Sh'ma. Containing 6 Se'ifim
Excrement [that is seen] through a [glass] lamp - it is permitted to recite in front of it even though one sees it through the [glass] walls [of the lamp] because the Mericful One conditions [it] on being covered, as is written "And you shall cover your excrement" (Deuteronomy 23:14), and here, it is covered.

If it (ie. the excrement) was in a place higher than 10 t'fachim [above him] or 10 below [him] or it was in one house and he is in another house [that's connected], even if the [connecting] door is open and he is sitting at the side [of the door] and sees it: if it does not have a smell, he may recite [the Sh'ma]. Because since it is in a different domain, we can still call it as [having fulfilled the mitzvah of] "...and your camp shall be holy" (Deuteronomy 23:15) according to the Rosh. But according to the Rashba, it's only when he doesn't see it. And if it has a smell, a separation is ineffective and [also] a change in domain is not [effective]. And there are those who say that just as a separation is effective in regards to excrement itself, so too it is effective for its bad smell.

That is that He commanded us to bring all of the sacrifices that are incumbent upon one during the first holiday of the three pilgrim holidays that we encounter, such that none of the three pilgrim holidays pass without each one of us sacrificing any sacrifice that he is obligated. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "and there shall you come. And there you shall bring" (Deuteronomy 12:5-6). And the content of this command is that it is saying that when you come there - and that is on each of the holidays of the three pilgrim holidays - you are obligated to bring every sacrifice incumbent upon you. And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 63:4-5) is, "'And there shall you come. And there you shall bring.' Why is it stated? To make them obligatory on the first holiday that he encounters." And there, it says, "He is not in transgression of 'you shall not delay' (Deuteronomy 23:22) until all three of the pilgrim holidays of the whole entire year have passed him by." This means to say that he has transgressed a negative commandment [only] after three pilgrim holidays have passed him by, and he has not brought [them]. However when one holiday passed him by, he has surely violated a positive commandment. And in the Gemara, Rosh Hashanah (Rosh Hashanah 4b), [it says,] "Rabbi Meir says, 'Once [even] one holiday has passed, one transgresses, "you shall not delay."'" And it is said there, "And Rabbi Meir, what is his reason? As it is written, 'and there shall you come. And there you shall bring.' But the Rabbis [reason, this verse only] comes to [indicate] a positive commandment." Behold it has already been explained there that His saying, "and there shall you come. And there you shall bring," is a positive commandment. And that is that he bring all that He is obligated from God's laws and dispose of them on each and every holiday. And whether it is any of the types of sacrifices, monies, appraisals, consecrations, gleanings (leket), forgotten sheaves or corner produce (peah) - the dispensation of one's obligation with any of these on the first holiday that he encounters is a positive commandment, as is explained in the Gemara, Rosh Hashanah. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 14.)

In a three-part article which appeared in Ha-Tzofeh (8 Tevet, 15 Tevet and 22 Tevet, 5743), Rabbi Shlomoh Goren attempts to define the phrase "at the hands of Heaven" in a rather novel manner. Rabbi Goren argues that the term "at the hands of Heaven" as employed in Sanhedrin 78a is to be understood in precisely the same manner as it is understood in the context of an entirely unrelated discussion recorded in Yevamot 75b. The Gemara, Yevamot 75b, states that, although Scripture declares that a person who has "wounded testicles" is forbidden to engage in sexual intercourse (Deuteronomy 23:2), the prohibition is limited to wounds suffered "at the hands of man." However, one who has been wounded "at the hands of Heaven" is not subject to this restriction. Rashi and Rosh define the term "at the hands of Heaven" as connoting injuries suffered as a result of "thunder or hail" or a condition which is the result of congenital anomaly. However, Rambam, Hilkhot Issurei Bi'ah 16:9, states that the concept of an injury sustained "at the hands of Heaven" also encompasses damage sustained as a result of any illness or physiological disorder. This position is accepted by Shulḥan Arukh, Even ha-Ezer 5:10. Rabbi Goren states:

Rabbi Soloveichik further argues that permitting the use of a mikveh for invalid conversions constitutes the violation of yet other biblical prohibitions. Ramban, in his Commentary on the Bible, Leviticus 19:29 and Deuteronomy 23:18, as well as in his glosses on Rambam's Sefer ha-Mizvot, shoresh 5, and mizvot lo ta'aseh, no. 355, declares that the verse, "There shall not be a prostitute from among the daughters of Israel, nor shall there be a prostitute from among the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:18), and the verse, "and the land shall not be filled with licentiousness" (Leviticus 19:29), constitute admonitions to the Bet Din forbidding it to allow liaisons between persons who cannot contract a valid marriage. Rabbi Soloveichik asserts that, according to Ramban, the prohibitions are not addressed solely to the members of the Bet Din, but devolve upon any person capable of preventing the acts in question. Hence, any person who facilitates a forbidden liaison of such nature is guilty of violating these two prohibitions. Permitting use of a mikveh for an invalid conversion serves to provide sanction for a conjugal relationship between a Jew and a person who, in reality, is a non-Jew and hence, concludes Rabbi Soloveichik, constitutes a violation of these prohibitions.

