Komentarz do Powtórzonego Prawa 21:26

Kap. 21. V. 1. Dieser ganze Abschnitt über die zur Handhabung des Gesetzes verpflichteten Behörden, שופטים, schließt mit einer Institution, welche bei einem eklatanten Fall die Gesetzesbehörden in die vollste Öffentlichkeit vor Gott hin ladet, um sich öffentlich von dem Verdachte der Lässigkeit in Erfüllung ihrer Pflichten zu reinigen. Wir haben schon wiederholt gesehen, wie unter allen der Obhut der Gesamtheit und der Vertreter derselben anvertrauten Gütern ein Menschenleben geradezu die erste Stelle einnimmt, von dessen Heilighaltung die Blüte des ganzen Landes bedingt ist. Es wird nun der Fall statuiert, dass ein Erschlagener in einer Weise auf dem freien Felde gefunden wird, die, wie wir sehen werden, geradezu als eine Höhnung der Gesetzesbehörden erscheint und darum deren Rechtfertigung herausfordert. Es heißt:

כי ימצא חלל, “if someone unidentifiable is found slain,” after the Torah discussed certain aspects of war between nations, it now turns to the result of individuals who had apparently fought one another and the victor had escaped as there had not been any witnesses.

ספרי) ולא בשעה שמצויה :כי ימצא), es setzt diese Institution eine Zeit voraus, in welcher unter Handhabung der Gesetze Mord und Totschlag zu den Seltenheiten gehört und das Finden eines Erschlagenen ein Aufsehen erregender "Fund" ist. In Zeiten jedoch, wo, wie in den Tagen des Untergangs des zweiten jüdischen Staatslebens, das Gesetz so machtlos geworden war, dass Totschlag zur Tagesordnung gehörte, משרבו הרצחנין, da בטלה עגלה ערופה, stand auch diese Institution nicht mehr zur Erfüllung (Sota 47 a). Ebenso trat auch diese Institution nicht ein, wenn die Örtlichkeit eine dem Einflusse jüdischer Gerichtsbarkeit entzogene und daher von häufigen Totschlägen heimgesucht war, כי ימצא פרט למצוי סמוך לספר (an der Landesgrenze) או לעיר שרובה עכו׳׳ם (Sota 45 b).

כי ימצא חלל, “he had been found dead, the killer not having buried him;”.

חלל באדמה נופל בשדה, alle diese Momente sind strikte zu nehmen (Sota 44 b): חלל ולא חנוק ולא מפרפר, durch Verwundung und nicht auf sonst eine Weise getötet, und schon tot, nicht aber erst sterbend; באדמה ולא טמון בגל, frei auf der Erde liegend, nicht aber in Schutt versteckt; נופל ולא תלוי באלן, so wie nach Tötung hingefallen liegend, nicht aber etwa nachher an einen Baum gehängt; כשדה ולא צף על פני מים auf dem Felde liegend gelassen, nicht aber nach der Tötung ins Wasser geworfen und dort schwimmend gefunden.

נופל בשדה, “lying in the field;” he was not hung from a tree; it is not customary for a murderer to take the time to hang his victim as he is busy hiding his identity as quickly as he is able to. An alternate interpretation of the words: נופל בשדה: not floating on the surface of a body of water. There was no indication of where he might have come from.

Alle die durch באדמה נופל בשדה ausgeschlossenen Umstände dürften doch ein Bestreben bekunden, das Geschehene dem Anblick anderer zu entziehen, somit doch eine Scheu vor der Öffentlichkeit an den Tag legen und nicht geradezu einen Hohn auf die Staatsgesellschaft und deren Vertreter bezeugen. In derselben Richtung dürfte auch das Motiv חלל ולא חנוק ולא מפרפר zu suchen sein. Die klaffende Wunde zeigt den Mord, lässt ihn nicht erst erschließen, und wenn der Getötete noch sterbend gefunden wird, so muss sich der Täter rasch durch Flucht der Entdeckung entzogen haben, somit ebenfalls eine Scheu vor der Öffentlichkeit an den Tag gelegt haben.

אשר ד׳ אלקיך נתן לך לרשתה, indem dir Gott dieses Land gibt, damit du an die Stelle der früheren Bewohner tretest, geschieht dies unter der Voraussetzung, dass durch dich sein Gesetz im ganzen Gebiete deiner Niederlassungen gehandhabt werde, und sind die Gesetzesbehörden in allen Kreisen für das, was in ihrem Kreise geschieht, dir, d. i. den Vertretern deiner nationalen Gesamtheit, verantwortlich. Jerusalem, das als Zentralstadt לא נתחלקה לשבטים, nicht einem einzelnen Stamme zugeteilt ward, sondern der Gesamtheit verblieb und Sitz der höchsten Gesetzesrepräsentanz war, אין מביאה עגלה ערופה, hatte bei einem solchen Vorfalle nicht diese Institution zu vollziehen. Die höchsten Behörden der Zentralstadt haben sich nicht erst von dem Verdachte einer Lässigkeit in Erfüllung ihrer Obliegenheiten zu reinigen (Sota 45 b).

הא נודע מי הכהו אפי׳ אחד בסוף העולם לא היו עורפין :לא נודע מי הכהו, wenn auch nur ein augenblicklich weit entfernter Zeuge den Täter kennt, geschieht die Prozedur nicht (daselbst 47 a). Sobald man weiss, dass der Täter bekannt ist, ist dem allgemein ins Unbekannte hin sich ergehenden Verdachte Einhalt getan.

ויצאו זקניך THEN THE ELDERS [AND THE JUDGES] SHALL GO FORTH — i.e. the distinguished amongst thy elders, these are the Great Sanhedrin (Sotah 44b).

The most distinguished of your elders, etc. Because it should have said “the elders of the city” similar to “the elders of that city are to take.” Yet it is written “your elders,” implying “the most distinguished of your elders,” i.e. the Sanhedrin; see there in Maseches Sanhedrin (14b).

V. 2. ויצאו זקניך ושפטיך die Ältesten und Richter der Nation, somit die Mitglieder des höchsten Gerichtshofes, מיוחדין שבשופטיך, drei, oder nach anderen fünf von diesem Kollegium (daselbst 44 b), und zwar הן ולא שלוחיהן, obgleich sonst שלוחו של אדם כמותו eine im Auftrag geschehene Handlung als die des Auftraggebers betrachtet wird (Schmot S. 103 u. 262), so ist die hier vorgeschriebene Messung doch nur persönlich durch die Mitglieder des höchsten Gerichtshofs selbst vorzunehmen. Diese persönliche Leistung ist in dem ויצאו ausgedrückt. Die sonst durch ihren Beruf zur steten Anwesenheit in der Zentralstadt Verbundenen haben sich hinaus und an die Stelle der Tat zu begeben; der Ausdruck schließt eine jede Stellvertretung aus. Dass aber diese Funktion nur von Mitgliedern des höchsten Kollegiums selbst und nicht von einem Beauftragten vorzunehmen sei, dafür dürfte das Motiv in der Veranlassung selbst liegen. Sind es doch eben von ihnen "Beauftragte", die ihnen untergeordneten Gesetzesbehörden, die alle nur als von ihnen Delegierte (Kap. 17, 18) fungieren, auf welche der Vorgang den Vorwurf einer Lässigkeit in ihren Pflichterfüllungen geworfen, von welchem sie sich öffentlich zu reinigen haben. Der Vorwurf fällt indirekt auf das höchste Kollegium persönlich zurück, das somit persönlich den öffentlichen Reinigungsakt einzuleiten hat.

ומדדו אך הערים, “and they shall measure unto the cities;” Rabbi B’chor Shor said that G–d commanded all these details in order to publicise the fact that an unidentified person had been found murdered so that witnesses who might be able to identify the slain man and to thus prevent his widow from becoming an agunah, a woman who is unable to remarry due to our not knowing if her husband had really died. When our sages in the Talmud tractate Yevamot folio 120, stated that the only valid identification is recognising the carcasses’ face, including his nose, this is meant when the identification is only based on facial features including the nose. When we can hear from the way the witnesses speak about the deceased that he must have been familiar to them, this testimony is definitely sufficient to allow the deceased’s widow to remarry, even if this identification occurred several weeks after the slain person had been found. In fact, even identification from a distance may be sufficient. The example quoted in the Talmud there on folio 121, is that a Rabbi Yehudah ben Baba, performed a wedding ceremony for a woman five days after her husband had drowned and been identified. The Talmud justifies this due to decomposition of a corpse in water taking much longer that decomposition of features on dry land.

ומדדו, ”they (the authorities) will measure;” even if it clear how far he is removed from the nearest habitation, the act of performing the measuring will draw the attention of the public to what has happened in their vicinity; the people of the neighbouring towns or villages will institute searches for any resident not accounted for so that the identity of the slain person may be established. If someone in the neighbouring towns has not been accounted for, the family members will come to inspect the carcass to determine if he was related to them. Through these searches it may be determined who might have kept company with the slain man, and if there was a woman in the vicinity whose husband had disappeared and who was therefore an agunah, an abandoned woman unable to remarry until proof would forthcoming that her husband had died, and who could be able to remarry once the identity of the slain main was determined as having been her husband.

ומדדו AND THEY SHALL MEASURE — from the place where the corpse lies,

From the spot where the corpse is lying. Even though the verse tells us only the end of the measurement and not the beginning, it is logical that the measurement begins with the corpse.

אפילו נמצא בעליל לעיר היו מודדין שמצוה לעסוק במדידה :ומדדו וגו׳ (Sota 45a). Selbst wenn der Erschlagene offenbar in der Nähe einer Stadt liegt, die augenscheinlich von allen Städten der Umgegend ihm die nächste ist, ist die Messung vorzunehmen, denn das Messen selbst ist Mizwa. Spricht doch diese von Mitgliedern des ב׳׳ד הגדול selbst vorzunehmende Messung sowohl die allem übergeordnete Autorität dieses höchsten Kollgiums, wie zugleich die gleiche Verantwortlichkeit aller ihnen unterstehenden Gerichtshöfe für alle ähnlichen Vorkommnisse aus, von denen für den vorliegenden Fall nur der eine hervorgerufen wird, weil er der nächste ist (siehe באר שבע z. St.)

אל הערים אשר סביבת החלל UNTO THE CITIES WHICH ARE ROUND ABOUT HIM THAT IS SLAIN — in every direction, in order to ascertain which is the nearest.

In every direction, in order to determine which is closest. Not that there is an obligation to measure from the corpse to every city; rather, the measurement is to determine which city is nearest the corpse. Therefore if the corpse was near a city and it is certain that there is no other city closer, there is no need for measuring.

ומדדו אל הערים, aus dem ganzen Verfolg ist klar, dass das Gesetz das Vorhandensein von Gesetzesbehörden, זקנים, in den Städten voraussetzt, die hier in Betracht kommen, ja Vers 6 heißt es geradezu nicht: וכל זקני העיר ההיא הקרובה, sondern: הקרובים אל ההלל, es wird nicht sowohl die Stadt, als die städtische Behörde gesucht, auf welche den Umständen gemäß der Verdacht einer Lässigkeit zunächst fällt, daher: נמצא סמוך לעיר שאין ב׳׳ד מניחין אותה ומודדין לעיר שיש בה ב׳׳ד (daselbst 45 a). und dürfte sich damit die ׳תוספו Baba Bathra 23 b ד׳׳ה בדליכא aufgeworfene Frage lösen. Auf alle städtische Behörden der Umgegend wirft der Fund einer solchen Leiche einen Makel, daher ja die מדידה zu allen Amtsstädten hin, selbst wenn, wie bemerkt, die nächste offenkundig ist. Das Reinigungswort wird nur von der einen gesprochen, die der Wahrscheinlichkeit nach (siehe V. 3) als die am nächsten beteiligte erscheint. Allein diese Wahrscheinlichkeit schließt ja ohnehin nicht auch die Möglichkeit für die anderen aus (vergl. den Kommentar מראה הפנים zu Jeruschalmi B. B. daselbst).

אשר סביבת החלל, wir glauben, dass durch diese Bestimmung schon alle allzufernen Ortschaften ausgeschlossen sind und die Messung auf diejenigen Städte beschränkt wird, die סביבת החלל, die die Umgegend, den Umkreis des Erschlagenen bilden, also etwa die ersten, die man nach jeder Richtung vom חלל aus antrifft, nicht aber die hinter denselben zurückliegen (siehe zum folgenden Verse).

V. 3. והיה העיר הקרובה וגו׳. Baba Batra 23 b wird der Kanon gegeben: רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב, dass, wenn bei der Beurteilung eines Faktums sich die aus der "Mehrzahl" und die aus der "Nähe" herzuleitenden Wahrscheinlichkeiten einander gegenüberstehen, der Schluss aus der Mehrzahl das Massgebende sei, ואף על גב דרובא דאוריתא וקורבא דאוריתא אפילו הכי רובא עדיך und obgleich der Schluss aus רוב und der Schluss aus קורבא beide gesetzliche Regel sind, so überwiegt doch in Kollisionsfällen der Schluss aus רוב. Dieser Kanon findet z. B. seine Anwendung bei Beurteilung des Eigentumsrechts an einer zwischen zwei Taubenschlägen gefundenen noch nicht flüggen Taube, ניפול שנמצא בין שני שובכין. Sind die beiden Schläge an Taubenzahl gleich, so entscheidet die Nähe, sind sie ungleich, der größere Taubenstand. Obgleich sonst in Mein- und Deinfragen nur ein positiver Beweis und nicht ein Wahrscheinlichkeitsschluss entscheidet, אין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב, so ist dies doch nur, wo ein bestehender Besitzstand durch erhobenen Gegenanspruch verändert werden soll, להוציא ממון מחזקתו, da gilt die Regel: המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה (siehe Schmot 24, 14). Hier aber, wo keiner im Besitz und das Eigentumsrecht beiderseits zweifelhaft ist, entscheidet רובא oder קורבא. Auf unseren Fall angewandt, würde auch nur die Nähe entscheiden, wenn unter den Amtsstädten der Umgegend keine eine größere Einwohnerschaft hat, sonst würde die an Einwohnerzahl größere Stadt zur Erfüllung der עגלה ערופה-Institution herangezogen werden, selbst wenn sie von dem Fundort des Verbrechens ferner als eine andere kleinere wäre. Es muss demnach das קרובה und קרובים unseres Textes nicht bloß räumlich, sondern nach Maßgabe der Sachlage verstanden werden (רלבג).

והיה העיר, “and it shall be that the city, etc.;” it will be up to the elders of inhabitants of the site closest to where the slain person was found will take a female heifer of the herd, etc.;” the inverted use of the male pronoun for a female i.e. עבד “he was worked,” instead of: “she was worked,” is also found in Genesis 24,13, with the word: הנערה

Wir glauben jedoch, dass schon der Wortlaut des vorigen Verses אל הערים אשר סביבות החלל alle über den nächsten Umkreis des Fundortes hinausliegenden Städte ausschließt und nur eine derjenigen Städte zur Vollziehung des עגלה ערופה-Aktes heranzieht, die den nächsten Umkreis des Fundortes bilden, aus deren stadtbehördlicher Wirksamkeit die Sicherheit der öffentlichen Wege der Gegend als Produkt hervorgehen sollte, deren Pflichttreue somit durch den Vorgang betroffen wird. Durch diesen Wortlaut ist von selbst — wie wir glauben — רובא דעלמא ausgeschlossen und nur innerhalb dieses engeren Kreises der Kanon רוב וקרוב וכו׳ anwendbar (ähnlich der שכונה in einer größeren Stadt, רשב׳׳א במשמרת הבית, Ende דיני יין נסך), und dürfte in diesem Wortlaut die Kodifizierung des רמב׳׳ם, der הל׳ רוצח ט׳׳ו׳ die Baba Batra 23 b gegebene Beschränkung: ביושבת בין ההרים nicht mit aufführt, eine wesentliche Unterstützung finden. (Über dessen Ausgleich mit dieser Stelle Baba Batra 23 b [siehe כ׳׳מ daselbst] und den oben zitierten Kommentar zum Jeruschalmi daselbst. Insbesondere aber über den Begriffsumfang dieses Kanons תורת חיים zu B. B. daselbst.)

ולקחו זקני העיר ההיא וגו׳, mit der מדידה haben die Mitglieder des höchsten Gerichtshofes ihre Funktion beendet, das Weitere betrifft, als die dem Vorgang zunächst stehende städtische Behörde, den Gerichtshof von dreiundzwanzig, der sich in den meisten Städten befand. Sie nehmen עגלת בקר (siehe Wajikra S. 18) עגל בן בקר und so auch hier עגלת בקר bis zum zurückgelegten zweiten Jahre, vor erlangter Mutterreife (siehe ר׳׳ש zu פרה l). אשר לא עבד בה אשר לא משכה בעל, bei פרה אדומה heißt es: אשר לא עלה עליה עול und dort macht schon das bloße Auflegen eines Joches oder einer zu tragenden Last zum פרה אדומה-Zwecke עגלה .פסול wird jedoch nur פסול, wenn sie am Joch gezogen oder sonst eine Arbeit verrichtet hat (Sota 46 a). עגלה unterscheidet sich auch darin von פרה, dass אין המום פוסל בה (daselbst; siehe auch Peßachim 26 b).

אל נחל איתן UNTO A VALLEY WHICH IS איתן — which is hard; i.e. one that has never been tilled (Sifrei Devarim 207:2; Sotah 45b).

AND THE ELDERS OF THAT CITY SHALL BRING DOWN THE HEIFER UNTO A VALLEY ‘EITHAN’ — “which is ‘hard,’ one that has never been tilled.” This is Rashi’s language. And our Rabbis have said³⁶³Sotah 46b. that the field becomes forbidden from ever being tilled or sown. If so, [the words which is neither tilled nor sown]³⁶⁴In Verse 4 before us. are admonitions that he who sows or cultivates [a rough valley in which a heifer’s neck has been broken] transgresses this negative commandment. The meaning of the verse is thus that the elders should take forth the heifer to [what will forever become] “a rough valley” because it will never again be tilled or sown. The meaning of the expression And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near³⁶⁵Verse 5. is in order to recite Forgive, O Eternal, Thy people Israel, whom Thou hast redeemed etc.³⁶⁶Verse 8. And the purport of the verses is as follows: And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near;³⁶⁵Verse 5. and all the elders of that city, who are nearest unto the slain man, shall wash their hands;³⁶⁷Verse 6. and they shall speak and say: ‘Our hands have not shed this blood.’³⁶⁸Verse 7. The washing of hands is to be done only by some of the [elders] mentioned; so also their speaking [‘Our hands have not shed etc.’] is done by some of them, similar to what is stated, And thou shalt eat before the Eternal thy G-d etc. the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herd etc.³⁶⁹Above, 14:23. [meaning “he who is fit to eat,” for it cannot mean that all are to eat, for the Second Tithe may be eaten by all ritually clean Israelites, while the firstlings are eaten only by the priests; here, too, the washing of hands and speaking are done only by some, but not all, of the elders].
Now on the matter of breaking the heifer’s neck Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained³⁶⁸Verse 7. that G-d commanded it to be done for the city which is nearest unto the slain man³⁷⁰Verse 3. because had they not committed a similar sin, it would not have happened that a man be killed near them, and G-d’s thoughts are infinitely profound to us. But the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said in the Moreh Nebuchim³⁷¹Guide of the Perplexed III, 40. Ramban follows Al Charizi’s translation. In Ibn Tibbon’s text the wording is quite different. that the reason for the breaking of the heifer’s neck is to discover the murderer and to cleanse [the guilt for the innocent] blood. In most cases the murderer comes from the place which is round about him that is slain,³⁷²Verse 2. and when the elders go out and engage in the measuring of the cities, and the elders of the nearest city then bear witness before the Creator that they were not negligent in maintaining and guarding the roads, and that they do not know who killed this man, and as the matter is investigated, the elders gather and bring the heifer, people increasingly speak about it. Then perhaps the matter [of the murderer’s identity] will be solved. The Rabbis have already said³⁷³Yerushalmi Sotah IX, 1. that even if a maidservant comes and declares that a certain person committed the murder, the heifer is not killed [despite the fact that such testimony is not sufficient to convict]. And if the murderer is known and they are silent about him, yet call upon the Creator as their witness that they do not know him, this would be a great wickedness, and whoever knows the slightest thing about it will come and tell. Thus it [the murderer’s identity] will become public knowledge, and he will be killed either through the court, or the king, or the avenger of the blood. This law receives added force because the place in which the heifer’s neck is broken may never be tilled or sown. Those who see [the field] recognize it and discuss it. [Thus far are the words of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon.] Hence according to this reason there is a benefit in this rite. But the act [i.e., the breaking of the heifer’s neck] is not a pleasing one in itself and it would have been more fitting that it be done in a good field fit for sowing that could be recognized by those who see it, for in “a hard valley,” the reason for not being tilled, will not be obvious [because people will assume that it is left barren due to its stony ground]! In my opinion the reason for it is similar to that of the offerings which are done outside [of the Sanctuary Court], such as the goat sent [to Azazel]³⁷⁴Leviticus 16:22 and 26. and the Red Heifer.³⁷⁵Numbers 19:3. Therefore the Rabbis have counted³⁷⁶This is so counted by Rambam, at the end of Hilchoth Me’ilah. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 440, Note 23. the commandment of breaking the heifer’s neck among the chukim [“the statutes” — the class of commandments for which we do not know the reasons].
Ki Theitzei

אל נחל איתן, where people do not normally walk.

אל נחל איתן, “to a harsh valley.” Our translation is based on Rashi, who translates the word איתן as קשה, hard, tough, unyielding. Nachmanides writes that our sages say that the word signifies that this piece of earth may henceforth never be sown or ploughed to grow anything thereon. If so, the Torah here reveals a new negative commandment that a person using such earth agriculturally would have transgressed by doing so. (Sotah 46)

Hard, which cannot be cultivated. I.e. איתן is an expression of toughness and hardness.

V. 4. איתן כמשמעו קשה ,אל נחל איתן, die Bedeutung von איתן ist: hart, (Sota 46 a) und wird daselbst auf איתן מושבך ושים בסלע קנך. (Bamidbar 24, 21) und שמעו הרים את ריב ד׳ והאיתנים מוסדי ארץ (Micha 6, 2) hingewiesen, und weist באר שבע (daselbst) treffend auf diese Zitate als Beweis dafür hin, dass נחל איתן hier ein harter steiniger Grund ist, und nicht, wie רמב׳׳ם es auffasst, ein starker reißender Bach, sonst hätte das Zitat אתה הובשת נהרות איתן (Ps.74, 16) näher gelegen. Eine andere Ansicht erläutert (daselbst) איתן als alt, urbeständig, wie גוי איתן הוא גוי מעולם הוא (Jirmija 5, 15). Über die Etymologie des Wortes siehe Bereschit S. 552.

אל נחל איתן, “to a virgin piece of land of ancient origin;” we find this same expression also in Psalms 74,15: אתה הובשת נהרות איתן, where the psalmist credits G-d with both drying up rivers, and with providing the driest parts of nature suddenly producing torrents of water. According to Ibn Ezra, איתן means: hard as rock. If we needed proof, perhaps it can be found in verse 6 where the elders suddenly wash their hands in that driest of regions. Where did they take the water from to do so ?.

וערפו AND THEY SHALL STRIKE OFF [THE HEIFER’S] NECK — i.e. one breaks its neck with a hatchet. The Holy One, blessed be He, says, as it were, Let a heifer which is only one year old and which therefore has brought forth no fruits (no offspring) have its neck broken at a spot (the untilled valley) which has not brought forth fruits, to expiate for the murder of him whom they did not permit further to beget children (Sotah 46a).

וערפו, a discreet death, not one drawing attention to itself. The animal does not experience pangs of death, not knowing of its impending fate. Naturally, people knew even less about this impending procedure. This procedure parallels what the murderer had done when he ambushed an unsuspecting victim in a location which was isolated so that the court never found out who the murderer was. Had the court known of the identity of the murderer they would have dealt with him instead of this heifer having to be killed.

By severing the nape with an axe, etc. We derive this by [comparing]עריפה [that is written here to] עריפה [of] the bird sin-offering. Just as there it is at the nape, so too here. The meaning of וערפו is to remove its nape, just as the word תזמור, “you shall [not] prune” (Vayikra 25:3), means to remove a twig (זמורה).

אשר לא יעבד בו ולא יזרע, der Ort ist fortan für jede Bearbeitung untersagt (Sota 46 b).

אשר לא עבד בה, “which has never been made to work;” there had never been water holes in that vicinity from which it could have been irrigated.”

Who was not permitted to bear fruit. You might ask: This implies that if the murdered victim was an old person or a eunuch who does not bear fruit, a decapitated calf would not be brought; but this is not so, because the verse does not differentiate! The answer is that “fruit” [here] means mitzvos [and the verse means] that he was not permitted to fulfill mitzvos, for they too are called “fruit.”

,עורפין אותה בקופיץ מאחוריה, וערפו שם sie wird mit einem starken Messer vom Nacken aus getötet. שם תהא קבורתו ,וערפו שם (Keritot 6 a דש׳׳י daselbst), sie hat dort zu verbleiben, muss dort begraben bleiben, ist אסור בהנאה und bleibt אסור selbst nachdem der Akt der עריפה bereits an ihr vollzogen ist, als Ausnahme von dem sonst geltenden Kanon, dass אין לך דבר אחר שנעשה מצותה ומועלין בה, dass sonst ein jedes Objekt, nachdem seine Mizwabestimmung mit ihm vollzogen worden, seinen Bestimmungscharakter und das daraus resultierende Benutzungsverbot verliert (siehe Wajikra S. 133), und dürfte, ebenso wie wir diese scheinbare Anomalie uns für תרומת הדשן zu erklären versuchten, auch die Bedeutung der עגלה ערופה durch den bleibenden איסור הנאה als auch über den Moment der Vollziehung hinausgehend bezeichnet sein (siehe zu V. 8).

ולא יזרע, “it had never been sown;” nor had the adjoining soil ever been sown.

We have read about similar pieces of land in Leviticus 16,22, ארץ גזרה, “a land completely cut off,” the final resting place of the scapegoat that carries the sins of the Jewish people on the Day of Atonement.

וערפו, “they shall break the neck;” this symbolises what had been the method by which the slain person had died.

את העגלה, “the heifer;” the entire procedure symbolises that just as the slain person had been deprived of what a human being can accomplish in life, so the animal that takes its place is one that had never been allowed to fulfill its function in life. It had died in a state of virginity and had been consigned to virgin earth that also never fulfilled its function, the reason for its existence, to be the source of nourishment for man. The simile of “virginity,” also applies to the people who perform these rites and who profess to be totally innocent, (virginal) of any guilt in the death of the slain person

לשרתו ולברך, the (Temple) service of the priests is instrumental in attaining expiation for the innocent blood spilled, and in securing blessing for the land.

ונגשו הכהנים בני לוי וענו ואמרו כפר לעמך ישראל, in order to facilitate our understanding of these 4 verses the author summarises the principal parts of the verses in question without including what is only in parenthesis.

ונגשו הכהנים, “The priests will draw near, etc.” they do so in order to intone the prayer asking for atonement, written down in verse 8. The meaning of the whole verse is as follows: the priests, and all the elders of the nation, as well as all the people residing within a narrow radius from where this murder had occurred, will wash their hands and intone the prescribed formula, i.e. some of the assembled will wash the hands of the others. Concerning the procedure of killing that heifer, Ibn Ezra writes that G’d imposed the duty to perform these rites on the city closest to where the murdered person had been found, for if people in that city had been free from all other sins as well, G’d would not have embarrassed them by a murder having been committed in their vicinity. Maimonides writes in his Moreh Nevuchim 3,40 that the reason for the procedure is to assist in apprehending the killer, who most likely resides in that vicinity. The publicity that the killing of the heifer in such circumstances attracts, as well as the fact that the reputation of the city near which it occurs suffers a decline of its good image, is hoped to involve more people in the active search for the perpetrator of this crime. Anyone who can make a contribution to finding out who the guilty party was will be liable to do so. Once the guilty party has been found out and located and convicted of whatever penalty is appropriate, exile or death, this will serve as a deterrent to others who had planned to commit a similar crime. The event will long be remembered as the piece of earth on which the heifer has been killed is no longer allowed to be farmed and people will want to know the reason why this is so. Nachmanides writes that while it is true that the procedure prescribed by the Torah will help to find this murderer and will possibly frighten off future murderers, but what did it do to reconcile G’d with the fact that innocent blood was spilled in the Holy Land? In order to achieve maximum effect this procedure should have been performed on a field that is under cultivation, not one that had never been under cultivation, and therefore is not often visited by people. Nachmanides therefore feels that this procedure has more in common with that of the scapegoat and the burning of the red heifer for the sake of getting its ash, which when mixed with spring water, purifies people who had become ritually impure through contact with a dead body or being under the same roof with such a body. These three procedures have one thing in common; neither one of them is performed on sacred ground. They therefore fall under the heading of חוק, decree, legislation the reason for which G’d has not seen fit to share with us.

V. 5. ונגשו הכהנים וגו׳. In Gegenwart der כהנים haben die Stadtbehörden den V. 6 vorgeschriebenen Akt des Händewaschens vorzunehmen und die V. 7 vorgeschriebenen Reinigungsworte zu sprechen, und die כהנים sprechen dann die V. 8 vorgeschriebene Bitte um Sühne aus. Die bei diesem Akt assistierenden und fungierenden Priester werden in der ganzen Fülle ihrer Attribute vorgeführt: sie sind הכהנים, die der Nation die "Richtung" auf ihre geistig-sittliche Bestimmung wahren sollen; sie sind בני לוי, die Elite jenes Stammes, der sich als Vertreter der Sache Gottes in der Nation geadelt; sie sind die von Gott Erwählten לשרתו, in seinem Gesetzesheiligtum die Gestaltung aller irdischen Verhältnisse zu seinem Wohlgefallen in symbolischen Handlungen, und ׳לברך בשם ד dort in seinem Namen und mit seinem Namen die Segnungen auszusprechen, die sich an die Verwirklichung jener symbolisch ausgedrückten Aufgaben und Vorsätze knüpfen; und sie sind endlich dieselben, die על פיהם יהיה כל ריב וכל נגע, die auch außerhalb des Gesetzesheiligtums, in Mitte des vollen Volkslebens der Gesetzesverwirklichung, überall da mit zu intervenieren haben, wo das Recht zwischen Mensch und Mensch zur Geltung zu bringen ist, und da allein zu intervenieren haben, wo der "Gottesfinger" zu deuten ist, der mit dem Zeichen seines Tadels einen sozial verirrten Menschen berührt. Alle diese Momente, die ganze Beziehung Gottes zur Nation, die ganze ideale Erkenntnis und reale Verwirklichung seines Gesetzes mit allem, was sich an Wohl und Wehe für die Gesamtheit und den Einzelnen daran knüpft, alles ist durch einen einzigen Mord in Frage gestellt, dem die Nation und ihre Behörden mit Gleichgültigkeit begegneten.

ונגשו הכהנים, “and the priests will approach;” they as well as all the elders of the town nearest the slain person; the Torah resumes the narrative interrupted in verse 2. The priests are often identified with the judges of Israel, and have been referred to as such in that verse as colleagues of the elders.

ועל פיהם יהיה כל ריב וכל נגע, so that they are familiar with the psyches of the people and their norms, as they observed already by watching their fathers deal with such matters. Perhaps, due to such cumulative empirical knowledge they have some knowledge of whose character has been tainted by sin so that such intuitive knowledge will help them bring the truth to light. (in the investigation of the murder)

Das durch Menschen ungeknickte und ungetrübte Hiersein eines jeden Menschen gehört zu den höchsten Zielen der ganzen Gottesveranstaltungen mit Israel und ein auf den Boden seines Gesetzes hingeworfener erschlagener Mensch ist die größte Höhnung dieses Gesetzes, ist der größte Vorwurf für dessen Vertreter und stellt alles in Frage, was der כהן repräsentiert. Daher die Gegenwart der כהנים mit Vergegenwärtigung aller ihrer Attribute. Nicht zu übersehen ist, dass ihre Assistenz erst nach der עריפה hervortritt. Damit ist der עריפה jede auch nur leiseste Annäherung an eine Opferbedeutung genommen, und unterscheidet sich diese damit wesentlich von der פרה אדומה, deren ganzer Vollzug gerade dem כהן überwiesen ist.

בני לוי, the Levites, who are not subject to having to have unblemished bodies in order to fulfill their normal functions related to the Temple. (Sifri)

'ולברך בשם ה, ”and to pronounce the blessings using the name of The Lord;” we learn from here that the priests may pronounce the priestly blessings even if they have blemished bodies. [Although they may, of course, not perform service on consecrated ground. Ed.]

V. 6. וכל זקני וגו׳ הקרובים וגו׳ (siehe Verse 2 u. 3) ירחצו את ידיהם ist offenbar eine symbolische Handlung zum Ausdruck, dass ihre Hände, d. h. ihre Handlungen rein sind von jeder direkten oder indirekten Schuld an diesem Vorgang und der bis dahin nicht geschehenen Rechtsverfolgung des Täters.

ירחצו את ידיהם, “they shall wash their hands;” a symbolic gesture, as if to say: “just as our hands are clean from dirt, so our bodies are free from sin.”

ידינו לא שפכה [AND THEY SHALL ANSWER AND SAY,] OUR HANDS HAVE NOT SHED [THIS BLOOD] — But would it enter anyone’s mind that the elders of the court are suspect of blood-shedding?! But the meaning of the declaration is: We never saw him and knowingly let him depart without food or escort (if we had seen him we would not have let him depart without these) (Sifrei Devarim 210:2; Sotah 45b). The priests thereupon say (next verse): כפר לעמך ישראל FORGIVE UNTO THY PEOPLE ISRAEL.

ידינו לא שפכו את הדם הזה, we have not left a stone unturned in (making public) locating the murderer in the land.

The kohanim then say, “Forgive your people Yisroel.” Otherwise, for what purpose are the kohanim [coming] here? [The presence of elders] is understandable for it is written, “And all the elders of that town [those near the corpse, etc. will wash their hands.”] But why are the kohanim needed? They [are the ones who] recite, “Forgive your people Yisroel.”

V. 7. וענו ואמרו ידינו וגו׳. In der Mischna Sota 45 b werden diese Worte erläutert: ידינו לא שפכה את הדם הזה ועינינו לא ראו וכי על דעתינו עלתה שזקני ב׳׳ד שופכי דמים הם אלא שלא בא לידינו ופטרנוהו בלא מזון ולא ראינוהו והנחנוהו בלא לוייה, und erläutert Raschi: לא נהרג על ידינו שפטרנוהו בלא מזונות וחוצרך ללסטם את הבריות ועל ידי כך נהרג die städtischen Behörden bezeugen öffentlich, sie hätten niemanden, der dessen bedurfte, ohne Lebensmittel fortgehen lassen, dass er dadurch sich genötigt gesehen haben könnte, Straßenraub zu üben und dadurch, somit durch ihre indirekte Schuld, umgekommen sein könnte, und ebenso hätten sie niemanden, der des Geleites bedurfte, allein fortwandern lassen. Es ist aber aus Raschi ersichtlich, dass in der Mischna nur gestanden: אלא לא בא לידינו ופטרנוהו ולא ראינוהו והנחנוהו, die Worte בלא מזון und בלא לוייה sind aus einer ברייתא, die die Gemara zur Erläuterung anführt.

ידינו לא שפכה, “our hands have not spilled this blood;” it is peculiar that the last letter in the word ושפכה is the letter ה when we would have expected it to be the plural ending ו. [It is read as if it had been spelled with the letter ו. Ed.] Our sages drive from this spelling that there are five items=ה, that must be provided by a host worthy of that name. They are: food, drink, overnight lodging, accompanying the guest at his departure for a certain distance, and providing him with some food for the journey. (Talmud Sotah, folio 45) The Talmud raises the question of how could anyone have thought that the members of the elders of the town near which the body had been found could have been responsible for the death of the person described in our paragraph? Why would they have to publicly declare their innocence? What these Elders really declared was that they had never been remiss in providing the five items mentioned in the Talmud to anyone who had been their guest. In other words, if that person had been a guest in their houses, they could state categorically, that he would have been treated in the manner that is appropriate. We have a saying by Rav Yehudah who quoted in the name of Rav, that anyone who has enjoyed as little as even four cubits of accompaniment from his host on his way out will not come to harm on the journey on which he set out. This saying has been illustrated by an actual occurrence. The scholar Ravinah accompanied Rava bar Yitzchok, when he became involved in a dangerous, potentially fatal situation, and he was saved from it (Talmud, Sotah folio 46) The Talmud sets the distances that a guest has to be accompanied by the host on his departure, commencing with a relatively short distance when a teacher had hosted a student, and a much greater distance when the student had hosted a teacher. (1200 meters in the latter case) Rabbi Meir considers the subject of such accompaniment one that the host can be enforced by a court to observe. [Naturally, the assumption is that the host is able-bodied. Ed.] According to Judges 1,24 there is no fixed limit for this, and the Israelites who had been in the process of conquering parts of the Holy Land that had not yet been conquered while Joshua had been alive showed a Canaanite gratitude for his showing them the way, similar to the spies promising Rahav of Jericho complete protection including her family for having protected them while on their mission. [The prophet explains how many parts of the land of Canaan remained unconquered on account of this for hundreds of years. Ed.] [If I understand correctly, when gentiles, even those under decree of death by the Torah unless they left the land, saved Israelites, our gratitude takes tangible form. In the example quoted from the Book of Judges, the Canaanite had not even personally accompanied the Israelites in question but had merely showed them the way. Ed.] In verse 26 of the incident quoted, the person whom they saved went forth to another part of the land of the Canaanites and successfully built a new city which he named Luz, [the name of Beyt El, before Yaakov had renamed it in Genesis 28,19. [Yaakov had been totally exposed there and had been saved miraculously. Ed.]. According to Rabbi Yoshua, Mitzrayim, (Pharaoh, in Genesis chapter 12,20, who gave Avraham a military escort to protect him, since he had become so wealthy) who accompanied Avraham for a distance of only 4 cubits beyond the border was rewarded, so that the Israelites had to wait four hundred years before being redeemed from Egypt. (Compare Talmud, tractate Sotah, folio 46) According to another view in the Talmud, when mention is made of לוויה, escorting someone, without any further detail, the distance meant is approx 1,2 km. This is also supposed to be the meaning of Psalms 91,11: כי מלאכיו יצוה לך לשמרך בכל דרכיך, “for He will order His angels to protect you wherever you go.” The distance of 1,2 k.m. equal to the Hebrew word מיל, is based on the first letters in the three words מלאכיו יצוה לך. When enjoying this level of escort one is certain to be successful in all one’s undertakings. Nonetheless the sages said that giving a departing guest money without also giving him some bread, is not sufficient. They base themselves on Proverbs 28,21: ועל פת לחם יפשע גבר, “sin sometimes originates from the lack of a piece of bread.” Solomon means that having not ensured that a departing guest has access to some food immediately, may become the cause of his suffering from an attack of בולמוס, “ravenous hunger,” which if not dealt with immediately may result in the death of the afflicted person. Rabbi Yochanan went as far as to say that anyone who fails to escort a departing guest is guilty of bloodshed. He based himself on the fact that if the people of Jericho had escorted the prophet out of their city and provided him with basic necessities, he would not have caused the bears to kill 42 young people of that town. (Kings II 2,23) Rabbi Elazar in dealing with that incident, claims that the word ונערים in that verse should not be understood as teenagers, but as מן עורים persons who abstain from performing G–d’s commandments, and the word קטנים which follows, means as being “small” in that they had little faith in G–d. Elisha was supposed to have seen through prophetic insight that the mothers of all of these youngsters who had made fun of him had all become pregnant with them on Yom Kippur, on a day when having marital relations is strictly prohibited. This is why he felt free to curse them in the name of the Lord, as described there. Furthermore, the subject of escorting departing guests is of greater significance than handing out a gift. Handing out gifts is not something involving one’s body, whereas escorting a departing guest involves a physical effort, showing that one is personally involved. In fact the performance of this commandment is of such significance that the benefits promised for the recipient are also applied to the host who performs this act, who will be protected until he comes home again. This is based on Isaiah 57,19: שלום שלום לרחוק ולקרוב, “welcome, welcome both to the one as yet distant and to the one already closer to us.” The one described as “distant,” is the departing guest, and the one described as “near” is the host, who is on his way home. [Our author concludes with one or two additional blessings that is in store for people performing this commandment, which I have decided not to bother with. Ed.]