[For a man] to not have intercourse with males: To not have intercourse with males, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:22), "And with a male you shall not lay, the layings of a woman." And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvot Lo Taase 350), "And this negative commandment about this very matter is repeated in another place, as it is written (Deuteronomy 23:18), 'and there shall not be a kadesh from the Children of Israel.'" It appears that the rabbi, may his memory be blessed, does not agree with that which Onkelos translated (Onkelos on Deuteronomy 21:18), "and a man of the Children of Israel shall not marry a woman maidservant" - the understanding of which is a Canaanite (gentile) maidservant. Rather, his opinion is that " there shall not be a kadesh" only comes as additional negative commandments for male homosexuality, [just] as there are several [other] warnings (negative commandments) that are repeated with different words. And I have seen about Ramban, may his memory be blessed, (Ramban on Deuteronomy 21:18) that he also does not agree with the translation, but would say that the negative commandment of "there shall not be a kadesh" comes to warn that we not allow there to be among us - the holy nation - a kadesh; and that is a man who is designated to lay with men, as is known about them in the lands of the Yishmaelites to this day. And because of this, it is stated "from the Children of Israel" - since we are not warned from this with the [other] nations. As if there was a kadesh from the nations - and even amongst us - we are not warned about him; as we are not warned (commanded) about others besides us, except for idolatry alone.

He prohibited being involved with a loan with interest between a borrow and a lender - not to be a guarantor for one of them, not to be a witness for them and not to write a contract about what they agreed upon about the interest. And that is His saying, "you shall not lay upon him interest" (Exodus 22:24). And the language of the Gemara, Metzia (Bava Metzia 75b), is "The guarantor and the witnesses only transgress on account of, 'you shall not lay.'" And there, it is explained that the scribe, the witnesses and the guarantor also transgress. And there, it is also explained that this negative statement, which is 'you shall not lay' - even with its coming about the middlemen, meaning those [tangentially] involved in that matter - also includes the lender. And therefore the lender transgresses six negative statements: The first is, "do not be to him as a creditor" (Exodus 22:24); the second is, "Your money you shall not give him on interest" (Leviticus 25:37); the third is, "and on increase you shall not give your food" (Leviticus 25:37); the fourth is, "Do not take from him" (Leviticus 25:36); the fifth is, "you shall not lay upon him"; and the sixth is, "and you shall not put a stumbling block in front of the blind" (Leviticus 19:14). And there, they said, "These transgress a negative commandment: The lender; the borrower; the guarantor; and the witnesses. And the Sages say, 'Even the scribe.' They transgress, 'you shall not give him'; 'Do not take'; 'do not be to him as a creditor'; 'you shall not lay'; and 'you shall not put in front of the blind.'" And in the Gemara: "Abbaye says, 'The lender transgresses them all; the borrower transgresses, "You shall not charge interest" (Deuteronomy 23:3) and "and you shall not put a stumbling block in front of the blind"; the guarantor and the witnesses only [transgress] on account of "you shall not lay."'" And one who transgresses this negative commandment: If the interest was fixed, we take it away from him and return it to the one from whom it was taken. (See Parashat Mishpatim; Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor 4.)

Charity comes within the general class of vows. Therefore, if one says, "I vow a Sela⁴A coin worth two common Shekels. to charity," or, "I vow this Sela to charity," he must give it to the poor immediately; and, if he delays, he is guilty of transgressing the precept, "Thou shalt not slack to pay it,"¹Deut. 23:21. since he has the money and poor people are a-plenty. But if no poor are available, he should separate the money and lay it aside until he meet one.
RMI.—He transgresses a law in delaying payment, only when he vows to give charity which he himself must distribute. But if he vows to contribute to the general charity fund in the synagogue and the like, which must go through the hands of the Gabbai, he does not transgress the precept, although poor are a-plenty, until the Gabbai asks for it; and then, if he delays, he is a transgressor. And if the Gabbai does not know of the vow, he must inform him how much he vowed, so that he might come to collect.
That he must not delay in paying his vows to charity refers to vows as ordinarily made; but, of course, a man is permitted to separate a sum of money which he himself is to distribute a little at a time as he may see fit. And so also, if he stipulates a condition in making the vow, that the Gabbaïm should be permitted to exchange the money for gold, then they are permitted to do so.