וענו ואמרו, “and they shall speak and say:” this verse addresses the elders who are taking leave from the ritual;.

ועינינו לא ראו, we are certain that the murderer did not commit this act where he could be seen. Had he been seen, he would have been challenged and prevented from committing the deed. At the very least, such witnesses would have come forward.

Im Jeruschalmi lautet auch der Text der Mischna nur: אלא שלא בא לידינו ופטרנוהו לא ראינוהו והנחנוהן und erläutert dort die Gemara: רבנין דהכא פתרין קרייא בהורג ורבנן דתמן פתרין קרייא בנהרג רבנן דהכא פתרין קרייא בהורג שלא בא לידינו ופטרנוהו ולא ראינוהו והנחנוהו ועימעמנו על דינו ורבנן דתמן פתרין קרייא בנהרג לא בא לידינו ופטרנוהו בלא הלוייה ולא ראינוהו והנחנוהו בלא פרנסה. Die palästinensischen Lehrer erläutern die Worte der Schrift in Beziehung auf den Mörder, die babylonischen Lehrer in Beziehung auf den Erschlagenen. Nach den palästinensischen heiße es: der Mörder ist nicht in unsere Hände gekommen und von uns freigelassen worden, wir haben ihn nicht gesehen und haben ein Auge über seine Schuld zugedrückt. Nach den babylonischen: der Erschlagene war uns nicht zu Händen gekommen und von uns ohne Geleit fortgelassen worden, wir haben ihn nicht gesehen und haben ihn ohne Nahrung gelassen.

ידינו לא שפכה את הדם הזה, “our hands have not spilled this blood;” it is unusual for the last letter in the word שפכה to be the letter ה instead of the appropriate letter ו, for the plural ending plural. According to our sages, a host is duty bound to provide his guest with five amenities: food, drink, accompany him a short distance when he leaves, provide with a bed for the night if he wishes to stay for the night, and to give him an ever so minimal gift on his departure. The letter ה would therefore be a veiled reference to that law. You may well ask if the Torah really thought that the priests and elders who lived many kilometers distant from where this murder occurred, had really been suspected of having had a hand in this foul deed; why should they need to have to declare that they were innocent of this crime? Rashi explains that the declaration by the elders and priests refers to the murdered person not having been seen by any of them and having been denied anything he had asked for. The Rabbis felt also that possibly the murdered person, after having been denied his needs in the last city he visited, turned to the first person whom he encountered who had some food on him and snatched it, as a result of which a fight developed during which he was killed. He may even have acted in selfdefense, and have become a victim.

Auf den ersten Blick würde man sich für die palästinensische Auffassung entscheiden; denn in der Tat ist doch der Mörder der Unbekannte, der Erschlagene kann ja ein ganz bekannter, auch nach seiner Heimat ganz bekannter Mensch sein, und doch wird durch Messung und Schätzung die Behörde derjenigen Stadt gesucht, zu deren Einwohnern wahrscheinlich der Mörder gehört. Nichtsdestoweniger spricht, näher erwogen, doch alles mehr für die babylonische Auffassung. Schon die Worte des Textes: ידינו ׳לא שפכה וגו sprechen dafür, dass es sich um Reinigung von irgend einer Mitschuld an dem Geschehen des Verbrechens handelt, nicht aber um Reinigung von pflichtwidriger Nachsicht mit dem Verbrecher nach geschehener Tat. Erwägen wir ferner, dass, wie wir aus den zu V. 1 behandelten Bestimmungen zu erkennen geglaubt, die ganze עגלה ערופה-Institution nur von einem solchen Falle handelt, in welchem der Erschlagenen, wie zum Hohn der öffentlichen Behörden liegen gelassen, gefunden ward, so gibt es doch nur einen Fall, in welchem ein solcher Hohn ein wirklich verdienter wäre, und das wäre eben der, dass der Erschlagene durch von den Stadtbehörden verschuldete Not zum Raubanfall auf der Landstraße getrieben und von dem Angefallenen im Verteidigungskampfe erschlagen worden wäre, ein Fall, in welchem der Totschläger völlig schuldlos, der Getötete wenigstens entschuldbar und der eigentlich wirklich Schuldige die Behörde der Stadt wäre, die der Not des Erschlagenen gegenüber die jüdische Gesamtheitspflicht verabsäumt hätte.

ועינינו לא ראו, “and our eyes have not seen;” i.e. have not seen this individual while he was alive so that we could have become guilty of not performing our duty toward him. The duty hinted at, according to Rashi, is to give him safe conduct. An alternate interpretation; there is a saying in the Talmud, according to which when someone extends a loan to a person he has to remain where they parted until the borrower is no longer within his field of vision.

Dieselbe Eventualität lässt sich auch in Beziehung auf den Totschläger aussprechen, dass er durch Pflichtversäumnis der Behörden in einer solchen Not gelassen worden wäre, die ihn zum Begehen eines Raubmordes getrieben hätte. Die babylonische Gemara dürfte aber den Fall zunächst in Beziehung auf den Getöteten ausgesprochen haben, weil da die Möglichkeit völliger Schuldlosigkeit des Täters gegeben wäre, und erscheint auch darin die babylonische Erläuterung in unserer Gemara präziser wiedergegeben, dass sie die Entlassung ohne Nahrung als Erklärung des ידינו לא שפכה, somit als Eventualität wirklicher Miturheberschaft am Verbrechen, und nicht wie im Jeruschalmi zum עינינו לא ראו ausspricht. Nach der babylonischen Gemara haben somit die Ältesten der Stadt das große Wort auszusprechen: Bei uns wird keiner in einer solchen Not gelassen, dass er aus Not zum Verbrechen greifen müsse!

Über die Schreibweise לא שפכה siehe Wajikra 21, 5. Hier dürfte vielleicht diese Schreibweise als Singularform wie ידנו לא שפכה den Gedanken einschließen, dass sie dies Bekenntnis nicht nur für ihre persönliche Vielheit, sondern für die Gesamteinheit aussprechen, die sie in engeren und weiteren Kreisen vertreten.

ונכפר להם הדם AND THE BLOOD SHALL BE PARDONED THEM — Scripture announces to them that when they have done this (the ceremony prescribed) their sin will be forgiven (Sotah 46a).

כפר לעמך, Please Lord, grant atonement to Your people, on behalf of the one who has spilled the blood. This is a veiled request to bring the murderer to justice as it is not given to man to do this. Compare Ketuvot 30 “if someone is guilty of judicial execution (and human justice did not reach him) he will either be killed by the secular authorities (for something else he is accused of) or terrorists will attack him.”

אשר פדית, “whom You have redeemed.” This is a reference to the Exodus from Egypt. The reminder of this event may be in place, Moses reassuring the people that just as G’d had redeemed them from Egypt, although they had been burdened with many sins, so He will, in His loving kindness, forgive them for any negligence on their part which might have facilitated this foul deed by a person unknown.

כפר לעמך, “grant atonement for Your people.” According to Pessikta (and Sifri) on our verse the word כפר refers to the living who can attain atonement by means of their money. The words פדית, “whom You redeemed,” refer to the already dead who will achieve their atonement by charity given by the living (in their name). The verse teaches that the donations made to the Temple treasury by the living on behalf of their dead accomplish something. This is so in an increased measure if the son donates in his father’s name; it is considered a merit for the departed father. The same applies to the recital of Kaddish by the son for his father. The concept is based on the fact that the son “eats” the “fruits” of his father. The same applies to the son acting as reader in the synagogue during his year of mourning. There is a Baraitha in Massechet Kallah Rabbati chapter 2 involving Rabbi Akiva rescuing the soul of a departed from purgatory through the son becoming pious, etc., although the father of that child had been the worst kind of sinner.

V. 8. כפר לעמך, wie bereits bemerkt, sind es die כהנים, die diese Bitte um כפרה aussprechen. Indem aber die Priester nicht bei der עריפה fungieren, sondern erst dem Reinigungsbezeugnis der זקנים assistieren und erst nach diesem die Bitte um כפרה aussprechen, so ist damit evident, dass nicht sowohl die עריפה, als vielmehr dieses Bezeugnis es ist, auf dessen Grund die Sühne erhofft und erbeten wird.

כפר לעמך ישראל, “forgive Your people Israel!” They ask forgiveness for not having provided adequate security on the streets leading to their town so that this kind of murder could not have occurred and the perpetrator escaping with impunity. (Ibn Ezra)...

ונכפר להם הדם, it will be atoned through heavenly judgment, the heavenly agent spilling the murderer’s blood accomplishing this. It will appear in the eyes of man as if the matter had taken care of itself independently. [one cannot pinpoint why the party concerned died a violent death, not knowing what he had been guilty of. Ed.]

לעמך אשר פדית. Bedeutsam wird bei dieser כפרה-Bitte auf den Erlösungsursprung der Nation zurückgeblickt. ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם lautete von vornherein die Bestimmung, für welche sie erlöst werden sollten (Schmot 6, 7), Gott ein Volksleben aufzubauen, ein soziales Leben zu entfalten, das in jeder Fuge von Gottes Willen getragen, von Gottes Geist durchdrungen, die ganze positive und negative Größe eines unter Gottes Herrschaft in Recht und Liebe sich gestaltenden Volkslebens zur Verwirklichung bringt; לי לעם: "Gott zum Volke", das ist das "עמך", auf welches die -כפרהBitte hinblickt, das עם ד׳ bewährt sich als עם ד׳, wenn seine Vertreter in seinem Namen einer solchen Leiche gegenüber sprechen können: ידינו לא שפכה את הדם הזה "wenn auch ein Verbrechen in unserer Mitte begangen worden, die Gesamtheit ist frei von solchem Verbrechen!"

אשר פדית, “just as You have liberated the people of Israel from Egypt in spite of their shortcomings, exonerate us from any responsibility in the killing of this unknown individual.” Do not burden Your people with the guilt of shedding innocent blood.

Noch tiefer fasst ein Wort in Horiot 6 a diesen Hinblick auf die aus Mizrajim Erlösten bei diesem Anlass: ראויה כפרה זו שתכפר ,כפר לעמך ישראל אשר פדית ד׳ על יוצאי מצרים, "diese כפרה ist geeignet, noch rückwärts bis auf die ersten aus Ägypten erlösten Geschlechter Sühne zu bringen!" Wann auch immer einst das jüdische Geschlecht da stehen wird, dem es schwer auf das Gesamtgewissen fiele, wenn auch nur einer seiner Genossen aus Not zum Verbrechen greifen müsste, und dessen Vertreter mit Seelenruhe an der Leiche eines erschlagenen Menschen öffentlich vor Gott das große Wort zu sprechen vermögen: ידינו לא שפכה את הדם הזה, "bei uns braucht keiner aus Not zum Verbrechen zu greifen!" so ist dieser Triumph des von Gott gelehrten Gesetzes des Rechts und der Liebe ein so großer, dass, was auch immer die vergangenen Geschlechter bis zu den aus Ägypten erlösten hinauf gesündigt haben mögen, sie als Stammväter solcher Enkel Sühne finden. Das זכות eines solchen Recht- und Liebestaats ist so groß, dass es noch rückwärts alle vergangenen Geschlechter, aus deren Wurzel er emporgewachsen, geistig und sittlich adelt.

Daran knüpft sich denn noch der weitere Gedanke von der Unsterblichkeit einer nationalen Gesamtheit, אין מיתה בצבור. In jeder nationalen Gegenwart sind alle bereits irdisch heimgegangenen Geschlechter noch lebendig gegenwärtig. Wie die Frucht am Palmenwipfel von dem Fruchtadel der ersten Wurzelfaser zeugt und in der Wipfelfrucht die Wurzelfaser ihre Siege feiert: so ist die Nation ein solcher in זכות אבות wurzelnder Baum und in dem זכות der spätesten Enkel feiert noch das זכות der frühesten Väter seine Siege. Daher, wie dort weiter entwickelt wird, findet der Begriff: חטאת שמתו בעליה (Wajikra zu Kap. 4, 24) bei קרבנות צבור keine Anwendung.

ואל תתן דם נקי בקרב עמך ישראל. Vergl. ואל תתן עלינו דם נקי (Jona 1, 14). lasse nicht das unschuldig vergossene Blut in die Mitte deines Volkes fallen, d. h. nachdem die Gesamtheit sich von jeder auch nur indirekten Teilhaberschaft an dem Verbrechen freigesprochen, so lasse nichts von der Schuld eines solchen Einzelverbrechens in ihren Folgen auf die Gesamtheit fallen.

ונכפר להם הדם ist nicht Fortsetzung der Rede, sondern von dem Gesetze ausgesprochene Verheißung, mit Vollziehung dieser Institution werde ihnen der Vorgang gesühnt. ונכפר ist eine aus התפעל und נפעל kombinierte Form: das Blut sühnt für die Gesamtheit sich selbst und wird durch sie gesühnt, d.h. durch die Schuldlosigkeit, die für die Gesamtheit in dem Vorgange selbst liegt, und durch die Art und Weise, wie die Gesamtheit denselben aufgenommen und wie sie das für sie dabei Gesetzliche vollzogen und gesprochen, wird ihnen die Sühne bewirkt.

Indem hier an den Vollzug der Institution כפרה geknüpft wird, so erhält diese Institution, obgleich עגלה ערופה in keiner Weise einen קדשים-Charakter trägt, dennoch einige Seiten dieses Gebietes; כפרה כתיב בה כקדשים. Daher darf sie nicht טריפה sein, obgleich, wie oben bemerkt, מום ihre Tauglichkeit nicht hindert (Chulin 11 a. — Diese Stelle im Babli scheint dem כ׳׳מ zu הל׳ רוצח 10, 2 entgangen zu sein). Daher ist sie schon מחיים אסור בהנאה und zwar von dem Augenblick ihrer Hinabbringung zum harten Grund, ירידתה לנחל איתן אוסרתה (Kiduschin 57 a; — dass sie auch nach geschehener Tötung אסור bleibt, siehe oben V. 4); daher muss ihre ganze Prozedur am Tage geschehen, כל היום כשר לעריפת העגלה (Megilla 21 b u. 21 a); daher endlich wirkt עריפה bei עגלה ganz so wie מליקה bei חטאת ועולת עוף in Beziehung auf לטהרה מידי נבלה (Sebachim 70 b).

Es bliebe uns nur noch der Gedanke zu suchen, der durch das Töten der עגלה im נחל איתן seinen Ausdruck finden dürfte.

Erwägen wir, dass die in Worten auszusprechende Bezeugung der Stadtältesten dem Wortlaute des Textes gemäß und nach der Auffassung der babylonischen Weisen nur eine Reinigung von dem jedenfalls tiefer liegenden Verdachte einer indirekten Miturheberschaft an dem Verbrechen ausspricht, dagegen die zunächst sich aufdrängende Vermutung einer aus Gleichgültigkeit hervorgehenden Lässigkeit in Rechtsverfolgung des Verbrechers darin keine Widerlegung findet, so würde die Auffassung natürlich nahe liegen, in dem Akte der עריפת העגלה eben den symbolischen Ausdruck des vollen Ernstes zu finden, mit welchem die jüdische Gesamtheit und deren Vertreter das Verbrechen des Mordes und Totschlags würdigen, so dass die עגלה eben den Täter und die an ihr zum Vollzug kommende Handlung und deren Folgen die an die Tat sich knüpfenden Wirkungen vergegenwärtigten, wenn der Wortlaut einer Agada (Sota 46 a) in der עגלה nicht sowohl die Vergegenwärtigung des Täters, als die des Erschlagenen zu erblicken schiene. Es heißt dort nämlich: מפני מה אמרה תורה הביא עגלה בנחל אמר הב׳׳ה יבא דבר שלא עשה פירות ויערף במקום שאין עושה פירות ויכפר על מי שלא הניחהו לעשות פירות מה פירות אילימא פריה ורביה אלא מעתה אזקן וסרים ה׳׳כ דלא ערפינן אלא מצות, d. h: Warum, spricht das Gesetz, bringe ein noch nicht mutterfähiges Kalb in einen steinigen Grund? Es sagt damit: ein Wesen, das noch nicht fruchtbar geworden, werde an einem Orte getötet, der nicht fruchtbar wird, und sühne so den, dem man die Möglichkeit geraubt, in Pflichttaten fruchtbar zu werden.

Allein die halachische Verhandlung (Sanhedrin 52 b) erblickt offenbar in der Tötung der עגלה ein Vorbild der Hinrichtung eines Mörders, הוקשו כל שופכי דמיה לעגלה ערופה מה להלן בסייף ומן הצואר אף כאן בסייף ומן הצואר אי מה להלן וכו׳ ע׳׳ש, und näher erwogen, dürfte denn doch auch der Agada in Sota keine andere Ansicht zu Grunde liegen. Soll die Sühne des um seine Zukunft Gebrachten zum Ausdruck kommen, so liegt ja nicht darin eine Sühne, dass der an ihm begangene Raub, sondern dass zum Bewusstsein komme, wie derjenige, der ihn seiner Lebenszukunft beraubt, in demselben Augenblicke selber den Anspruch auf das hohe Gut verloren, um welches er ihn gebracht. Wer einen Menschen um seine hieniedige Zukunft gebracht, für den gibt es selber keine hieniedige Zukunft mehr, und kommt er auch dem menschlichen Gerichte nicht zu Händen, die göttliche Waltung vollbringt an ihm das, was sie durch den Arm der menschlichen Gerichte nicht hat zum Vollzuge kommen lassen. Zukunftsarm findet er sein Ende auf zukunftslosem Boden. —

Demgemäß dürfte auch in dieser Agada die עגלה nicht den Erschlagenen, sondern den noch lebenden Täter und die Folgen vergegenwärtigen, die aus seiner Tat für ihn erwachsen: jeder Mörder wird im Momente des Mordes eine frucht- und tatenzukunftlose עגלת בקר אשר לא עבד בה ולא משכה בעול, und die Erde unter ihm wird zu einem נחל איתן אשר לא יעבד בו ולא יזרע, und so findet er sein Ende. Vergleiche das an den ersten Mörder gerichtete Wort: כי תעבד את האדמה לא תסף תת כחה לך נע ונד תהיה בארץ. —

ואתה תבער BUT THOU SHALT PUT AWAY [THE GUILT OF INNOCENT BLOOD FROM AMONG YOU] — This teaches that if the murderer is found after the heifer’s neck was broken he must nevertheless be put to death, — and this is what Scripture describes as הישר בעיני ה׳ RIGHT IN THE EYES OF THE LORD (cf. Sotah 47b; Ketubot 37b and Tosafot on Ketubot 37b:16.1 ואח"כ נמצא ההורג).