A priest that has intercourse with a possibly licentious woman, such as a possible convert or freed [maidservant], or with a possible divorcee; and so [too,] a high priest who has intercourse with a possible widow - behold this is a doubtfully profaned woman and the offspring is a doubtfully profaned priest. It comes out that there are three [types of] profaned priests: a profaned priest from Torah writ; a profaned priest from the words of [the Rabbis]; and a doubtfully profaned priest. And we give upon any doubtfully profaned priest or profaned priest from the words of [the Rabbis], the stringencies of the priests and the stringencies of the Israelites. He does not eat from the priestly tithe and does not become impure for the dead and he must marry a woman that is fitting for a priest. And if he ate priestly tithe or became impure or married a divorcee, a profaned woman [or a] licentious woman, we strike him with rabbinic lashes of rebellion. But behold, a certainly profaned priest from Torah writ is like a non-priest and marries a divorcee and becomes impure for the dead; as it is stated (Leviticus 21:1), "Speak to the priests, the sons of Aharon" - even though they are sons of Aharon, [not] until they are in the [their] priesthood. And they, may their memory be blessed, also received (Sifra, Emor, Section 1:2) as the explanation of that verse, "'The sons of Aharon,' and not the daughters of Aharon - from here that fit women are not warned (prohibited) from marrying disqualified ones." And so a priestess is permitted to marry a profaned priest, a convert and a freed [slave]. And therefore they, may their memory be blessed, said (Kiddushin 73a) that a convert is permitted to marry a priestess and a mamzeret: a priestess for the reason we said, that they were not warned from marrying ones disqualified; and a mamzeret on account that the congregation of converts is not called a congregation - and with the prohibition of the mamzer, it is written (Deuteronomy 23:3), "A mamzer shall not come into the congregation of the Lord." And that which they said (Kiddushin 77a) that all the seed of a profaned priest that married a fit woman are profaned priests and disqualified to the priesthood; since the offspring goes after the father in this matter, as it is stated (Numbers 1:18), "and they shall be pedigreed by their families [according to the houses of their fathers]." And any widow from a family into which a possible profaned priest was mixed is forbidden to a priest at the outset. But if she married [him], she should not leave (be divorced) - since there is a double doubt. And we are not concerned about a double doubt, even in a [law] of Torah writ. But if a certainly profaned priest is mixed into a family, every woman from it is forbidden to marry a priest, until he examines [her lineage]. And the rest of its details are in Kiddushin and Yevamot.

That He prohibited us from having weights and measures that are deficient, with us in our homes - even though one does not buy and sell with them. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "You are not to have for yourself in your pouch varying weight-stones, large and small" (Deuteronomy 25:13); and likewise, "varying ephah measurements" (Deuteronomy 25:14). And the language of the Gemara, Batra (Bava Batra 89b), is, "It is prohibited for a person to keep in his house a measure that is deficient or inflated, even if [he only uses it as] a chamber pot for urine." And you should not think that His saying, "You are not to have for yourself [...] "varying ephah measurements"; and "You are not to have for yourself [...] varying weight-stones" - [signifies] that they are two [distinct] negative commandments. Indeed, it is coming to round out the laws of the commandment, so that the types of measures are explained - and they are weight and measurement. It is as if He would say, "You should not have two measures with you - not for measuring, and not for weighing," as we explained in the Positive Commandments (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 208). And His saying, "You are not to have for yourself [...] varying weight-stones"; and "You are not to have for yourself [...] varying ephah measurements" - is like His saying, "You shall not charge interest to your brother; interest of money, interest of food, interest of anything upon which interest can be charged" (Deuteronomy 23:20) - which is one negative commandment that includes many types, all of which have the very same content. And it is not from the repetition of language that there is an expansion of commandments, as we discussed earlier in Principle 9. And something like this negative commandment already came before us; and that is His saying, ""no chametz may be seen [...], and no leaven may be seen" (Exodus 13:7). (See Parashat Ki Tetzei; Mishneh Torah, Theft 7.)