ואתה תבער, when you are aware of someone’s guilt it is up to you to sentence the party and to carry out the sentence and not to rely on heaven to intervene. When you are unaware of the identity of the guilty party, and you have made exhaustive attempts to find him without success, you may rest assured that G’d Himself will take care of the problem.

ואתה תבער הדם הנקי, “You are to remove innocent blood;” Ibn Ezra adds the word עונש, “guilt,” which Moses did nor spell out here. Such guilt existed as in the Holy Land, especially, innocent blood is not to be shed, G’d does not tolerate this for long. By participating in the procedure of eglah arufah one fulfils a positive commandment wiping out the guilt of murder.

V. 9. ואתה תבער. Was durch ע׳׳ע symbolisch zum Vollzug gebracht wird, das hat das menschliche Gericht an dem Mörder zu vollziehen, wenn er und seine Tat in gesetzlicher Weise zur richterlichen Sühnung gestellt ist. Und auch die Vollziehung der ע׳׳ע-Institution enthebt dieser Pflicht nicht, wenn später der Mörder zu Gericht gebracht wird (Sota 47 a u. b תוספות Ketuboth 37 b).

ואתה תבער את הדם נקי מקרבך, “and you will remove the innocent blood from your midst.” Rashi explains that in the event the murderer is found after the heifer had already been killed, the murderer is not going free. This sounds strange seeing that we learned in the Talmud, tractate Ketuvot folio 37, that the meaning of the word in our verse is that we use the wording in our verse to learn that administering the death penalty by the sword must be performed by severing the vital arteries of the neck, just as the neck of that heifer was broken by its fall. Rabbeinu Moshe offers a different interpretation of the wording in our verse: the paragraph cited by Rashi deals with a murderer who is sentenced to death and according to the opinion that the death penalty by strangulation is more severe (Compare Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 49) than the death penalty by having one’s throat cut. This is also reasonable as the wording of the death penalty both in Exodus 21,12, and in Leviticus, 26,25: i.e. “he must surely be avenged,” and “I will bring a sword upon you that shall execute the vengeance of the covenant;” these lines refer to execution by the sword. The verse in Exodus quoted speaks of the penalty for killing a slave. If this is the penalty for killing a slave, it is logical that the penalty for killing a free man can certainly not be milder. This “logic” makes sense when we assume that the penalty by strangulation is milder than the penalty of cutting the victim’s throat. How can that logic be applied according to the scholar who holds that the penalty of strangulation is harsher than having one’s throat cut? Whence do we derive the law that murdering a free man is punishable by having one’s throat cut? The answer given is that we derive it from a baraitha which compares the law applicable to our portion, i.e. the killing of the heifer as a symbolic action by which the people near the town where the slain person was found declare that they had not been remiss in sending that person out of their town without escort or without basic provisions. If the murderer is found after that procedure has already been performed, according to the opinion that strangulation is a milder penalty than having one’s throat cut by comparing it to the penalty of the killer of a slave being executed by the sword, by reason of the logic we mentioned earlier. If one then would argue what is the meaning of the words in Numbers 35,33:כי לארץ לא יכופר, “but no expiation can be made for the earth” (that absorbed the blood of the slain)? We would have to say that this applies for a case in which the murderer is found only after the Yom Kippur following his having committed the deed. If no atonement had been made by that time it cannot be atoned for retroactively anymore.

ואתה תבער, “So You shall remove, etc;” Rashi explains here that the reference here is that in the event that the murderer is found after the eglah arufah, the heifer that was supposed to atone for the deed, had already been put to death, the people who had killed that beast should not be held responsible for wasting its life, and the murderer will be dealt with judicially. Although Rashi says that he will be executed, seeing that there were neither witnesses nor warning how can that be? [Rashi, of course quoted the Talmud, Sotah folio 47 to that effect. Ed.] If you were to ask that we have learned in the Talmud in tractate Ketuvot, folio 37, that the meaning of the verse in Numbers 35,33: ולארץ לא יכופר לדם אשר שופך בה, “but no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein (of innocent people)”, so why was this verse necessary at all? The answer is in order to give us guidance for the scenario described by Rashi, as quoted in the Talmud Sotah 47. Why do we need the request that G-d should remove the innocent blood? It is to teach that all murderers are basically compared to the paragraph dealing with the heifer discussed in our chapter. Just as that heifer’s death is caused by breaking its neck, the neck of all murderers is broken as part of the execution, [Cutting off his neck with a sword. Ed.] On the other hand, that leaves the problem with the sage who holds that the death penalty for murder is strangulation. That death penalty is rated as harsher than the death penalty by cutting off one’s head with the sword. [The reader must remember that whereas the two death penalties by stoning or burning have been spelled out in the Torah, the other two types of death penalties have not been spelled out. Ed.] If not for the verse in the Talmud in tractate Ketuvot folio 37, we would have thought that the sin of murder warrants a more severe penalty that cutting off the head. Our author pursues these details; I have decided that they are not of great interest to either a potential victim or an innocent bystander. Ed.

כי תעשה הישר, “when you will do what is right in the eyes of the Lord.” The word כי in this verse is to be understood as if the Torah had written: אם, ”if.” or “when.” In practice the essential part in carrying out this commandment is the measuring of which is the nearest inhabited location to the site where the body of the slain person was discovered. Without determining this, the whole procedure leading to atonement cannot even commence. As mentioned previously, the “measuring” is far more than a mere technicality. The publicity connected to the taking of these measurements sets in motion a search for the killer.

כי תצא למלחמה WHEN THOU GOEST FORTH TO WAR — Scripture is speaking here of a war that is not obligatory upon the Israelites (Sifrei Devarim 211:1), for in regard to a war that was waged against the inhabitants of Erez Israel, Scripture could not possibly say, “and thou hast captured captives”, since it has already been stated regarding them, (Deuteronomy 20:16) “[But of the cities of those people ...] you shall not allow any soul to live”.

כי תצא למלחמה על איביך, When you go to war against your enemies, etc. Why did the Torah need to write this whole introduction when it would have sufficed to write: "when you see an attractive woman amongst the prisoners, etc." The whole of verse one seems extraneous to the subject matter under discussion! Furthermore, seeing the Torah did decide to write: "when you go out to war against your enemies, etc.," why did we need the words "against your enemies?" Against whom does one go to war if not against one's enemies? Perhaps the reason is to be found in halachic relaxations which apply to troops in wartime. A woman such as the attractive woman prisoner mentioned here would be totally out of bounds if not for the fact that she was captured in war; the same applies to other relaxations of the halachah such as the prohibition of eating the hind parts of a pig, etc, (compare Chulin 17). This gave rise to the Torah using a different style in this instance. Seeing that the Jewish soldier was aware of the halachic relaxations which are applicable even to Torah law under conditions of war, the Torah was concerned lest some of the soldiers would actually look forward to the battle in order to avail themselves of these relaxations of Torah law. The Torah was keenly aware of this and reminded the soldier that when he goes to war his only purpose should be to avenge himself on the enemies of the Jewish people, not in order to have an excuse to indulge in things which are normally forbidden. The words כי תצא, "when you go out," are a reminder that although you depart from the normal rules of halachic restrictions when your life is at stake, למלחמה, your mind must concentrate only on the war, on the battle, not on what you consider the fringe benefits. The reason the Torah adds the words על איביך, "against your enemies," is to remind you that your enemies are G'd's enemies as we have been told by David in Psalms 139,21: "O Lord, You know I hate those who hate You, and I loathe Your adversaries." Your entire reason for going to war must be for this sole purpose. If that will be the case, then the Torah's assurance: "and the Lord your G'd will deliver them into your hand" will be fulfilled. From our verse (verse 1) you may deduce therefore that unless your motivation is the one the Torah expects of you, your success will not be assured.

כי תצא, beyond the boundaries of your land.

כי תצא למלחמה, “When you will go out to war;” according to the plain meaning of the text, Moses advises the people that instead of waiting till the enemy invades their land that they should pre-empt him and meet him beyond their borders to avoid part of their land becoming destroyed.

For with regard to the war for Eretz Yisroel it would be inappropriate to say “and you capture prisoners from them,” etc. You might ask: Perhaps Scripture’s subject is the warfare of Eretz Yisroel, and when it writes, “And you capture prisoners from them,” it refers to a case where there were [people] from nations other than the seven nations inside [the town]. The answer is that Rashi himself answers this question when he explains afterwards: “And you capture prisoners from them,” this includes the Canaanites among them, although they are members of the seven nations. This implies that we always go according to the people of the town. For here if the people of the town are from other nations, one is also permitted to keep alive the Canaanites inside it. And the same applies if the citizens of the town are of the seven nations, one is not permitted to keep alive [people from] other nations inside it. Therefore if the verse is speaking of warfare of Eretz Yisroel, Scripture would not write “and you capture prisoners from them,” because you would not be able to say that it refers to [people from] other nations inside it, since it is forbidden to keep alive even [people from] other nations that are inside it as we explained. (I found this in the name of Maharitz). Re”m answers that since the main point of the parsha is to permit the “beautifully formed woman,” it would only permit her in optional warfare where all women are permitted [to be kept alive], and not in obligatory warfare where the prohibition of “You are not to leave any person alive (above 20:16)” applies to every woman except the one that he captured [who] is of other nations. And perhaps he will not capture her, and even if he does capture her it would be a very rare possibility.

V. 10. Der Abschnitt שופטים hatte vorzugsweise die Ordnung allgemeiner Angelegenheiten der Gesamtheit zum Gegenstande, deren Konstituierung zunächst durch die bevorstehende staatliche Niederlassung im Lande gefordert war. Der Abschnitt כי תצא bringt nun noch eine Anzahl Gesetzesgruppen, die zunächst die Regelung von Privatverhältnissen des Familien- und Verkehrslebens im Auge haben, wo der nun bevorstehende Eintritt in die Dezentralisation und die natürliche Anbürgerung Veranlassuug zu Ausschreitungen gewähren, und darum auch solche Vorschriften in ihrer ganz besonderen Bedeutsamkeit hervortreten lassen, welche den Geist der Gesetzesachtung, des Rechts und der Liebe und der Sittenheiligung dem sich selbst überlassenen einzelnen bei allen seinen Unternehmungen zu beleben geeignet sind. Insbesondere tritt das Familienleben, das Verhalten der Geschlechter zu einander, das Gattenleben, das Verhältnis der Eltern zu den Kindern, sowie der Kinder zu den Eltern in den Vordergrund. Ist es doch eben das Familienleben, für welches einerseits durch die Nähe anwohnender Bevölkerungen manche Trübung zu erwarten war, andererseits ging das Familienleben seiner vollen Verwirklichung, insbesondere nach der bürgerlichen Seite hin, erst mit dem Augenblick entgegen, wo die Familienexistenz aus den Händen einer unmittelbar göttlichen Fürsorge in die Hand des sein Weib und Kind ernährenden Familienvaters überging. An der Spitze dieser Gesetzesgruppen steht ein Problem, das, ähnlich wie an der Spitze der konstituierenden Rechtsordnungen, an den Problemen des Verbrechers und des ärmsten Mädchens (Schmot 21. 2 u. 7) das Personen- und Gattenrecht gelehrt wird, also an der Behandlung einer Kriegsgefangenen die geschlechtliche Heiligkeit eines weiblichen Wesens der männlichen Leidenschaft gegenüber proklamiert und vor leichtfertigem Missbrauch sicher stellt. So ward Kap. 20, 19 f. das allgemeine לא תשחית-Verbot jeglicher zwecklosen Zerstörung und wird Kap. 23, 10 f. das allgemeine Gebot keuscher Schamhaftigkeit in Worten und Handlungen, ולא יראה בך ערות דבר ,ונשמרת מכל דבר רע, an dem Problem von Kriegszuständen gelehrt, in welchen Zerstörungslust und sittliche Ungebundenheit sich einen Freibrief auszustellen pflegen. Was in allen diesen Problemen den jüdischen Gewissen selbst für Ausnahmszustände zur Pflicht gemacht wird, gilt selbstverständlich in noch höherem Maße für die Zustände des normalen Lebens.

ושבית שביו, “and you take back some captives.” According to Rashi, this includes Canaanites that were in that land or city; [in spite of the commandment not to allow any Canaanite to survive, as per Deut. 20,6. Ed.] If you were to wonder how this could be, remember that the Torah speaks of an expansionary war, outside the borders of what used to be the Canaanite land that was promised by G–d to Avraham. If the prisoner had been captured outside those boundaries, the fact that she is now brought back to what used to be the land of Canaan does not make her subject to the commandment stated in Deut. 20,16.

כי תצא, “when you go forth;” the introductory words of this paragraph are intended to teach that what follows are rules that apply only outside the boundaries of the Holy Land, and that they are not comparable to those that apply in the Holy land. The paragraphs that we have read prior to this, generally applied to conduct of Israelites in the Land of Israel.

ושבית שביו AND THOU HAST CAPTURED CAPTIVES — These apparently redundant words are intended to include Canaanite people living in it (in a city outside Canaan), that it is allowed to capture them although they belong to the seven nations (Sifrei Devarim 211:4; Sotah 35b).

This includes the Canaanites among them, etc. And their wives and children are saved like them. Otherwise, why is [the apparently superfluous word] שביו necessary. See the verse above in parshas Shoftim (20:11), “All the people found in it.”

ושבית שביו, "and you take a prisoner." This is a commandment, as otherwise you create the impression that you belittle gifts G'd gives you. Alternatively, the Torah emphasises the negative when writing the positive, i.e. you are forbidden to marry such an attractive Gentile female unless she has first been your captive. Under no circumstances must you exploit the Torah's permission to wed such a prisoner by engaging in the pursuit of a woman who catches your fancy with the intention of making her your wife or your concubine if she had not previously happened to be your captive. This is the reason that the Torah writes the sequence ושבית שביו וראית בשביה, "if you have taken a prisoner and then you see amongst the prisoners, etc." The reason the Torah wrote שביו, "its prisoner," instead of simply אותו, "it," is because (according to Sifri) we are not speaking about a defensive war but about a war of acquisition, (authorised by G'd, i.e. the High Priest) and the Torah wishes to include permission to take captive even a Canaanite of the seven nations who would have had to be executed had the Torah spoken about the war when the Israelites captured the Holy Land under the leadership of Joshua. In other words, although such a person would have been killed if she had been encountered in Joshua's wars of conquest, the fact that she was captured outside the boundaries of ארץ ישראל saved her life.

ספרי) במלחמת הרשות הכתוב מדבר, כי תצא), es spricht hier nicht von dem Kriege zur Besitznahme des palästinensischen Landes (siehe zu Kap. 20, 1).

כי תצא למלחמה, “when you go forth to do battle;” the Torah refers only to what are known in the Talmud as milchemet r’shut, wars that have been sanctioned by G-d after consultation with Him through the High Priest. The reason that this is clear beyond doubt is that the Torah permits you to take prisoners.

כי תצא למלחמה על אויביך ונתנו ה' אלו-היך בידך ושבית שביו, “When you go into battle against your enemies and the Lord your G’d delivers him into your hand and you take as (its) prisoner.” We would have expected the Torah to write ונתנם, “and He will deliver them into your hand,” instead of “and He will deliver him into your hands.” The Torah means that the defeat of your enemies will be so drastic as if they had all been only one man. Alternatively, the word ונתנו refers to the protective angel of the enemy nation in the celestial regions. The words ושבית שביו refer to the enemies here on earth.

Another thing the Torah has in mind by writing "and He delivers them into your hands," following it up with "and you capture its prisoner," is to limit your authority over human life. Once you have captured a prisoner you are not free to kill him or her unless the Torah had commanded this such as in 20,16 "you must not let anyone survive." The source for this limitation on your powers as a captor is the reminder that G'd delivers your enemy into your hands, you did not achieve victory by your own prowess.

ספרי) כנגד אויביך על אויביך), es bezeichnet dieses על nicht einen unprovozierten Überfall, den setzt der Text nicht voraus. Es bezeichnet dieses על die Feindlichkeit einer Absicht überhaupt, die Absicht der Besiegung.

ושבית שביו, “and you carry away prisoners you have taken.” This includes Canaanites, who might have emigrated from their land during the wars conducted by Joshua. (Rashi, based on Sifri)

אשת [AND THOU SEEST AMONG THE CAPTIVES] A WOMAN — even if she be a married woman (Sifrei Devarim 211:7; Kiddushin 21b).

וראית בשביה אשת יפת תאר, "And you see in her captivity a woman of beautiful form, etc." The expression יפת תאר is to be understood literally, whereas according to Sifri the words וחשקת בה, "you will desire her," are understood to include even an ugly looking prisoner. This sounds somewhat strange; if it is true, why did the Torah bother to mention a good looking prisoner if even an ugly looking woman is permitted? All the Torah had to write was: "if you see a woman amongst the prisoners, etc.," and neither the words יפת תאר nor וחשקת בה are needed.

אשת יפת תואר, “a woman of beautiful form;” the Torah mentions an example that is likely, but an ugly woman is subject to the same legislation. Ibn Ezra understands the term יפת תואר as a subjective term, i.e. she looks attractive in that particular soldier’s eyes. The term יפת תואר, accordingly, refers to וראית i.e. what this particular soldier saw.

Only in deference to the wicked inclination, etc. Rashi is answering [the following]: The expression, ולקחת לך לאשה, seems to imply that it is a positive mitzvah to take [this] non-Jewess for a wife, but this is not so, for it is better to marry a Jewess!

A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN. Scripture speaks of the common case. And in the Sifre it is stated:¹Sifre, Ki Theitzei 211. “Whence do we know that [the same law applies] even if she be ugly? From what Scripture states, and thou desirest her — even though she is not beautiful.” And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “A beautiful woman — in his eyes.” Thus the expression [a beautiful woman] is connected with [the first word in the verse] ‘v’ra’itha’ (and thou seest).²The verse reads: And thou seest among the captives a beautiful woman. Ramban thus points out that, according to Ibn Ezra’s interpretation, the verse means to say: “and thou seest a beautiful woman among the captives,” for the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. She may actually be ugly. Scripture mentions and thou desirest her, denoting that he is not to permit her to himself except because of lust — when his impulse overpowers him. However, if he discovers within himself that he has no lust for cohabitation with her, but he wants just to take a wife, he should not marry her. Thus the Rabbis have said in the Sifre:³Sifre, Ki Theitzei 212. “And thou wouldest take her to thee to wife. You are not to say, ‘This one is for [my] father, that one for my brother.’” And in the Gemara⁴Kiddushin 22a. we find that he is not to take two women — one for his son and one for himself, or one for his father and one for himself. Now the prohibition against taking one for his son [or for his father] applies even to her alone [i.e., if he has not taken one for himself].

VV. 11 — 14. וראית בשביה וגו׳. Nach allgemeinster Auffassung habe er sich der Kriegsgefangenen einmal in Leidenschaft genähert, לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצ׳׳ה (Kiduschin 21 b).

אשת יפת תואר, “an attractive looking woman.” The term includes women that are married.” If you were to ask where the Midrash making that statement had its source, the fact that the word אשת instead of אשה, is in a construct mode, strongly suggests this. If married prisoners were excluded from the legislation about to follow, the Torah should have written: אשה יפת תואר. If you would query further by quoting the Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin, Tossaphot folio 52, that the term “marriage” as understood in Jewish law does not exist among gentiles, the Torah uses the term here only because you might have thought that if this woman had been “married,” i.e. in an exclusive sexual relationship with one partner, she could not be married by a Jewish soldier, at least not unless divorced, the Torah makes clear that this is not so. It is certainly remarkable that the Torah permits a Jewish soldier to marry such a prisoner of war even after she had undergone all the procedures which follow.

ולקחת לך לאשה [AND THOU DELIGHTEST IN HER,] THAT THOU WOULDEST TAKE HER FOR THY WIFE) — Scripture is speaking (makes this concession) only in view of man’s evil inclination (his carnal desires) (Kiddushin 21b). For if the Holy One, blessed be He, would not permit her to him as a wife, he would nevertheless marry her although she would then be forbidden to him. However, if he does marry her, in the end he will hate her, for Scripture writes immediately afterwards, (v. 15) “If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, etc.” and ultimately he will beget a refractory and rebellious son by her (v. 18). It is for this reason that these sections are put in juxtaposition (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 1).

וחשקת בה, “and you desire her;” the reason why the Torah adds these words is that the Torah’s concession for this soldier to marry such a woman is premised on the fact that he is unable to withstand the urge to marry her. If he only wants to indulge his libido and does not want to marry her, the following rules do not apply, and he must control himself.

Even someone’s wife. The reason Rashi explains [“a wife”] out of order [that it appears] in the verse is because he does not wish to explain the verse, but he is referring to what he explained above, “for if the Holy One, Blessed Is He, would not permit her, he would live with her illicitly.” And [thus we can infer that] if the Torah has to permit “the beautifully formed woman,” this indicates that without [the verse permitting] “the beautifully formed woman,” she would be forbidden [to him] by Torah command. But this is not so, because a non-Jewess is forbidden only by Rabbinic decree! As [the Gemora] says that the sages decreed that one who has relations with a non-Jewess is liable because of nashgaz (as if she was a nidah, shifcha [maidservant], goyah [non-Jewess] and zonah [harlot]). [To answer this question], Rashi explains that although an unmarried non-Jewess is certainly forbidden only by Rabbinic decree, the verse here writes אשת, which implies [even if she is] someone’s wife. You might ask: What difference does it make if she is someone’s wife? Non-Jews cannot contract a marriage because it is written (Vayikra 20:10). “A man who commits adultery with the wife of his fellow (רעהו),” and we say (Sanhedrin 52b), “the wife of his fellow” [comes] to exclude the wife of a non-Jew,” for a non-Jew cannot contract a marriage! [The answer is that] a [non-Jewess] who is the wife of [a non-Jew] is nevertheless forbidden [and the above verse only excludes a non-Jew marrying a Jewess]. The sons of Noach are also commanded regarding married women as it is written (Bereishis 2:24), “Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife,” and [the sages] say (Sanhedrin 58a): “To his wife,” and not to the wife of his fellow. And similarly regarding Avimelech it is written (Bereishis 20:3), “For she is a married woman.” This indicates that a married woman is forbidden even to sons of Noach and how much more so she is forbidden to a Jew. But in the case of “the beautifully formed woman,” the Holy One Blessed Is He permitted her.

In order to answer these questions we must understand why G'd altogether permits a Jew to defile himself by sleeping with a Gentile. This is even more problematical as the Torah permits this at a time when G'd has been busy performing miracles so that the Israelites were victorious in battle and suffered no casualties. We would have assumed that at such a time more than at any other the laws requiring ritual, i.e. sexual purity would have to be tightened rather than relaxed! How can a time when the Israelite has to cleave to his G'd be the very time when he is allowed to indulge his evil urge in such a fashion? We can understand the need to permit food for soldiers in war although the Torah has otherwise forbidden such food. In his treatise Hilchot Melachim chapter 8, Maimonides explains that when a soldier is hungry and must feed himself it is acceptable to permit him to eat whatever is available. After all, it may be a case of survival; however, no such reasons apply when a soldier wants to indulge his carnal lust. Our sages in Kidushin 21 explain the whole paragraph as addressed to the evil urge within man. If so, surely whatever the Torah legislates ought to be designed to subjugate that evil urge from the hearts of a holy people at a time when they are engaged in war and when they count on their King, i.e. G'd, to fight on their behalf.

והבאתה אל תוך ביתך. Er hat die Pflicht, sie entweder zu ehelichen, nach den Verse 12 u. 13 vorgeschriebenen Handlungen, womit sie völlig ins Judentum übertritt und seine rechtmässige Frau mit allen Konsequenzen wird, oder V. 14, er hat ihr die Freiheit zu geben. Er darf sie weder ferner missbrauchen, noch sie in seinem Dienst behalten, oder zu Gunsten anderer über sie disponieren. Nach anderer Auffassung darf er sich überhaupt nur nach den hier vorgeschriebenen Handlungen ihr nähern und sie zur Frau nehmen oder sie freilassen (siehe תוספו׳ Kiduschin 22 a).

ולקחת, “you will marry,” according to the plain meaning of the text this means that you, the captor, intend to marry her as soon as possible. We had been told already in Deut.20,14, that it is permissible to take women, children and livestock as loot in the expansionary war described in that paragraph.

I believe the clue to understanding this whole legislation is to be found in the Zohar Chadash Balak page 53. We are told there that at the time Adam sinned many souls who originated in holy spheres were taken captive by the spiritually negative forces known as Sitra Achara. These souls are the ones of people who voluntarily converted to Judaism since that time. Many outstanding Jews have come from such conversions such as Ruth the Moabite, the scholars Shmayah and Avtalyon, as well as Onkelos the proselyte.

Nach ספרי und Jebamot 48 a beabsichtigen die hier vorgeschriebenen Vornahmen ניוול, eine Herabstimmung ihrer Reize, damit er sie schmucklos und reizloser eine zeitlang erst so in häuslicher Nähe sehe und Zeit habe, sich zu prüfen, bevor er sie zum Weibe nehme. Denn Billigung hat eine solche lediglich unter dem Diktat der Leidenschaft geschlossene Ehe nicht, und wird warnend auf die V. 15 f. und V. 18 dem יפת תואר-Problem sich anschließenden Gesetze vom ehelichen Zwiespalt und ungeratenen Sohn als Folgen hingewiesen, die aus allen Ehen zu erwarten stehen, deren Brautwerber nicht Vernunft und Pflicht, sondern Leidenschaft gewesen.

I will reveal to you another mystery. There are occasions when a pure soul is very closely attached to an impure soul and the pure soul is unable to exert a spiritually positive influence on the impure soul. The latter remains as it is until the time comes to be freed from its body. We have an example of something like that in the soul of Rabbi Chaninah ben Tradyon whose soul [obviously long before it inhabited the body of that scholar, Ed.] reputedly was attached to that of Shechem, son of Chamor (who had raped Dinah). This is alluded to in the Torah by the letters in the word רחבת ידים (Genesis 34,21) which form the initals of the name of Rabbi Chanina ben Tradyon, as explained by Rabbi Chayim Vittal in his commentary on the relevant verse in Genesis (Likutey Torah). [I have seen this text and it is somewhat different from what the author quotes. Ed.] This soul of Rabbi Chaninah had not exerted a positive influence on the soul of Shechem so that when the latter committed the rape of Dinah the soul of Rabbi Chaninah departed from him and found its mate in the soul of Dinah whose soul had previously been described as נידה, i.e. as polluted. This is the mystical dimension of the words ותדבק נפשו בדינה, "his soul cleaved to Dinah the daughter of Jacob" (Genesis 34,3). You will do well to keep this principle in mind. Sometimes you find a holy soul mixed in amongst those that belong to the domain of the קליפה, the spiritually negative forces. Such a soul may exert a spiritually positive influence on other souls in its environment, driving out the evil resident within those souls or at least weakening it. These are the souls who eventually become proselytes by their own efforts such as Ruth the Moabite and Naamah the Ammonite who became the mother of King Rechavam.

ובכתה את אביה ואת אמה nach Jebamot 48 b zugleich Ausdruck für Entsagung der heidnischen Gewöhnungen im Elternhause.

I have already mentioned repeatedly that by means of the performance of G'd's commandments one's soul becomes "dressed" in the light of the שכינה, so that it is enabled to expel whatever evil still remains within it. This is the mystical dimension of Kohelet 8,5: שומר מצוה לא ידע רע, that "he who observes the commandment will know no evil." This applies in particular to people who are on such a מצוה errand as the soldiers of the Jewish people in war. I have also explained in Parshat Shelach Lecha that people on such an errand are even protected against the evil urge at such a time, not only against the actual commission of a sin (compare the whole discussion in Numbers 13,26 commencing on page 1450). The reverse is true of someone engaged in the commission of a sin; his soul is "dressed" in the spirit of impurity which leads him still further astray.

עמר ,לא תתעמר בה eigentlich ein Ährenbündel, Garbe. — התעמר ב: sich Garben, d. h. einen Gewinnst, einen Nutzen mit etwas schaffen, etwas von ihm ernten. Daher auch so viel als: לא תשתמש בה. Du darfst sie nicht zum Dienste gebrauchen (ספרי) ebenso wie Kap. 24, 7: והתעמר בו.

After G'd had informed us of all these factors, the comments of our sages will greatly enlighten us concerning this whole legislation. The operative clause are the words כי תצא למלחמה, "that you, the soldier are engaged in performing a מצוה errand against G'd's enemies." This very fact already results in your not being tempted by the evil urge while you are engaged in carrying out this errand. The words וראית בשביה, "and you see at the time of her being taken captive, etc." According to Maimonides in the above quoted chapter of his Hilchot Melachim, the Torah speaks about a moment in time when said soldier is still engaged in his sacred task. This is the reason the Torah speaks of אשת, "a woman of," (genitive) instead of אשה יפת תאר. [remember that in halachah the term "wife of," i.e. the normal meaning of the word אשת in the Torah, is not applicable to a Gentile woman who lives with the same man. Ed.] Our sages in Kidushin 21 interpret the term אשת used by the Torah as including a woman who is married, according to the understanding of this term by the Gentiles. They are, of course, correct; however, if that were the only meaning of the word in this case, the Torah should not have written אשת יפת תאר instead of אשה יפת תאר but אשת איש, "a married woman." Clearly, the Torah's choice of the expression אשת יפת תאר is meant to alert us to the fact that G'd opened the eyes of this soldier who is still engaged in performing the מצוה to recognise something spiritually beautiful within the soul of that female prisoner. It is this soul which the Torah describes as יפת תאר. Holy souls are able to radiate a beautiful spiritual light. The soldier is able to recognise the spiritual light which emanates from that prisoner as he is still enveloped by the שכינה, being still engaged in the performance of a holy task himself.

The Torah was very careful to write בה, "something within her" instead of אותה, "her." This means that the soldier in question is not infatuated with the body of the woman but with something inside her, her holy soul which he was able to recognise. This explains why such a woman is permitted even if she is outwardly ugly. The words יפת תאר never related to the external appearance of the woman in question. Carnal lust is always something which feeds on the external appearance not on the invisible part of the woman.

ולקחת לך לאשה, "and you will take her for you as a wife." It is remarkable that throughout this paragraph the Torah always refers to the woman prisoner by a suffix, i.e. והבאתה, ובעלתה, ושלחתה. Only in this instance does the Torah describe the wedding without even mentioning her as a suffix, i.e. ולקחתה. The reason is that the union of the soldier and this woman in marriage occurs in a domain which is hidden from the eye. The Torah does not speak of a union of bodies but of a union of souls. Seeing the souls of the soldier and the prisoner have become attached to one another, the result is marriage. The principle holds true also in normal marriages between Torah-observant Jews, and it was the reason why Dinah's soul was joined by the holy soul of Rabbi Chaninah ben Tradyon as a direct result of her being raped by Shechem.

Having explained that the ultimate fate of souls within the domain of the Sitra Achara which enjoy the close proximity of a holy soul may be one of two possibilities, who is to know if the "holy" soul which was attached to this prisoner's Gentile soul is one which will depart from her at the first contact with the soul of a Jewish male (as in the case of Shechem), so that nothing holy will remain within her, or if the "holy" soul within her has accomplisehd its task so that the entire soul of that prisoner is now fit to convert as was Naamah or Ruth. In order to establish this with certainty the Torah wrote: והבאתה אל תוך ביתך, "you are to bring her inside your house." During the period that the prisoner sojourns in the house of her soldier-captor, the latter will be able to remove from her part of her spiritually negative characteristics. In that event, she is fit to convert and he may marry her. The words והיתה לך לאשה mean that she may become your wife if you want to marry her. If you are not prepared to marry her, i.e. to form a spiritual union with her, this will be proof that the holy part of her soul, i.e. the holy soul within her that kept her Gentile soul company, has already departed from her so that your two souls are not meant to form a union.

Seeing that it is not impossible that even a Torah-observant Jew may become infatuated with a Gentile woman and wants to live with her without the benefit of marriage which sanctifies a sexual union between man and wife, the Torah has to provide for such a situation. Remember that we only described the desire a soldier has for a Gentile prisoner as being inspired by something purely spiritual as long as that soldier was actively engaged in performing the commandment of fighting a war against the enemies of his people. As soon as the soldier has brought the prisoner home, or even sooner, as soon as the war is over, the soldier's reaction to the prisoner may reflect his carnal instincts rather than the longing of his soul for a suitable soul-mate. The Torah therefore prescribes a number of measures which will help establish just what it is that said soldier is attracted to. Shaving off the hair of her head, letting her nails grow, or according to others cutting her nails especially short, are all examples of a deliberate attempt to show the soldier-captor his prisoner when she has been deprived of her physical allure. If the prisoner converts and her soldier-captor still wants to marry her this is considered proof by the Torah that this woman has divested herself of all traces of the spiritual impurity inherent in her background. This is why the Torah says והיתה לך לאשה, "you may marry her." The Torah hints at all this strongly when writing instead of ואם לא חפצת אותה, "and if you do not want her," ואם לא חפצת בה, "and if you do not want what is inside her."

ושלחתה לנפשה, "you must send her away to be on her own." The Torah carefully chose the word לנפשה, to explain why the soldier-captor may not sell this woman (who is after all trophy of the war) as one may sell other Gentile slaves. If he were to sell this prisoner now he would benefit from the proceeds. The Torah had described her as part of the captives G'd had given the people. How could the soldier sell what was G'd's? The word לנפשה reminds the soldier that the only reason this prisoner had been given to him by G'd was because of the soul inside her. Originally, upon meeting her in captivity, the soldier had been attracted to the beauty of her soul and had benefited from her spirituality. It would certainly be inappropriate to now treat her as chattel, cashing in on her as a sex object. Alternatively, the word לנפשה at this stage emphasises that this woman has by now revealed that all she has left is a נפש, the most basic life-force, not a נשמה, a holy soul. Her holy soul from which you originally benefited has already departed from her as did the holy soul of Shechem when he raped Dinah.

ומכור לא תמכרנה, "and you must certainly not sell her." G'd does not want the Israelites to trade in evil. We have a verse in Psalms 69,27 אשר הכית רדפו, "they pursued those whom You have smitten." The Psalmist scores the Gentiles who want to profit from the fact that G'd had smitten the Jewish people." G'd did not punish the Jewish people for their sins in order for the Gentiles to make a profit out of this. --Similarly, the soldier who had already extracted all he wanted from the body of his prisoner must not now also turn her into chattel to make a profit from selling her.

תחת אשר עינית, "because you have afflicted her." This means that you have deprived this woman of all her previous assets including her physical allure and have caused her to become ugly and destitute. This final line in our paragraph is proof for our whole approach to the subject of the יפת תאר. Is it conceivable that a Jew who has sexual intercourse with a Gentile woman would abuse her? Did not our sages say in Gittin 38 that "Gentiles are more fond of the beasts belonging to Jews than they are fond of their own wives?" It follows that they would love female slaves who used to be the property of Jews even more so." How could Jews have acquired such a reputation if they had maltreated their slaves? How could the fact that the prisoner spent a month in the house of her soldier-captor be considered as having suffered maltreatment? Surely the Torah refers to her mental anguish and not to her having been physically mistreated. Her mental anguish consists of her being denied the opportunity to share the sanctity of a Jewish home if her captor had married her.

A moral/ethical approach to our subject is based on the premise that the entire structure of the universe and its continued existence is based on the conduct of the Jewish people. As long as the Jewish people act in accordance with Torah precepts the universe remains intact and there is joy in heaven and on earth. Even G'd Himself is happy and rejoices in the fact that there is a Jewish people. The proper conduct of the Jewish people in turn depends on its ability to vanquish its evil urge. Our verses come to remind man that as soon as his soul leaves the celestial spheres (prior to entering his body) he must be prepared for the struggle with the evil urge. He should not believe that no special valour is needed in order to overcome the spiritually negative forces. On the contrary, the struggle is called מלחמה, "war." This is what our sages had in mind in Avot 4,1 when they said that the true hero is the person who conquers his temptation. This is the reason the Torah did not write le-milchamah i.e. "to any any war," but la-milchamah "to the war, i.e. the well known war against your evil urge."

על איביך. "against your enemies." This is a further reminder that the war the Torah speaks about in our paragraph is not comparable to one fought by a military hero who, once he has conquered the city he fights against, goes home and rests on his laurels. Rather, it is a war which if the victor relaxes his guard even momentarily after having scored a victory, his enemy is liable to revive and destroy him. The Torah assures us that even though the evil urge is an extremely tough adversary, one whose resources are stronger than human powers to overcome unaided, G'd will give this adversary into our hand -if we are actively engaged in fighting him, כי תצא למלחמה.- This is the meaning of the words ושבית שביו. "You will take him captive." The Torah is careful to write שביו instead of אותו, "him." The reason is that the adversary is not something or someone tangible to which the pronoun אותו, "him or it" could be applied. The best that you can hope for is that he will disappear for a while. The meaning of the words ושביתו שביו may be that you will take captive the souls which up until now the Sitra Achara held captive, i.e. you will capture his prisoners. What is described as "your victory" consists of reclaiming souls which your adversary Satan had captured.

וראית בשביה אשת יפת תאר, "and you see in her captivity a beautiful woman." The reason the Torah writes אשת (the possessive form) instead of the more appropriate אשה, is to alert us that the subject is man's soul, the one that is inseparable from her "mate," her body. Satan does not exert any influence on such a soul until it has "descended" and inhabits a body. He is only able to take it into captivity once it has become inseparable from its body. This נפש is called אשה, woman. The reason the Torah describes it as יפת תאר, "beautiful," is because this soul is intrinsically very beautiful indeed and it has only dishevelled herself by means of the sins committed by the body it inhabits. Once man conquers his evil urge he will realise how truly beautiful his נפש really is.

וחשקת בה, "and you will desire her." This means that then the time has come when you will truly desire her, i.e. your soul, instead of the desire you had previously displayed for the seductive machinations of your evil urge.

והבאת אל תוך ביתך, "and you will bring her into your house." This is a reference to the fact that the true soul moves (spiritually) further and further away from the body it inhabits as a result of accumulations of the sins committed by the body. In its place a spiritually negative force occupies the void left by the soul. We find a somewhat similar concept in Job 18,4: טורף נפשו באפו, "who tears his soul apart in his anger." The body is called בית, "house," as we learned in Taanit 11: "who testifies against man? The walls of his house, i.e. the body." When the evil urge defeats the soul it makes itself at home within the body which used to be the exclusive home of the soul. As a result the evil urge will become known as the בעל נפש, the force in control of the soul. The soul that man had acquired originally now has to fight back to regain its original position and has to get rid of the symbols of impurity which have infested it. One such symbol is the hair on his head and this is why the Torah orders it to shave off the hair on its head. The term קליפה, "peel," which is the best known simile for the spiritually negative forces, is represented in the body by the nails which are like a peel. Trimming the nails then is an indication of man's effort to trim the forces of the קליפה. והסירה את שמלת שביה מעליה, "and she is to remove the garment of her captivity from herself, etc." This is a reference to garments acquired as a result of her becoming defiled. The removal is to take place by means of eradicating the traces of her sins through penitence, self-flagellation, etc. וישבה בביתך, "and she is to dwell in your house, etc," during which time she is to confess her sins and weep in sorrow over all the trespasses she has committed against her father and mother, i.e. against G'd and the community of Israel whose traditions she has flouted (compare Berachot 35). ירח ימים, "for a full month," which is sufficient for this purpose. The Torah may have in mind the month of Elul which our sages set aside for penitence prior to the Day of Judgment, Rosh Hashanah.