He prohibited us from sexual intercourse with a male. And that is His saying, "Any you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a woman" (Leviticus 18:22). And the prohibition about this exact content has already been repeated with His saying, "and there shall not be a male prostitute from the Children of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:18). And that is the correct approach - that this negative commandment is repeated to strengthen it; and not that it is a prohibition about the one who receives intercourse. Rather, we learn from His saying, "You shall not lie," [both] about the one who lies and the one who is lain with. And in the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 54b), it is explained that it is Rabbi Yishmael that positions, "and there shall not be a male prostitute," as a prohibition for the one being lain with. Hence one who has sexual intercourse with a male and has a male have sexual intercourse with him in one forgetful spell, is liable for two [sin-offerings] according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. But Rabbi Akiva says, "It is not necessary. Behold, He says, 'And you shall not lie (tishkav) with a male.' Read into it, 'You shall not be lain with (tishakhev).'" Hence one who has sexual intercourse with a male and has a male have sexual intercourse with him in one forgetful spell is only liable for one [sin-offering]. And they said about the reason for this, "You shall not lie and you shall not be lain with are the same." However, "and there shall not be a male prostitute," appears - according to my opinion - to strengthen [it]; like He said, "you shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:13), which is the prohibition of a married woman, as we explained, yet afterwards He said, "And to the wife of your kinsman do not give your lying for seed" (Leviticus 18:19). And there are many examples like this, as we explained in the Ninth Principle. And one who transgresses this negative commandment is liable for stoning; and if he is not stoned, he is surely [punished] with excision if he was volitional. But if he was inadvertent, he must sacrifice a fixed sin-offering.

The commandment that one who appraises a man give the value delineated in the Torah: To rule on appraisals of people; that is, one who says, "My appraisal is upon me" or "The appraisal of x is upon me," must give to the priest according to the amount that he said, and not less - as appears explicitly in Scripture about a male and female and according to the tally of [their] years - as it is stated (Leviticus 27:2), "If a man proclaims an oath of the appraisal of souls to the Lord." And the matter of appraisals is included in vows of consecration and we are therefore obligated to keep them on account of "he shall not profane his words" (Numbers 30:3), "you shall not delay" (Deuteronomy 23:22) and "he shall do like everything that comes out of his mouth" (Numbers 30:3).

He prohibited approaching one of these forbidden sexual relations - even without intercourse - such as [with] hugging and kissing, and similar such licentious acts. And that is His saying about its prohibition, "Each and every man - to any of his close kin - you shall not approach to uncover nakedness" (Leviticus 18:6) - as if to say, do not make any approach that leads to uncovering nakedness (sexual intercourse). And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:15) is, "'You shall not approach to uncover nakedness' - I only know of nakedness. From where [do we know] not to approach? [Hence] we learn to say, 'To a woman, while in her menstrual impurity, you shall not approach to uncover her nakedness' (Leviticus 18:19). I only know about a menstruant, that she is [forbidden] with, do not approach and with, do not reveal. From where [do we know] about all of the sexual prohibitions, that they are [forbidden] with, do not approach and with, do not reveal? [Hence] we learn to say, 'you shall not approach to uncover.'" And there (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 13:21), they said, "'Their souls shall be cut off, those who do' (Leviticus 18:29) - what do we learn to say [from this]? Because it is stated, 'You shall not approach,' perhaps they would be liable for excision for approaching. [Hence] we learn to say, 'who do' - and not who approach." And the prohibition about these illusions was already repeated with His saying, "that you shall not do any of the abominable customs" (Leviticus 18:30). However His saying, "After the practice of the Land of Egypt in which you have lived, you shall not do; and the practice of the Land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you, you shall not do," is not only prohibiting the abominable customs - but indeed also prohibiting the actual abominations that He explained after this. And that which He brings two general negative statements about all of the prohibited sexual relations - is because when He prohibited not doing like the practice of the Land of Egypt and the practice of the Land of Canaan, this includes the lewdness, [but it also includes] the work of the land, the shepherding of animals and the settlement of the land as well. So He came back to explain that the actions that He prohibited [originally] were such and such sexual prohibitions that one should not uncover - and it is as He explained at the end of the [section], when He said, "For all of these abominations were done by the people of the land" (Leviticus 18:27). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 8:8) is, "Perhaps they should not build houses or plant vineyards like them. [Hence] we learn to say, 'and in their statutes (chukoteichem) you shall not walk' - only those statutes (chukim) which were instituted (chakukim) for them and for their forefathers." And there, they said, "What did they do? A man would wed a man, and a woman, a woman; and a woman would wed two men." Behold it has been made clear that these two negative commandments - being, "After the practice of the Land of Egypt [...] and the practice of the Land of Canaan [...] you shall not do" - are general commandments, being the prohibition of all of the sexual prohibitions (hence they not counted in the tally of the commandments). And afterwards, He repeated the prohibition of each sexual prohibition individually. And we ourselves have explained the regulations of these commandments in the seventh [chapter] of Sanhedrin in our great composition (Commentary on the Mishnah), and we explained that we are lashed for it. And it is from that which is fit for you to know that [in the case of] any woman for whom we would be liable excision, the [child] born from that intercourse is called a mamzer. And it is God, may He be exalted, who called him a mamzer (Deuteronomy 23:3). Whether that intercourse is volitional or whether it was inadvertent, the embryo is a mamzer - except specifically for the menstruant. One born from her is not a mamzer; however it is called the child of a menstruant. And this has already been explained in the fourth [chapter] of Yevamot. (See Parashat Achrei Mot; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse.)