ואחר כן תבא אליה, "after that you may join her, etc." You are now permitted to benefit from her spiritual light. This is the mystical dimension of Proverbs 16,26: נפש עמל, עמלה לו, "when someone toils for his soul, he toils on behalf of his true self." This will assist him to remain on the correct path. ובעלתה, "and you have become her master." The reason the Torah describes you as her master is because the moral strength of your actions has rehabilitated her. Eventually, this soul will once more inhabit your body and remain in it performing the task assigned to it. This is what the Torah means with the words והיתה לך לאשה, "she may become your wife.

The Torah now spells out the alternative. If the man does not make an effort to rehabilitate his soul so that she will radiate the spiritual light she was meant to radiate within him, the very least he must do is to make sure that her status will not deteriorate further. Solomon said in Kohelet 12,7: "and the spirit returns to G'd who gave it." Our sages in Shabbat 152 comment on this that the reason Solomon added the word "who gave it" [something which is obvious if we speak about "returning" something, Ed.], is to remind us that it must be returned in the mint condition in which we received it from G'd. אם לא חפצת בה ושלחתה לנפשה, "If you do not desire her you must send her away to be on her own." This means that you must not hand her over to a prison guard but to give her her freedom.

It is also possible that these words may be understood in light of what we learned in the Zohar volume three page 67 on Isaiah 26,9: נפשי אויתיך בלילה, "at night my soul yearns for You." The word נפשי represents the שכינה, G'd's Presence. Accordingly, the meaning of the Torah is that the captor must release the captive to return to G'd, the place this soul originally came from. ומכור לא תמכרנה, "but you must not sell her;" this too may be understood in light of the comment of the Zohar volume two page 97 on Exodus 21,8: לעם נכרי לא ימשל למכרה, "he does not have the power to sell her to an alien people." To the Zohar the operative word in our verse is the word בכסף. The word is derived from kosseph, something one desires greatly. The problem with most people is that they sell their souls to the enemy (Satan) in return for material things which they urgently aspire to i.e. כוסף. The Torah issues a warning not to sell something of permanent value in return for something of transient value. We have ourselves mentioned that the word כסף alludes to such imaginary values which a person craves when we explained Leviticus 25,37: "you must not give him your money against interest." לא תתעמר בה, "you must not enslave her." Onkelos understands this to mean that you must not provoke mental anguish in her, i.e. in the soul of the sinner; in terms of the soul, sin is called ענוי, affliction. After all, it is you who have caused her to sin, עינית.

ועשת את צפרניה means, AND SHE SHALL LET GROW HER NAILS — She must let them grow, so that she should becomes repulsive to her captor (cf. Sifrei Devarim 212:4; Yevamot 48a; see also Rashi on Genesis 1:7 and our Note thereon).

V’ASETHAH’ HER NAILS. “She shall ‘let them grow,’ [the reason being] that she should become repulsive.” This is Rashi’s language which accords with the words of Rabbi Akiba,³Sifre, Ki Theitzei 212. and so did Onkelos explain it [“and she shall let her nails grow”]. Now, according to their opinion the word v’asethah will be like ‘v’asath’ (and it shall bring forth) the produce,⁵Leviticus 25:21. for “growth” is termed asiyah (doing). But in the Sifre³Sifre, Ki Theitzei 212. there is stated a proof to the words of Rabbi Eliezer [who explains ‘v’asethah’ her nails — and “she shall cut” her nails] from the following verse, and he [Mephibosheth] had neither ‘asah’ (dressed) his feet [i.e., cut the nails] nor ‘asah’ (trimmed) his beard.⁶II Samuel 19:25. And this is indeed a great proof!
Therefore I say that these are all regulations of mourning, all connected with the expression, and she shall bewail her father and mother.⁷Verse 13. Thus he commanded that she shall shave her head,⁸In Verse 12 before us. similar to what is written of Job [when he heard of the death of his children], and he shaved his head,⁹Job 1:20. and so also, cut off thy hair, [and cast it away, and take up a lamentation].¹⁰Jeremiah 7:29. So, too, the cutting of nails is a form of mourning like the shaving of the head. He states, and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her,⁷Verse 13. that is to say, she shall don the garments of mourning, and she shall remain in thy house⁷Verse 13. like a widow and not go outside at all, and she shall bewail her father and her mother,⁷Verse 13. doing all this a full month, for such is the custom of mourners.
And in the opinion of our Rabbis¹¹Sifre, Ki Theitzei 213. who say that all [these regulations] were intended to mar her beauty [the sense of the verses is as follows]: He commanded that she remove her beautiful garments, for [among] the heathens — accursed ones — their daughters adorned themselves in wartime in order to entice [the enemy] after them. She is to shave her head, which is considered a great disgrace, and pare her nails, for the custom of women is to let them grow and paint them with forms of stibium or other tints. And Scripture denotes the paring of a thing with the term asiah [“making” — ‘v’asethah’ her nails] because people cut the hair of the legs and the upper lip, as well as the nails when they grow [thus “making” and putting them in order].
It appears to me that [the term asiah in this connection] is an abbreviated expression, [Scripture] being accustomed to speak briefly concerning a self-evident matter. The sense of the verse, and he had neither ‘asah’ his feet nor ‘asah’ his beard⁶II Samuel 19:25. is that he [Mephibosheth] had not “done” what was appropriate to be done to them, alluding to the shaving of the hair on the legs and the beard, or to the washing of the feet themselves. Such also is the opinion of Yonathan ben Uziel who rendered the verse, “he did not wash his feet nor trim his beard.” So also ‘v’asethah’ her nails means “and she shall do that which is done with the nails “[i.e., paring them]. And the commentators¹²Ibn Ezra [on the verse before us] and Rashi on the verse in II Samuel 19:25. have said that the meaning of the term asiah is “setting in order.” And such is the meaning of the expression, and he hastened ‘la’asoth’ (to dress) it.¹³Genesis 18:7.
And the reason for this section [i.e. of all these regulations] is that she is converted against her will, and no one asks her whether she is willing to abandon her religion and become Jewish as is [customarily] done with proselytes. Instead, the [future] husband tells her that she must observe the law of Israel against her will and abandon her gods. This is the reason for the verse, and she shall bewail her father and her mother a full month,⁷Verse 13. because she abandons her people and her gods.¹⁴See Ruth 1:8. This is the interpretation of Rabbi Akiba¹⁵Sifre, Ki Theitzei 213 and Yebamoth 48b. who says that her father means only the idols, similar to what is said, They say to a stock, ‘thou art my father,’ and to a stone, ‘thou hast brought us forth.’¹⁶Jeremiah 2:27. In general, then, she is mourning because she is leaving her religion and joining another people. It is possible that the court imposes upon her to undergo immersion [in a ritual pool for the purpose of conversion] against her will just as is done with [Canaanite] bondmen,¹⁷A Canaanite bondman sold to an Israelite had to undergo circumcision and immersion, and he was obligated in the observance of certain commandments. When liberated he assumed the status of a full-fledged Israelite. and because she does not convert to Judaism through the normal procedure, Scripture removed her [from her master] all this time.
Now, the reason for [her] mourning and bewailing [which Scripture commanded] according to the opinion of our Rabbis¹⁵Sifre, Ki Theitzei 213 and Yebamoth 48b. is in order that she should become repulsive, so that his desire for her may wane. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that the Torah assigned her a period [of mourning] in accordance with the custom of those who weep for the dead in honor of her father and her mother who died in the battle. And the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim¹⁸Guide of the Perplexed III, 41 (at the end). that this regulation was out of compassion for her, that she find comfort for herself, for those in misery find comfort and calm in their weeping and mourning, and during that time he must not force her to leave her religion, nor may he cohabit with her.
In my opinion this respite is not primarily intended to show compassion for her, but to eliminate the names of idols from her mouth and her heart. The wandering away and separation from her father and her mother and her people will further “quench the coal,”¹⁹See II Samuel 14:7. I.e., the extinguishing of the hope. for it is improper to cohabit with a woman who is coerced and in mourning. This is similar to the case our Rabbis, of blessed memory, have mentioned²⁰Nedarim 20b. See also Rashbam in Pesachim 112a (at end of page) that children born of such a union are tantamount to being illegitimate although legally they are not so considered. with respect to illegitimates, “children born of a wife whose husband has decided to divorce her,” and surely of this captive woman who cries out in her heart to her gods to save her and bring her back unto her people and unto her gods.²¹Ruth 1:15. Thus when they inform her that we will force her to give up her people and her native land, and convert to Judaism, we must tell her, “Be comforted for thy father and thy mother, and the land of thy nativity²²Ibid., 2:11. whom ye shall not see any more, forever,²³Exodus 14:13. but, instead, be your master’s wife,²⁴See Genesis 24:51. in accordance with the law of Moses and Jewish custom.”²⁵Kethuboth 72a. Then we are to give her a time for weeping and mourning as is the way of mourners in order to assuage her sorrow and her longing, for in all sorrow there is profit²⁶Proverbs 14:23. and consolation afterwards. Now, during that time she has pondered in her mind about the conversion, and has partly eradicated from her heart her idols, people, and native land, she has consoled herself for them and has attached herself to this man to whom she knows she will become [a wife] and has become accustomed to him. Therefore Scripture states, and thou shalt bring her to thy house,⁸In Verse 12 before us. which the Rabbis have interpreted:³Sifre, Ki Theitzei 212. “To thy house — and not to the house of another person.” Similarly, and she shall remain in thy house⁷Verse 13. meaning that all this time she is to stay in the house which he uses, [for the reason that] perhaps she will desire and consent to [marry] him.²⁷One cannot help but express a deep reverence for the compassionate interpretation Ramban has given to this section. And in general, all these regulations are on account of the compulsion, but if she voluntarily expresses a desire to be legally converted by the court, she is immediately permitted to him, or even to his father or his brother. And thus the Rabbis have said in the Chapter Hacholeitz:²⁸“If a man submits to Chalitzah.” — Yebamoth 47b. “And she shall bewail her father and her mother a full month.⁷Verse 13. This applies only if she did not take it upon herself [to be converted,] but if she took it upon herself, she undergoes immersion and is permitted immediately.” It is possible that with all prisoners of war we are to act according to this law [even if she wishes to convert], because she might express her desire to be converted [at once] out of fear [of the regulations mentioned in this section. Therefore, we must question the sincerity of her expressed desire to convert].
He states, And it shall be, if thou have no desire for her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will,²⁹Verse 14. meaning that she may do as she wishes and we must not force her to observe the law of Moses and Jewish custom. For, if she converts voluntarily we may compel her to observe the Torah, and if she profanes the Sabbath [by doing forbidden work thereon] she is to be stoned, and if she eats swine’s flesh she is to be scourged, as is the law of an apostate Israelite.³⁰See Vol. II, p. 160. Moreover, if she herself confessed that the conversion was not coerced, we may not let her go as she wishes, for even if we suspect that her conversion was due to fear, her status is that of a true Israelite woman, for we have already decided the law³¹Yebamoth 24b. that all [who are converted whether out of fear or gain] have the status of proselytes.

The word "within" teaches us a second understanding of bringing her into his home, namely, in order to learn the customs of Judaism before she converts.

וגלחה את ראשה, “he shall shave her head.” This may cool his ardor if he had been especially attracted by her hair. Other commentators consider this a ritual similar to the purification rites performed by someone purifying himself from the tzoraat disease when all body hair must be removed as part of the process. (Leviticus 14,8)

She must allow them to grow so that she becomes ugly. See [Rashi on] parshas Bereishis (1:7) on the verse, “Elohim made the canopy.”

והבאת אל תוך ביתך, ”you will bring her inside your house.” According to the Talmud, tractate Kidushin folio 22, this means that after you had been intimate with her once, you must not do so again until after the procedures described in the verses that follow. Thus far the text in the Talmud as understood by Rashi. According to the version in the Jerusalem Talmud, however, even the first act of intimacy had been forbidden. The soldier cannot legally cohabit with her until all the details described in the Torah have been carried out. There are commentators who understand the words of Rashi, to not treat her harshly, to mean: “do not deprive her of the garments that she wore at the time of her capture.” [It is assumed that she had worn her best clothes so as to find favour in the eyes of any potential captor so that he would not kill her. Ed.] This is hinted at by the sequence of the verses here where she has been described as being brought into her captor’s house before undergoing a change of clothing in verse 13.

וגלחה את ראשה, “she is to shave off the hair of her head.” This is parallel to the rites observed by a person afflicted with the skin disease known as tzoraat prior to that person regaining a status of ritual purity. (Leviticus 14,9) Even Levites, prior to their appointment to their new status, had to do this, as it is a symbolic way of advancing to a level of holiness from the level of profaneness. (Numbers 8,7) Whatever can be removed from that prisoner while she was still a gentile must be removed before she can become a member of a holy nation. Hence both hair and nails have to be removed.

ועשתה את צפרניה, “she must pare her nails.” When speaking of paring nails, the Torah does not use the term: “shave,” but uses a term which implies that the result will be an improvement in one’s appearance. We are familiar with a parallel to this from Samuel II 19,25: לא עשה את שפמו ולא עשה את רגליו, “he had not trimmed his mustache or pared his toe nails (as a sign of mourning or distress).” This is how Rabbi Eliezer in the Sifri interprets our verse.

והסירה את שמלת שביה AND SHE SHALL REMOVE THE RAIMENT OF HER CAPTIVITY — the reason is because these are fine clothes, for the women of the heathen peoples adorned themselves in time of war in order to lure others (the enemy) to unchastity with them (Sifrei Devarim 213:1).

AND AFTER THAT THOU MAYEST COME UNTO HER, AND BE HER HUSBAND. The Rabbis have commented in the Sifre:¹⁵Sifre, Ki Theitzei 213 and Yebamoth 48b. “You have no privilege in her except cohabitation.” By this the Rabbis meant to say that betrothal with money or a writ³²This is a document stating. “Be thou betrothed to me,” and if he delivers it to her in the presence of two witnesses, she becomes his lawful wife. Thus, a legally permitted betrothal may be performed by one of those three means: money, a writ, or intercourse (Kiddushin 2a). is not binding on her. Even the cohabitation is not for the purpose of betrothal, since her status is still that of an idolatress upon whom betrothal is not binding; however, Scripture permitted him to cohabit with her.³³Thus, if she refused voluntary conversion at the expiration of the thirty-day mourning period, explained in the preceding verse, she is not legally bound to the man who cohabited with her. And because Scripture states [at the expiration of the thirty-day mourning period], and she shall be thy wife,³⁴In Verse 13 before us. it indicates that she becomes his real wife, and if she commits adultery while living with him, she is to be tried as a married woman. Thus the Rabbis have said in the Gemara of Tractate Kiddushin:³⁵Kiddushin 22a. “And thou wouldest take her to thee to wife.³⁶Verse 11. You have possession of her [through legal marriage],” that is, after following these regulations. And in the Sifre the Rabbis have said,¹⁵Sifre, Ki Theitzei 213 and Yebamoth 48b. “And she shall be thy wife,³⁴In Verse 13 before us. similar to what is stated, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, he shall not diminish.”³⁷Exodus 21:9. If so, she is his wife in all respects seeing that the Torah gave him possession of her.
And in line with the simple meaning of Scripture it appears that he is prohibited from cohabiting with her at all until after he has gone through this entire procedure, this being the sense of the expression, and after that thou mayest come unto her, and be her husband. And that which Scripture stated, and thou desirest her, and thou wouldest take her to thee to wife,³⁶Verse 11. means that he would take her for his wife after [complying with] all these regulations which it will command. Similarly, so that I took her to be my wife³⁸Genesis 12:19. [means that Pharaoh took her to his house to be his wife]. However, in the Gemara of Tractate Kiddushin³⁹Kiddushin 21b. the Rabbis have said that he is permitted to engage in the first cohabitation [even before the procedure prescribed in this section], this being the sense of the expression, and thou wouldest take her to thee to wife.³⁶Verse 11. They interpreted the expression, “And thou shalt bring her home to thy house⁴⁰Verse 12. — this teaches that he is not to coerce her during battle.” The Rabbis connected it with the verse above, and thou wouldest take her to thee to wife [stated in Verse 11] meaning, when thou shalt bring her home to thy house [Verse 12]. Thus he takes her captive in battle and brings her to his home and to his city, and he cohabits with her in order to bring his lustful heart under control,⁴¹See Ezekiel 6:9. and after his first cohabitation she is prohibited to him until he follows through the entire procedure with her. This is the way of the Gemara in many places. But I have seen in the Yerushalmi of Tractate Sanhedrin:⁴²In our text of the Yerushalmi it is found in Makkoth II, 6. “Rabbi Yochanan sent to the Rabbis there [in Babylon],⁴³Rabbi Yochanan was the leading Rabbi of Amoraim in the Land of Israel during the generation following the death of Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi, redactor of the Mishnah. His contemporary in Babylon was Rav, leader of the Academy of Sura. ‘You say two things in the name of Rav which are not so. You say in the name of Rav, a beautiful woman was permitted only for the first cohabitation [prior to the prescribed procedure].’ And I say neither the first cohabitation nor the second is permitted save only after [complying with] all these regulations, [for it is written], and after that thou mayest come unto her, and be her husband — after she has gone through all these prescribed deeds.” And this is the plain sense of the verse.

ובכתה את אביה ואת אמה, to get her father and mother out of her system and reconciling herself to the fact that henceforth she would live in the Land of Israel, have no more contact with her parents. (whether they are dead or alive) Similar wording occurs in Psalms 45,11 שכחי עמך, the psalmist urging the Jewish people, compared to a princess, to forget their former environment and associates as she had been promoted to a loftier position. The prisoner of war described here as embracing Judaism has similarly been promoted to a far superior environment, severing her previous relationships completely. The weeping mentioned in our verse has nothing to do with the death of her parents for we do not kill mothers altogether. She weeps for having no longer a father and mother in the legal sense as these did not convert. Any other convert, not a prisoner of war, would similarly weep for this separation having occurred in her life as a result of her new status.

A moon of days. The Torah does not simply state, “month” to teach that just as the light of the moon is inferior to the light of the sun, so too the non-Jew is less desirable than a Jewish woman.

והסירה את שמלת שביה, in order to make her appear less attractive.

ובכתה, “she shall weep, etc.;” all this is designed to cool her suitor’s ardor and make her look physically unattractive. Nachmanides writes that all the regulations listed in our paragraph stem from the fact that she undergoes a reluctant conversion on her part. It is quite possible that the local religious authorities forced her to undergo ritual immersion, and that the period of thirty days before the marriage and true conversion can be performed give her time to become reconciled to her new situation. Ibn Ezra writes that the Torah granted her all this time to mourn properly for her parents, who may be presumed to have died during the war. Alternatively, she weeps in mourning for her parents who because they did not convert are no longer considered her kin. Maimonides writes in his Moreh Nevuchim section 3, chapter 41 that the Torah decrees the weeping as an emotional outlet for her enforced situation. It is a psychologically recognized fact that an extended period of weeping brings about a catharsis enabling her to come to terms with unwelcome new facts of life. During that month she is not required to address the duties that her marriage now imposes on her vis a vis her husband. Personally, (Nachmanides writing) the weeping has nothing to do with the Torah expressing compassion for this woman, but it provides a period during which she shall be weaned form the idolatrous practices and convictions that she grew up with. She must learn to refrain from using the names of her deities in her daily conversation, etc., as our sages have said in connection with mamzerim, bastards, as it is most unseemly for even a “husband” to engage in sexual relations with his wife when she is forced to submit to this, or when she is in a state of mourning That time is set aside for her to come to terms with the loss she has experienced. This period of thirty days enables her to make the emotional transition, to adjust to her new husband, who has presumably saved her life by taking her under his protection during that war that preceded these various rites. This is why the Torah describes what follows as her new husband sleeping with her as an act of marrying her, and bringing her into his house. If she wanted to convert sooner and dissociate herself from her past completely, she is at liberty to do so.