The commandment to send the impure out of the camp of the Divine Presence: To send away the impure from the camp of the Divine Presence, as it is stated (Numbers 5:2), "Command the Children of Israel, and they shall send from the camp anyone with an eruption or a discharge and anyone impure of a soul." And until where was the boundary of the camp of the Divine Presence was known to them in the wilderness. And so [too,] in the [future] generations, the Temple and the whole yard which is in front of it is called the camp of the Divine Presence (Zevachim 116b), and it is included in this commandment. And they said in Sifrei Bamidbar 1 that "and they shall send from the camp" is a warning (negative commandment) to the impure not to enter the Temple. And they said in Pesachim 68a, [that] "He shall exit to outside the camp" (Deuteronomy 23:11) is a positive commandment. And this commandment is [indeed] repeated in another place, "If there be among you a man who will not be pure of a nocturnal emission, he shall exit to outside the camp." And its explanation (Pesachim 68a) is [that it means] outside the camp of the Divine Presence. And, likewise, this itself is repeated, as it went back and stated (Numbers 5:3), "and send them out of the camp." And I have already written (Sefer HaChinukh 228) that the repetition of prohibitions within a [single] commandment indicates a little bit of the stringency of the commandment; as God wanted for the benefit of His creatures to warn them and go back and warn them about it. [It is like] the way of people that they warn each other many times about all things that have a great need. And if we have nonetheless found [important] bodies of the Torah stated by clues, everything is for a correct reason.

2 Masekhet Soferim has different definitions: a petuha is anything which does not start at the head of the line. A setuma is anything that stops in the middle of the line. How much must be left at the beginning of the line for it to be called a petuha? Enough to write a word of three letters. How much must be left in the middle of the line for it to be called a setuma? Enough to write a word of three letters. [End Masekhet Soferim quote.] Suppose he finished a paragraph at the edge of the page and started a new line, and left enough space at the beginning of that line to write three letters, and then started to write? Come and learn from the two sources; the baraita gives the essence of the issue. The baraita reasons that the beginning of the line is what determines a petuha, not the end of the line [so the example case is a petuha according to the baraita]; if one leaves a gap at the beginning and also at the end of the line, it is still a petuha. But the old siddur reasons that it is the end of the line that determines a petuha, not the beginning of the line [so the example case is a setuma according to the baraita]. [To avoid ambiguity, therefore...] if he makes a petuha with space both at the end of the line and at the beginning of the line it is good for both of them. This is correct. There is also another order of petuhot and setumot which seems entirely unconvincing. And these are the tagin of a sefer Torah and the petuhot and setumot according to the masoretic tradition. ביה שמו: the following words should be placed at the beginning of a line and the top of a column: Bereshit (Gen. 1:1); Yehudah ata yodukha (Gen. 49:8); Haba-im ahareihem bayam (Ex. 14:28); Shemor ve-shamarta (Deut. 12:28); Motza sefateikha (Deut. 23:24); Ve-a'ida bam (Deut. 31:28).

That a eunuch not marry a daughter of Israel: That one whose sexual organs were damaged by the blow of a person or an animal or a tree - meaning to say, not at the hands of the Heavens - to the point that he cannot reproduce is prevented from marrying a daughter of Israel. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:1), "No one whose testes are crushed or whose member is cut off shall come into the congregation of the Lord."

That a eunuch not marry a daughter of Israel: That one whose sexual organs were damaged by the blow of a person or an animal or a tree - meaning to say, not at the hands of the Heavens - to the point that he cannot reproduce is prevented from marrying a daughter of Israel. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:1), "No one whose testes are crushed or whose member is cut off shall come into the congregation of the Lord."

That a mamzer (a child born from a forbidden marriage) should not marry a daughter of Israel: That a mamzer is prevented from marrying a daughter of Israel. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:3), "No mamzer shall come into the congregation of the Lord," meaning to say that he should not come to marry a woman from the daughters of the congregation of the Lord. But it is truly permissible for him to enter with them into all of their places of residence and to give and take with them in all things [just] like [any other] one of the children of Israel. And they, may their memory be blessed, have already said (Horayot 13a) that a mamzer Torah scholar precedes a ignoramus Kohen (priest) in the reading of the Torah (see Rambam on Mishnah Gittin 5:7).

That an Ammonite or a Moabite not enter the Congregation of the Lord: That we should not marry with the males of the Children of Ammon and Moav forever, and even after they convert, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 23:4), "An Ammonite or a Moabite may not come into the Congregation of the Lord forever."

That an Ammonite or a Moabite not enter the Congregation of the Lord: That we should not marry with the males of the Children of Ammon and Moav forever, and even after they convert, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 23:4), "An Ammonite or a Moabite may not come into the Congregation of the Lord forever."

Not to seek their peace in a war: That we have been prevented from making peace with Ammon and Moav forever. And this matter is that God commanded us that when we besiege countries that we should request [terms of] peace with them before the war, and as I have written in the Order of Shoftim about the commandment to call out for [terms of] peace in an optional war (Sefer HaChinukh 527). And with Ammon and Moav, we have been prevented from this practice. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:7), "You shall not seek their peace or their welfare, etc." And so did they did they say in Sifrei, "It is implied from that which is stated (Deuteronomy 20:10), 'When you approach a city to fight against it, etc.' Is it possible also here? Therefore [the verse] teaches us to say, 'do not seek their peace.'"

Not to distance an Edomite of the third generation from coming into the congregation: Not to distance the seed of Esav after they convert - which is to say that we should not prevent ourselves from marrying with them, as there is no prohibition, like there is with Ammon and Moav; but rather, they are permissible after two generations. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:8-9), "You shall not despise an Edomite, since he is your brother, etc. Children that will be born to them in the third generation shall come into the Congregation of the Lord." And the third generations is the grandson of the convert. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 78a) about a pregnant Egyptian woman that converted while she is still pregnant, that her son is called the second [generation], even though his conception was while the mother was still an Egyptian.

To not distance an Egyptian of the third generation: That we were prevented from distancing and despising an Egyptian [such that we not] marry with him in the third generation after he converts (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 55). And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:8), "you shall not despise an Egyptian, for you were a stranger in his land." All the content of this commandment is like the previous content of the Edomite. [Hence] there is no reason to write at length about it.

That one impure should not enter the Temple mount: That anyone who is impure is prevented from entering the camp of the Levites (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 78), the embodiment of which for the generations is the Temple mount. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:11), "If anyone among you has been rendered unclean by a nocturnal emission, he must leave the camp, and he must not enter the camp." And so did they, may their memory be blessed, say (Pesachim 68a), "'He must leave the camp' - that is the camp of the Divine Presence; 'and he must not enter the camp' - that is the camp of the Levites. Ravina challenged it strongly, 'And I could say, this and that are the camp of the Divine Presence, and [the latter part of the verse] is to [make one] transgress [both] a positive and a negative commandment.' If so, the verse should have written, 'he should not come into'" - which is to say that, if so that it was only speaking about one camp, it should have stated, "he should not come into it," as it already mentioned 'camp' at the beginning of the verse. "[So] why do I need, [the word,] camp? To give him a different camp" - which is to say that since it mentioned 'camp' another time, the verse was hinting to a different camp - and that is the camp of the Levites, that any one who is impure should not enter it.

The commandment to set up a place in which to defecate: That we were commanded that when our soldiers go out to war that we set up and designate a set place (see Tosefta Megillah 3:15) for the soldier, in which every man can go out to take care of his needs; so that their 'needs' not be [found] in very place and between the lodgings, like the [other] peoples do (Sanhedrin 104b). And about this it is stated (Deuteronomy 23:13), "And there shall be a yad for you outside the camp, etc." And the language of Sifrei is "A yad is always a place, as it states (I Samuel 15:12), 'and behold, he established a yad.'"

The commandment to set up a spike to dig with: That there be to each one of the soldiers a spike - or another tool with which it is fitting to dig - suspended with his war gear, in order that he dig with it a place in the ground to take care of his needs in a way that is prepared for this (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 193 and Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 10). And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:14), "With your aazen you shall have a spike" - the explanation of (the word,) your aazen is your weapons.

Not to turn over a slave that fled from his master: That we have been prevented from returning a slave that fled form his master outside of the land, [who came] to the Land of Israel (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 254). And even if his master is an Israelite, we do not return [the slave] to him. But [rather], we free him and write down his value as a debt on himself. And about this is it stated, (Deuteronomy 23:16), "You shall not turn over a slave to his master." And so is it elucidated in Tractate Gittin 45a, that the verse is speaking about a slave that fled from outside of the Land to the Land of Israel. And they said there that the law about him is that we write a contract with his value [as a debt] for him and we [also] write a contract of [his] freedom; and that we not return him to slavery in any way - since he entered the chosen valley of purity to serve God, may He be blessed, there.