As they are attractive, etc. Rashi is answering [the question]: It is not the way of the world for people to wear unappealing clothing on the road so that [their] attractive clothing does not become dirty? If so, she should not remove these clothes so that she becomes repulsive to him! He explains that the way of the Israelite nation is certainly so, that they wear unappealing clothing when they go out on the road, but “the young gentile women, etc.”

והסירה את שמלת שביה, “and she is to remove the outer garment she wore when taken prisoner;” this was a garment she wore while worshipping her idols. We have examples in the Bible of such garments having to be scrapped in Genesis 35,2, where Yaakov commands his family members to scrap the captured garments they were wearing, which had originated in the city of Sh’chem. Anything that she was able to remove, which was a reminder of when she worshipped idols, had to be removed and destroyed.

וישבה בביתך AND SHE SHALL DWELL IN “THY” HOUSE — [not in the women’s apartments, but] in the house which he constantly uses: when he goes in he stumbles upon her, when he leaves he stumbles upon her (i.e. he cannot avoid meeting her constantly and the novelty of her beauty wears off); he sees her endless crying, sees her neglected appearance — and all this in order that she should become repulsive to him (Sifrei Devarim 213:2).

ואחר כן תבא אליה ובעלתה, “and after this period has elapsed you may come to her and sleep with her.” Nachmanides writes that the plain meaning of this verse is that her “husband, captor,” had been forbidden to have marital relations with her until all the procedures listed have been completed. Although with natural born Jewish women a binding marriage ceremony can be by means of a written contract or by the woman excepting some money or equivalent, according to Sifri these methods do not apply in the case of a prisoner of war of pagan background. Even sexual intercourse for a purpose other than to seal a marriage contract would not achieve this, as she was a gentile, and there is no such thing as marriage to gentiles, seeing the wedding includes a sacred, holy element, something that as long as she is not Jewish, this woman could not be capable of. The Torah had consented to the soldier sleeping with a prisoner with whom he was infatuated, but that does not make her his wife, not even to the exclusion of other suitors. Once she has converted, however, she is subject to Jewish law in all respects, and marital infidelity, for instance would be punishable by strangulation.

In the home he makes use of, etc. Rashi is answering the question: The verse should only have said “and she should sit and weep for her father and her mother,” since obviously she is in your house, for above it is written, “You will bring her into your house”! He answers that you might have thought that if he had two or three houses and lived in only one of them, she may sit in the one that he does not live. Therefore it says, “She will remain in your home,” [i.e.,] “in the home he makes use of,” meaning in the place that is his primary residence.

There was no need for the Torah to add that her body too must undergo an immersion in a ritual bath, Such a rule had already been made plain in Numbers 31,19 where the Jewish soldiers returning from the penal expedition against Midian had to undergo bodily purification for seven days as they had been in contact with dead bodies of Midianites.

ובכתה את אביה AND SHE SHALL WEEP FOR HER FATHER [AND HER MOTHER A FULL MONTH] — Why all this? In order to make a contrast — that while the Jewish woman (the captor’s Jewish wife) is gladsome, she should be downhearted, while the Jewish woman adorns herself, this one should bear a neglected appearance (Sifrei Devarim 213:5).

Why to such an extent? So that the Israelite daughter, etc. I.e., why does the Torah say that she should mourn over her idolatrous father and weep? She is [now] a convert! Rashi answers that this crying is not on account of her father’s honor, but “so that, etc.”

ובכתה את אביה ואת אמה, “and she is to observe a period of weeping (mourning) for her father and mother.” Weeping helps a person release feelings that had been suppressed. This will help her get over the loss of her parents.

She may have assumed that her parents had died during the fighting. (Ibn Ezra)

ואחר כן תבא אליה, “after all this, her captor may join her and marry her.” He is not allowed to have carnal relations with her before this. It would be in very bad taste to indulge in carnal relations with such a prisoner while she was weeping for her parents, and you were enjoying her body.

והיה אם לא חפצת בה AND IT SHALL BE, IF THOU ART NOT PLEASED WITH HER — Scripture tell you that you will in the end hate her (Sifrei Devarim 214:1).

[AND IT SHALL BE, IF THOU HAVE NO DESIRE FOR HER,] THEN THOU SHALT LET HER GO WHITHER SHE WILL. The Rabbis have said thereon in the Sifre:⁴⁴Sifre, Ki Theitzei 214. “But not to her fathers’ house.” Now, I do not know whether the intent thereof is to state that she is a Jewess and that we do not allow her to leave the law of Israel and go back unto her people, and unto her gods,²¹Ruth 1:15. or whether it means to state that he is not to send her to her father’s house with attendants, for in that case he would be assisting those who commit a transgression. Instead he is to send her out of his house to sojourn wherever she could find a place,⁴⁵Judges 17:8. for perhaps she will remain in the Land and follow the young men⁴⁶Ruth 3:10. and be married to one of them. Now, since Scripture states that he is to let her go where she pleases, and warns that he not sell her for money and that he not treat her as a slave,⁴⁷In Verse 14 before us. we deduce that she needs no divorce from him. Rather, Scripture considered her to be a married woman as long as she was with him; when he hates her he may send her away like a rape victim.⁴⁸Thus the question raised by Ramban at the beginning of this section [whether she is considered a Jewess or not — see text] is resolved in favor of the second alternative: she is not considered a Jewess, and is not required to be released from him by a divorce.
It is possible that the sense of the verse is to state that, if he cohabits with her and desires her, she shall become his wife. If he cohabits with her, however, and she is not enticing to him and he does not desire her, similar to the affair of Amnon with Tamar,⁴⁹II Samuel 13:15. he must let her go where she pleases, everything depending upon this cohabitation. For, if after he cohabited with her [the first time] she tarried with him for days and he cohabited with her, and then changes his attitude and hates her, like a man who hates his wife, she had already become his wife, and thus she is Jewish and can be sent away only with a bill of divorce.⁵⁰Further, 24:1.

לא תתעמר, an expression used to describe slave trade, trade in human beings. (Compare 24,7)

ושלחתה לנפשה, “you will send her away on her own, etc.” Nachmanides views this instruction as indicating that the husband does not have to give that woman a formal decree of divorce. This is why the Torah has to warn him not to sell her as a slave, nor treat her as one treats a maidservant. As long as she is his wife she enjoys all the privileges a wife is entitled to. If he has started to hate her, he must release her to fend on her own as if he had raped her, [the victim of a rape cannot be forced to live with her rapist unless she consents as his wife, who is then protected by her husband not being allowed to divorce her, ever. Deut. 22. 28-29 Ed.] It is possible that the message of this verse is that if, when this captor sleeps with this woman as an expression of his wanting to marry her, all well and good. However, if he sleeps with her without commitment and she is no longer desirable for him, he must release her unconditionally. Her future relationship to her captor depends entirely on the nature of his sleeping with her once this had been permitted according to Torah law. If the relationship turns sour after she had become his wife, she is entitled to a decree of divorce just like any married woman.

Scripture informs you that you will ultimately hate her. Re”m writes: I do not know from where they expound this, etc. It seems [to me] that they expound this because it is written, והיה אם וגו', (But it shall come to pass, etc.)” and the wordוהיה is an expression of certainty [that he will hate her], and therefore they expound what they expound. You cannot say that (והיה) refers to the end of the verse [and it means that he must certainly send her away], because [if so], it should have said “אם לא תחפוץ (If you will not desire her),” in the future tense, and not “חפצת (lit. you did not want)” in the past tense. Therefore [it means] “Scripture informs you, etc.” You might ask that Rashi [already] explained above (v. 11), “However, if he does marry her, he will ultimately hate her, etc.” If so, why do we need [this verse] “but it shall come to pass, etc.” to inform of this; it is [already learnt] from the juxtaposition of these sections as Rashi explained above? The answer is in accordance to Tosefos’ explanation of Rashi, and Re”m cites this in his book and discusses it there at length, that Rashi explains in the first chapter of Kiddushin (22a): The Torah does not permit him [to have] even the first intimate relations [with her] except after doing all these actions [including marrying her]. It seems that the verse too supports him because it is written, “And afterwards you may come to her and consummate with her,” and it says afterwards, “And she will become your wife,” [implying that with this first consummation she becomes his wife]. If so, we can say that the verse, “But it shall come to pass, that if you do not desire her,” is saying that he should not even have this first marital relations with her. And from the juxtaposition of these sections we learn that beginning with the second [instance of] intimate relations and onward, that if he takes her, and forcibly converts her and takes her as a wife [for the long term], “he will ultimately hate her, etc.”

לא תתעמר בה, [the Torah now addresses the soldier, Ed] “do not treat her as a slave;” this verb is used for treating merchandise. The Torah warns the husband, or ex husband, of this prisoner of war, not to treat that woman as if she were merely chattel to be sold; (verse 24)

לא תתעמר בה means; THOU SHALT NOT USE HER AS A SLAVE. In the Persian language slavery and servitude is termed עימראה. I learned this from the work of R. Moses the Preacher.

אשר עניתה, according to the plain meaning this refers to sexual intercourse for the purpose of marriage.

לא תתעמר בה, “you must not enslave her;” Nachmanides writes, referring to Onkelos on 24,7 where he understands the letter ו in the word ומכרו as ”and,” not ”or,” that the term תתעמר does not mean that the former husband now keeps her in his household as a slave, but that he sells her in the slave market for money, treats her as chattel. Our sages (Sifri on 24,7) state that selling is not culpable until the new owner has made personal use of the newly acquired slave. They see in the word התעמר a reference to ingathering of a harvest, for instance, converting a potential into an actual. Nachmanides, personally, feels that the word corres-ponds to its plain meaning, as if it had been written with the letter א instead of ע, as it appears in Psalms 94,4 where it portrays arrogant, haughty conduct that characterizes those that not only sin but boast about it. Nachmanides quotes instances when the letters א and ע are used interchangeably.

THOU SHALT NOT ‘THITH’AMEIR’ (DEAL AS A SLAVE) WITH HER. This is like the expression ‘v’hith’amer’ (and he deal with him as a slave), and sell him.⁵¹Ibid., Verse 7. Onkelos in both cases rendered it as an expression of “trading,” and our Rabbis in the Sifre⁴⁴Sifre, Ki Theitzei 214. and in the Gemara⁵²Sanhedrin 88b. explained it as a term of “serving.” Thus it is an express negative commandment⁵³See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 249-250. against making any use of her as a bondmaid, and if he did put her to such service he is to be scourged.
It appears to me in line with the simple meaning of Scripture that thou shalt not ‘thith’ameir’ [spelled with an a’yin] is like “thou shalt not thith’ameir” [spelled with an aleph], as in the expression, all the workers of iniquity ‘yith’amru’ (bear themselves loftily).⁵⁴Psalms 94:4. The word yith’amru is spelled with an aleph. So also, Thou hast ‘he’emarta’ (acknowledged) the Eternal this day;⁵⁵Further, 26:17. He’emarta is written with an aleph. and in their splendor ‘thith’yamaru’ (you shall gain grandeur)⁵⁶Isaiah 61:6. — exchanging the aleph for a yod — are all expressions of exaltedness and greatness. ‘He’emarta’ the Eternal this day⁵⁵Further, 26:17. He’emarta is written with an aleph. means that “you have exalted and magnified Him to be thy G-d.”⁵⁵Further, 26:17. He’emarta is written with an aleph. And the Eternal ‘he’emircha’ this day⁵⁷Further, 26:18. He’emircha is written with an aleph. means that “He exalted and magnified you above all peoples to be His own treasure.”⁵⁷Further, 26:18. He’emircha is written with an aleph. All of these expressions are derived from the phrase in the top ‘amir’ (of the uppermost bough).⁵⁸Isaiah 17:6. Amir is written with an aleph. Thus the verse here states, “Do not exalt yourself nor magnify yourself, by acting as her master to sell her or to use her as a bondmaid. Similarly in Arabic they call a master amir. And the usage of the a’yin and the aleph is often identical in the [Sacred] Language. ‘Peda’eihu’ (deliver him) from going down the pit⁵⁹Job 33:24. [the word peda’eihu spelled with an a’yin] is like peda’eihu [spelled with an aleph — “deliver him”], as I have explained with reference to the word petha (suddenly).⁶⁰Numbers 12:4. So also, cherubim of ‘tza’atzuim’ work⁶¹II Chronicles 3:10. [written with an a’yin] is like [the same word spelled] with an aleph, from the word ‘hatze’etzaim v’hatzfioth’⁶²Isaiah 22:24. meaning “the sons and the daughters,” for [Onkelos] translated the Hebrew word keruvim (cherubim) as k’ruvaya⁶³Genesis 3:24. See also Vol. II, p. 450. [“like children” — and hence cherubim of ‘tza’atzuim’ work⁶¹II Chronicles 3:10. written with an a’yin is identical to the same word written with an aleph, thus meaning “work in the image of children”]. And in the language of the Sages [the a’yin and aleph] are used interchangeably, such as: omdoth (appraised) written with an a’yin, and omdoth written with an aleph;⁶⁴Yerushalmi Nazir, end of Chapter IX. Both usages are found there. — See my Hebrew commentary, p. 444, Note 65. beki’in (experts) written with an aleph, and beki’in written with an a’yin;⁶⁵See my Hebrew commentary p. 444, Note 66. adin (yet) written with an a’yin and adin written with an aleph;⁶⁶See ibid., Note 67. orchei (advocates) who advise their clients on how to plead before the judges,⁶⁷Aboth 1:8. written with an a’yin and archi (a court)⁶⁸Kiddushin 76a. written with an aleph; aris⁶⁹See my Hebrew commentary p. 444, Note 69. (a share cropper) written with an a’yin and aris written with an aleph. And we are taught [in the Mishnah]:⁷⁰Shabbath 76b. “Milk enough for gmiah [“a gulp” — if enough milk for one gulp was taken from one domain to another on the Sabbath, whoever took it is culpable]. And in the Gemara⁷¹Ibid., 77a. they asked: “Is the word gmiah written with an a’yin or an aleph, and the Rabbis resolved it by quoting the verse, ‘hagmi’ini’ (give me to drink), I pray thee, a little water⁷²Genesis 24:17. [the word hagmi’ini written with an aleph] and yet they use the same term m’gama (taking a drought) written with an a’yin, such as: “[If his teeth pain him he should not] quaff vinegar through his teeth and spit it out but m’gameia (he may take a quaff) and swallow it” [the word m’gameia written with an a’yin]. And in the Mishnah of Tractate Keilim in the Tosephta⁷³See Vol. III, p. 179, Note 124. thereof we are taught⁷⁴Tosephta Keilim Baba Bathra 3:5. concerning a mardeia (the handle of the plough) written with an aleph⁷⁵In our version of the Tosephta, though it is written with an a’yin. in place of mardeia written with an a’yin. Thus the Rabbis were not at all concerned about interchanging these two letters [the aleph and the a’yin], and so also in many places.
Now, Rashi wrote: “Thou shalt not ‘thith’ameir’ with her — you shall not use her as a slave. In the Persian language, work and service are termed amirah. I have learned this from the work of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher.”⁷⁶See Vol. IV, p. 62, Note 146. This is true, for I have seen in the Yerushalmi in [Tractate Shabbath] Chapter “Rabbi Akiba said”⁷⁷Yerushalmi Shabbath IX, 1. and in [Tractate Abodah Zarah] Chapter “All Images”⁷⁸Yerushalmi Abodah Zarah III, 6. It is not found there in our text of the Yerushalmi. the following text: “There [in Babylon] they call a good worker amira.” It is also commonly used in the Aramaic language, as is written in the Scroll of Susanna:⁷⁹One of the books of the Apocrypha. See in Ramban’s Introduction to the Commentary on the Torah (Vol. I, p. 12) where he refers to The Great Wisdom of Solomon, another of the books of the Apocrypha. In our version of the Apocrypha the text referred to here by Ramban is found, with changes, in Judith 1:8. “And the king of Assyria sent to all amira (servants) of Nineveh and to all d’amrin (who serve) on the sea coast, and to the servant of Carmel and Gilead [to come with him to the war], but all the servants of the land disregarded the commandment of Nebuchadnezzar and they were not afraid of him.” So also in many places of that book the inhabitants of a land are called “amurei of the land,” meaning those who are servants to the land and make use thereof. Or it may mean that the king of Assyria commanded the soldiers, these being called “the servants of the land,” for they are subject to the king to go with him in his wars, and they are his soldiers and his horsemen, similar to the expressions: they ‘served’ Chedorlaomer;⁸⁰Genesis 14:4. and many nations shall ‘serve’ him.⁸¹Jeremiah 27:7.

תחת אשר עניתה, “seeing that you have already humbled her.” These words still refer to the line: ושלחתה לנפשה, “you shall let her go her own way;”

BECAUSE THOU HAST HUMBLED HER. The Rabbis interpreted it in the Sifre:⁴⁴Sifre, Ki Theitzei 214. “Even after a single act.” This coincides with what we have mentioned that the Rabbis are of the opinion that he is permitted to engage in the first cohabitation with her as soon as he brings her to his home. From that moment on he is admonished against using her [as a slave] and against selling her.

כי תהיינה לאיש שתי נשים, after the victory in war the Torah addresses internal matters in the Jewish state. The most important ones are interpersonal relationships with wives, children, livestock, jewelry, hunting for food, building homes, tilling the soil and matters related to clothing.

והיה הבן הבכר לשניאה, "and the firstborn son is from the wife whom you hate." The Torah does not describe this as merely a possibility but assumes as a fact that the firstborn son from these two marriages will be that of the wife who is hated. It is similar to Genesis 29,31 where the Torah told us that G'd opened Leah's womb because she was hated by her husband. G'd always looks out for those who suffer from a broken heart.

כי תהיין לאיש שתי נשים, האחת אהובה, “When a man has two wives, one of whom he loves, etc.” This does not mean that he actually hates one of his wives, but it is inevitable that when one has two wives that one must love one better that the other, and the other is described as the one that “he hates.” Each of the two wives (in any marriage) employs devious means including sorcery to become her husband’s favourite.

V. 15. כי תהיין וגו׳. Das vorangehende יפת תואר-Gesetz statuiert als Ausnahmsfall für Ausnahmszustände die Zulassung bloß sinnlicher Eindrücke als leitende Gründe bei einer Gattinwahl. Daran schließt sich warnend das Problem von einem unter Sympathien und Antipathien sich trübenden Verhältnis von Gatten und Eltern und Kindern unter einander, Missstimmungen, die durch ungleiche Erbteilungen auf Geschlechter hinab von einem Namen getragene Familienzweige in gehässiger Feindschaft zu entzweien vermögen. Bei der unendlichen Mannigfaltigkeit der Verhältnisse und Persönlichkeiten räumt, wie wir sehen werden, das Gesetz dem Vater einen weiten Spielraum der Befugnis zur Vermögensteilung unter seine Erben ein, gibt aber zugleich durch die Schranke, die es derselben setzt, einen Wink, von dieser Befugnis nur mit weisester Beschränkung Gebrauch zu machen.