To not oppress a slave who has fled to us, from outside the Land, to the Land [of Israel]: That we have been prevented, that we not oppress the slave that flees to us from outside of the Land. And about this does it state (Deuteronomy 23:17), "He shall live with you in any place he may choose among the settlements in your midst, wherever he pleases; you must not oppress him." And the language of Sifrei is "'You must not oppress him' - that is verbal oppression" - meaning to say, that we not curse him or disgrace him with words; and all the more so with actions.

Not to have sexual relations with a woman without a marriage contract and betrothal: That we have been prevented from having sexual relations with a woman without a marriage contract and betrothal. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:18), "No daughter of Israel shall be a prostitute." And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 355) and this is his language: "The negative commandment about this matter has already been duplicated with a different language in the verse (Leviticus 19:29), 'Do not desecrate your daughter to make her a harlot' - and the [following is the] language of Sifrei Kedoshim 7:3, '"Do not desecrate your daughter" - this is one who gives over his single daughter not for the sake of marriage and also [a woman] who gives herself over not for the sake of marriage.' And hear from me for what [reason] this negative commandment of strong language was duplicated, and for what was it added to (see Mishneh Torah, Virgin Maiden 2:17): That which He already made precede from His laws that one who has sexual relations with a virgin - whether it be a seduction or a rape - is not obligated any one of the punishments, except only to [give] money and to marry the woman with which he had sexual relations, as it is explained in the verse, would let it come into our thoughts that since this thing only requires the payment of money, that this law goes according to the procedure of financial law. And [if so, just] like a person has the right to give whatever of his money to his fellow and he leaves it to him to do his will with that which is [now] his; so too has [the father] the right to take the maiden with him and to give her to a man to have sexual relations with her, since that is his law that is fitting to him - meaning to say the fifty shekel-coins of silver that go the father of the maiden. And this [father] will also give her on condition that he takes from him such and such dinar-coins. And he is prevented from this [thought] and it is told to him, 'Do not desecrate your daughter to make her a harlot.' Since that which is My law with her to only take money, however, is only when there is an incident when a man seduces or rapes [her]; but when the matter is with the consent of both of them together and it is public, there is no permissibility to this at all from any angle. And He showed the explanation for this and stated (Leviticus 19:29), 'lest the land fall into harlotry and the land be filled with depravity.' [This is] since the existence of seduction and rape is limited, but when the matter would be by choice and consent, it would spread and fill the land. And this reason is very nice and it enhances the verse. And similar to this is all that which the Sages have mentioned and all that they agreed upon regarding the Torah laws." To here is his language, may he be blessed. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrangled with him about this (in his critique of Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 355) and said that this negative commandment of the prostitute is not coming to warn one having sexual relations without a wedding contract and betrothal, as the wedding contract is neither a commandment nor a form of acquiring a woman, at all, according to the Torah. But [rather] the main negative commandment [here] is coming to warn not to have sexual relations with a woman that is forbidden [in marriage] to the man having sexual relations in such a way that betrothal would not be effective for him with her. As they, may their memory be blessed, elucidated in the Gemara (Yevamot 61a), that the harlot (zonah) that is mentioned in every place in the Torah is none other than a woman who an Israelite has sexual relations with, when betrothal would not be effective for him with her. And this is the harlotry that the Torah distanced and loathed forever and [here] it warned the [man] and the [woman] about it. And so too from the foundation of this matter is that the verse warns the court that they should not let a woman be abandoned among them, since her end will be to have sexual relations with men that she is forbidden to [in marriage], to the point that betrothal is not effective for them with her. As there is no doubt that a woman abandoned to the many will not be exacting afterwards 'between a piece of permissible fat and a piece of forbidden fat.' And so too does it warn the father of the girl about this explicitly in another verse; that he should not abandon her to harlotry and not to give her over to one who cannot have betrothal with her. And about this is it stated, "Do not desecrate your daughter to make her a harlot." And it is all from the reason mentioned - since she will have sexual relations with one who she is forbidden to [in marriage]; not from the reason of marriage contract and betrothal, as is the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed.

Not to bring the fee of a prostitute or the price of a dog: That we have been prevented from bringing the fee of a prostitute or the price of a dog towards the altar. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:19), "You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the price of a dog into the house of the Lord, your God."

That the borrower not give interest to an Israelite: That we have been prevented from giving interest to an Israelite (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 236), and, so too, from taking it. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:20), "You shall not take interest from your brother, interest of money, interest of food, interest of any thing, etc". And the [traditional] explanation comes about this: "Do not take interest" means, do not have interest taken from you, which is to say, do not give interest - as the one who gives it is the one who has it taken from him. And in the elucidation, they said in the chapter [entitled] Eizehhu Neshekh (Bava Metzia 75b) [that] the borrower transgresses on "Do not take interest" and on "you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind" (Leviticus 19:14). And had this preventing of this not come explicitly, I would have reasoned that it is the lender that is forbidden from taking it, but [that] if the borrower wants to forgive and is willing to be oppressed, that it would be permitted - in the manner of [other] oppression, where it is the oppressor that is transgressing, not the oppressed.

To lend to the gentile with interest: That we were commanded to request interest from the [other] peoples when we lend to them and that we not lend to them without interest. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:21), "Take interest from the foreigner." And likewise is it permitted to borrow from them with interest. And they said in Sifrei, "'Take interest from the foreigner' - that is a positive commandment; 'and from your brother, do not take interest' - that is a negative commandment."

Not to delay his vows for more than three festivals: That we not delay the vows and pledges and other sacrifices that are an obligation upon us. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:22), "When you make a vow to the Lord, your God, do not delay fulfilling it." And the tradition came (Rosh Hashanah 4b) [to explain] that we only transgress this negative commandment when three pilgrim holidays have passed after he made the vow. I have written clearly about the whole matter of this commandment in its positive commandment in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 575) - and take it from there.

To fulfill what has come out of his lips, as he vowed: That we have been commanded to fulfill all that we have obligated ourselves in speech, from oaths and vows and [similar] to it. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:24), "You shall keep what has come out of your lips, etc."

The commandment to allow the wage-worker to eat from the attached [produce] upon which he is working: That we have been commanded that the wage-worker eats at the time of his work from that which he is working upon - when that thing is something that grows from the earth and its production has not been completed. And about this does it state (Deuteronomy 23:25), "When you enter your neighbor’s vineyard, etc." And the [traditional] explanation [that] came about it (Bava Metzia 87b) is that the verse is speaking about a wage-worker. And so [too] did Onkelos translate, "When a wage-worker." And so is it likewise written, "When you enter your neighbor’s field of standing grain, etc." And they, may their memory be blessed, explained in the chapter [entitled] Hasokher et Hapoel (Bava Metzia 88b), that we learned from these two verses that a person eats that which is connected at the time of the production's completion. And they elucidated there that it would be insufficient to learn that which we need [to learn] from one of the verses without the other.

That the worker not take into his hand more than his eating: That the wage-worker is prevented from taking more than his eating, from that [upon] which he is working (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 268). And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:25), "you may eat as many grapes as you want, until you are full, but you must not put any in your vessel." The whole matter of this commandment is also elucidated in its positive commandment in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 576). And one who transgresses it - whether a man or a woman, in all places, at any time - and takes more than his eating, from that which he is working [upon], has violated this negative commandment. But we do not give lashes for it, since it it is a financial matter, which is given to repayment. And the general rule which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Makkot 16a) already preceded us - that we do not give lashes for any negative commandment that is given to repayment.

That the worker not eat during work time: That the wage-worker not eat during his work from the thing with which he is involved. Even though it is permitted to eat from it not during work - and that is when he is going from row to row - when he is working with that which is connected to the ground, it is not permitted to eat during work time (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 267). And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 23:26), "but you must not put a sickle to your neighbor’s grain." As they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 87b) [that the word,] "sickle" is to include all that requires the sickle, and at the time of the sickle - meaning to say at harvest time, do not harvest for yourself. And it is already known that this verse is coming [to refer] to a wage-worker. And the explanation of "When you come" is meaning to say, when you come to your wage-work to be involved with the owner of the field; as Onkelos translates it, "When you are employed" (Onkelos Deuteronomy 23:26).

And Rambam wrote (Sefer Hamitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 272), "And do not think that they are two [distinct] commandments since they are two negative statements [in the Torah]. Indeed, [the two statements] have come to complete the laws of the commandment, such that two types of size are included - and they are the weight and the measure. [It is] as if it stated, 'You should not have two sizes, not in measurement and not in weight.' [It is] like 'You shall not take interest from loans to your brother, whether in money or food or anything else that can be taken as interest' (Deuteronomy 23:20) - which is all one negative commandment. As it is not by the duplication of expressions that [the number of] commandments increase, when it is all one matter. And so [too with] 'no leavened bread shall be found with you, and no leaven shall be found' (Exodus 13:7), which is [all] one negative commandment, since it is [all] one matter. Rather, [the two expressions] are stated to complete the elucidation of the matter."