When a man has. Thus [these] portions [of marriage to a captured maiden, of the loved/unloved son, and of the rebellious son] are connected to to teach that “a sin causes [one to commit] another sin,” that by taking the beautiful [captured maiden], he would have two wives and they would fight within the household and hate one another. And what is written afterwards [are the laws concerning] a man’s rebellious ad wayward son, and thus we find in the case of David who took [Maacah] the daughter of Talmi, the King of Gashur, at the end of their battle, and [together] they bore [a son] Absalom, who [as it would turn out] tried to kill David and slept with his wives (i.e. concubines), and because of his hand many Israelites were killed.

כי תהיינה לאיש שתי נשים, “If a man has two wives;” this paragraph is appropriate here as we have just read of a union that is unsatisfactory to the husband, although it had commenced with mutual fondness of the parties. (verses 11 and 14)

האחת אהובה והאחת שנואה Jebamoth 23 a wird dieses אהובה und שנואה auch von der Billigung und Missbilligung einer Eheschließung vor dem-Gesetze, אהובה בנישואיה ושנואה בנישואיה verstanden und in dem כי תהיין לאיש der Fall nachgewiesen, dass es gesetzlich verbotene Ehen gebe, die, wenn geschlossen, gleichwohl Gültigkeit haben und nur durch גט gelöst werden können. Z. B. חייבי לאוין (siehe Wajikra S. 455). Auf das Erbrecht hat übrigens die größere oder geringere Illegitimität der Geburt keinen Einfluss, selbst ממזר מחייבי כריתות ist vollgültiger Erbe, mit Ausnahme von בן משפחה או נכרית (Jebamot 22 b). אהובה ושנואה ist aber, wie wir glauben, ganz allgemein, und nur implizite auch von gesetzlicher Missbilligung zu verstehen. Daher lehrt ספרי zu והיה הבן הבכור לשניאה, לשניאה הכתוב מבשרך שבן הבכור לשנואה, welchem doch offenbar die Auffassung der שנואה als der durch unverschuldete Abneigung Zurückgesetzten, ähnlich wie Lea in Verhältnis zu Rachel, zu Grunde liegt. Einer שנואה בנישואיה, deren Ehe eigentlich gesetzlich zu lösen ist, wird sicherlich nicht die tröstliche Verheißung, dass ihr die Vorsehung den erstgeborenen Stammesträger bescheiden wird. Indem ספרי diese Verheißung an das Wort: לשניאה knüpft, dürfte uns damit Aufschluss über den Unterschied zwischen שנואה und שניאה und das Motiv dieses Wechsels in der Form gegeben sein. שנואה ist eine passive Verbalform, sagt, streng genommen, nichts anderes, als dass im Momente der letztwilligen Verfügung die eine Frau geliebt, die andere gehasst wird. Diese Zu- und Abneigung kann eben erst jetzt in ganz späterer Zeit eingetreten sein. שניאה ist aber adjektivische Substantivform, geht jedenfalls über den gegenwärtigen Moment hinaus, sie ist die von Anfang an weniger Geliebte und ward eben als solche die Mutter des Erstgeborenen.

וילדה לו, “and she gives birth for him;” by any means, even by caesarean section. (Sifri)

Baba Batra 142 b wird an, dem Ausdrucke unseres Textes: וילדו לו die Halacha gelehrt, dass בן שנולד לאחר מיתת אביו אינו ממעט בחלק בכורה, dass der im Folgenden dem Erstgeborenen zugewiesene Vorzugsteil an der Erbschaft nach den im Momente des Todes des Vaters bereits geborenen Söhnen ermessen wird, ein nachgeborener Sohn aber bei dieser Feststellung nicht in Betracht kommt. Waren z. B. im Augenblicke des Todes drei Söhne vorhanden, wovon einer ein Erstgeborener, so erhält der Erstgeborene als בכורה-Teil ein Viertel, obgleich nach dem Tode des Vaters noch ein Sohn geboren, worden, der, wenn er beim Leben des Vaters geboren worden wäre, das בכורה-Teil auf ein Fünftel reduziert haben würde.

LO YUCHAL’ [literally: “he could not” but rendered: HE MAY NOT] DECLARE THE SON OF THE BELOVED FIRSTBORN. This is an admonition⁸²Since Rambam did not enumerate it in his Sefer Hamitzvoth as a separate negative commandment, because he included it as part of the specific laws relating to the commandment of inheritance, Ramban points out that, in his opinion, it is to be considered as a separate prohibition. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 336, Commandment 12. In the following two cases Rambam also admits that they are to be counted as separate commandments. against doing so. Likewise are all such verses as: ‘Lo thuchal’ (thou mayest not) eat within thy gates etc.;⁸³Above, 12:17. Literally: “thou couldst not.” So also in the following verse. ‘lo thuchal’ (thou mayest not) put a foreigner over thee.⁸⁴Ibid., 17:15. And in all these cases, Onkelos translates “you have no right” [which proves that the verse before us, too, constitutes an admonition], and the purport of these expressions is, “you could not allow yourself the possibility of doing so,” emphasizing the importance of the admonitions. Similarly, But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion⁸⁵Verse 17. constitutes a positive commandment that he bequeath a double portion to the firstborn. Thus he who equalizes the firstborn with his brothers [i.e., he assigns him a share equal to theirs] violates both a negative commandment and a positive commandment, even though his words are not legally valid. He surely violates both [commandments] if, knowing he [the son of the hated one] is the firstborn, and did not wish to make it known that he is the firstborn and claimed that he is an ordinary son and caused him to inherit like any one of his sons. Now, these are newly-declared commandments. And from that which Scripture states [he may not declare the son of the beloved firstborn] in the face of the firstborn, the son of the hated it would appear to me that this commandment and this law are binding only during the lifetime of the firstborn. But, if the firstborn died during the life of his father, even though he [the deceased son] inherits his share as the firstborn in the grave and bequeathes it by law to his children, yet if the father wished [to deviate] and said, “My sons shall inherit such-and-such of my belongings, and the children of my [late] son, the firstborn, shall take such-and-such of my belongings,” his instructions are valid just as they would be valid in a case where there is no firstborn son. Similarly, the father would not be violating this negative commandment if he did not acknowledge the firstborn son only after his death, for I have never found the expression ‘al pnei’ (in the face of) except with reference to the living, such as: ‘al pnei’ (in the presence of) Aaron their father;⁸⁶Numbers 3:4. ‘al pnei’ (in the presence of) his father Terah,⁸⁷Genesis 11:28. and similarly all such expressions. [Therefore, in this case, since it states that the father may not do it ‘al pnei’ the firstborn of the hated, it follows that the prohibition is binding only during the lifetime of the firstborn and that the father had acknowledged him as such.].

לא יוכל לבכר את בן האהובה על פני בן השנואה הבכור. The firstborn son’s entitlement to an extra share in his father’s inheritance must not be transferred on account of his father loving his mother more or “hating” her, i.e. loving her less than his second wife. If the reason the father wants to transfer the extra portion of the inheritance away from the chronologically entitled son due to that son’s misconduct¸ this is in order, as we know from Baba Batra 133 אם לא היה נוהג כשורה זכור לטוב, íf the chronologically oldest did not conduct himself properly his inheritance may be transferred to another better one. [opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel only, not accepted by codifiers. Ed.] It appears that this is what Yaakov did when he took birthright privileges away from Reuven (Chronicles I 5,1) transferring it to Joseph.

הנחילו את בניו, את אשר יהיה לו, when he allocates the inheritance to the sons he has, etc. The Torah did not write ביום אשר הנחילו את אשר יהיה, לו את בניו, "on the day he allocates his inheritance to the ones who are his, i.e. his sons," which would have been far more appropriate, because the Torah wanted the word הנחילו to appear next to את בניו. This is an allusion to what we learned in Baba Batra 130 that a father may allocate to one of his sons [because he is his natural heir. Ed.] more than would be his share if all the children would inherit equally when no special allocation has been made.

לא יוכל לבכר, “he is not legally able to declare as firstborn, etc.” if the father of the preferred wife declares her son as the firstborn with the privileges the Torah accords the firstborn, although he is in fact not the firstborn, then he has also violated a negative commandment.

V. 16. והיה ביום הנחילו את בניו, mit dieser Voraussetzung ist (Baba Batra 130 a) dem Vater die Befugnis eingeräumt, unter seinen gesetzlichen Erben seinen Nachlass nach seiner Wahl zu verteilen, התורה נתנה רשות לאב להנחיל לכל מי שירצה. Das לכל מי שירצה ist jedoch nur in beschränktem Sinne zu verstehen: על מי שראוי ליורשו. Nur unter den Erbberechtigten kann er seinen Nachlass ungleich verteilen oder selbst einen von ihnen zum Universalerben einsetzen. Er kann aber keinem Nichtberechtigten ein Erbrecht erteilen. Es heißt את בניו im Texte. Von dieser Befugnis wird hier חלק בכורה ausgenommen. Das Erstgeburtsteil kann der Vater in keiner Weise dem Erstgeborenen schmälern.

לא יוכל לבכר את בן האהובה, “he must not favour the son of his beloved wife, (over the son of the wife he has grown to hate,” (by treating him as his first born) Yaakov having treated Joseph as his firstborn is somewhat different as he had never meant to marry Leah, and when he did so in order not to shame her, she subsequently felt hated (having been guilty of deceiving him.). Yaakov “hated her” as she had deprived him of Joseph becoming the true first born from the wife he had worked for, for seven years. Yaakov should have brought Reuven to trial, if he had been guilty of a sin against him instead of depriving him of his rights as a firstborn.

את אשר יהיה לו, “whatever he shall own.” From this formulation we learn that a son (not a firstborn) is entitled to inherit also what is owed to his father at the time of his death.

על פני בן השנואה, הבכור, “ahead of the son of the hated one, the firstborn, etc.” Nachmanides, paying attention to minute grammatical nuances in our verse, concludes from the apparently superfluous words על פני in “the presence of,” that if the true firstborn has already died before his father, i.e. before the question of distributing an estate even became imminent, the father’s dispositions are legally effective, in spite of the general rule that a firstborn is entitled to his share of the inheritance even if he died before his father, if he left behind natural heirs. In every instance where the expression על פני occurs as referring to people, it means “during the lifetime of, etc.” (Compare Genesis 11,28, Numbers 3,4)

לא יוכל לבקר "He cannot give preference (the status of being the firstborn), etc." If he did so, he violates a negative commandment. This rule answers a question raised by Tossaphot in Baba Batra 130 which commences with the words תלמוד לומר לא יבכר.

את אשר יהיה לו. Mit bedeutsamer Präzision wechselt der Ausdruck hier und V. 17. Der unter den Söhnen normal zur Verteilung kommende Nachlass wird את אשר יהיה לו genannt. Dieser Ausdruck umfasst das ganze Vermögen des Erblassers: "das, was ihm zusteht", "worauf er ein Recht hat". Es sind darin sowohl die bei seinem Tode sich in seinem Besitze befindenden Vermögensstücke (מוחזק), als auch alles dasjenige begriffen, was er noch an Schuldforderungen ausstehen hat und das der Masse erst nach seinem Tode zuwächst, was bei seinem Tode noch kein Besitz, sondern nur Rechtsanspruch (ראוי) war. Der בכורה-Anteil wird aber (V. 17) nur בכל אשר ימצא לו nur von dem bestimmt, was bei dem Tode des Erblassers bereits in dessen Besitze vorhanden war, von den Ausständen wird dem בכור kein Voranteil, אין הבכור נוטל בראוי כבמוחזק (Bechorot 52 a).

על פני בן השנואה, “in preference to the firstborn son of the wife he dislikes;” [if he had literally hated her, he would have had to divorce her. We find that our matriarch Leah also considered herself “hated” by her husband, clearly an exaggeration; otherwise Yaakov would have kicked her out after the wedding night. (Compare Genesis 29,33) Ed.] We find the expression: על פני, meaning “preferable to” also in Exodus 20,3: לא יהיה לך אלוהים אחרים על פני, “you must not have other deities that you prefer to Me.” Compare also: Numbers 3,4: ויכהן אלעזר ואיתמר על פני אהרן אביהם, “he appointed Eleazar and Ittamar as priests (even) while their father was still alive.

פי שנים A DOUBLE PORTION — i.e. a portion equal to those of two brothers together (Sifrei Devarim 217:2-4).

כי את הבכור, the word כי means אלא, but. כי הוא ראשית אונו, for he is entitled to inherit the first of his father’s money. We find that the word און appears in this sense in Hoseah 12,9 מצאתי און לי, [clearly it cannot mean “I have found my virility there”, as it does in Genesis 49,3. Ed.] The word און also occurs in the sense of money in Job 20,10 וידיו תשיבנה אונו, “his own hands must give back his wealth.”

Equivalent to two brothers. Rashi is answering the question: “Doublefold of all that he possesses” implies doublefold of everything he possesses, i.e. that he should have two portions. [For example,] if he left three manah and there were five brothers, the firstborn should take two manah and the four [remaining] brothers should take one [manah]! Rashi answers that “of all he possesses” does not refer to “doublefold” but means as follows: “Doublefold [of one brother’s share],’ i.e., the equivalent of what two brothers [take].” And [the term] “of all that he possesses” is a separate phrase.

V. 17. כי וגו׳ יכיר. Mit dieser Pflicht hat das Gesetz dem Vater auch das Recht und die Glaubwürdigkeit zu der Erklärung zuerkannt, welcher von seinen Söhnen der Erstgeborene ist. יכיר יכירנו לאחרים נאמן אדם לומר זה בני בכור (Jebamot 47 a). Zugleich schließt die Bestimmung יכיר auch den Fall aus, dass der Sohn erst nach dem Tode des Vaters geboren wäre — etwa bei Zwillingsgeburten oder bei von zwei Frauen nach dem Mannestode Geborenen ein solcher hätte nicht das Erstgeburtsrecht, da ihn der Vater nicht "kennen" konnte. בכור שנולד לאחר מיתת אביו אינו נוטל פי שנים מאי טעמא יכיר אמר רחמנא והא ליתא (B. B. 142 b).

בן השנואה יכיר, “he must recognise the son of the “hated” wife as his firstborn. The reason why the Torah chose the expression “recognise” here is that usually when someone wishes to deny a relative some favour that the latter claims he is entitled to, he behaves as if he does not even ”know” such a person. We find an example of this expression in such a situation when Joseph’s brothers came to Egypt to buy grain and he pretended not to know who they were, i.e. ויתנכר, (Genesis 42,7). The Torah there had told us that he had recognised them immediately. On the other hand, when Boaz treated Ruth, whom he had never even met, with kindness and consideration, (Ruth 2,10) she is so astounded that she asked him what prompted him to treat her as if he had known her for a long time, מדוע מצאתי חן בעיניך, “what caused me to have found favour in your eyes, ואני נכריה, when I am a complete stranger?”The Torah demands of the father of his biological and chronological firstborn to introduce him as such to anyone who does not know him. Moreover, Jewish law decrees that when a father introduces his son in such a way he is trustworthy and does not have to provide independent proof for his claim. (Talmud, tractate Kidushin, folio 74.)

בכל אשר ימצא לו [BUT HE SHALL ACKNOWLEDGE THE SON OF THE HATED FOR THE FIRSTBORN, BY GIVING HIM A DOUBLE PORTION] OF ALL THAT SHALL BE FOUND WITH HIM — From here the Rabbis derived the law that the firstborn does not receive a double share of what is due to come after the death of the father (as, e.g., a debt or a legacy that were payable to his father on a certain date, before which, however, the father died — technically termed ראוי), as he does of what is actually held in possession by the father (מוחזק) (Sifrei Devarim 217:6; Bekhorot 51b).

Does not inherit doublefold of receivables due, etc. Rashi means that he inherits doublefold only from “all that he possesses”, i.e. what the father has now and [actually] possesses, but regarding receivables, such as when a legator of his father died after the father died, even though the father receives ownership of the [the legator’s] money in the grave, the firstborn does not take doublefold of those funds, but [takes only a single portion] like a regular brother. The same applies if the father had a loan [that was owed to him] without a pledge. This too is “a receivable” and the firstborn does not receive doublefold of it.

פי שנים, so viel als zwei bekommen würden. בכל אשר ימצא לו (siehe zu V. 16). כי הוא ראשית אנו (siehe Bereschit 35, 18 und 49, 3) Es ist das erste Kind, in welchem sich der Vater Vater gefühlt. Wenn unter allen irdischen Existenzen ein Mensch das Höchste ist, so gibt es keine höhere Errungenschaft als ein Kind, als ein Menschenwesen, das ein Mann im edelsten Sinne des Wortes "sein" zu nennen sich berechtigt fühlt. Und wenn nun das Kind, durch welches der Mann zuerst dieses Hochgefühl empfunden, ein Kind ist, in welchem auch bürgerlich der Vater sich fortleben fühlen soll, wenn ראשית אנו ein Sohn ist, dann: לו משפט הבכורה, dann tritt das Kind mit dem vermögensrechtlichen unverlierbaren Anspruch der Erstgeburt in die Welt.

פי שנים, “a double portion,” (inheritance); I have already explained on Numbers 3,12 why this is so.

Der hier besprochene בכור לנחלה ist nicht identisch mit dem Schmot Kap. 13 geheiligten und Bamidbar 3, 40 f. zur Auslösung gekommenen בכור לכהן. Für בכור לכהן ist der Begriff: פטר רחם massgebend, für בכור לנחלה der Begriff ראשית אנו. בכור לכהן ist ein Sohn, durch welchen ein Weib zuerst Mutter geworden, בכור לנחלה ein Sohn, durch welchen ein Mann zuerst Vater geworden, und zwar ist der Mutterstand nicht durch die lebende und lebensfähige Geburt bedingt, während der Vaterstand nur bei einer lebenden und lebensfähigen Geburt als eintretend betrachtet wird. Es liegt dies eben in den Begriffen פטר רחם und ראשית אנו. Nur in einem lebenden und lebensfähigen Kinde erblickt ein Vater אנו, und erprobt sich dies in dem Verlustgefühl, wenn das Kind nach der Geburt stürbe, מי שלבו דווה עליו (Baba Batra 111 b; — siehe Bereschit S. 436 die Doppelbedeutung von און). Beide בכור-Charaktere können in einer Person vereinigt sein, z. B. מי שלא היו לו בנים ונשא אשה שלא ילדה. Allein, wenn der Mann bereits Kinder gehabt oder die Frau bereits geboren, so wird im ersten Falle das Kind nur בכור לכהן, im zweiten Falle nur בכור לנחלה sein. Ebenso ist הבא אחר נפלים nur בכור לנחלה ואין בכור לכהן, es ist wohl ראשית אנו, aber nicht פטר רחם (siehe Bechorot 46 a).

ימצא לא, “of all that he actually owns and has control over at the time of his death.” (excluding receivables)

לו משפט הבכורה. Baba Batra 111 b wird hieran die Halacha gelehrt, dass הבכור נוטל פי שנים בנכסי האב ואינו נוטל פי שנים בנכסי האם, dass an dem mütterlichen Nachlass dem בכור kein Vorzugsteil zusteht, und zwar, wie dort entwickelt wird, nicht nur bei einseitigem בכור wie בחור שנשא אלמנה oder אלמן שנשא בתולה, sondern selbst wenn er בכור des Vaters und der Mutter ist, בחור שנשא בתולה, wirkt die בכורה vermögensrechtlich nur beim väterlichen Nachlass, nicht aber beim Nachlass der , Mutter; es heiße nämlich משפט הבכורה לאיש ולא משפט הבכורה :לו משפט הבכורה לאשה. Obgleich das לו unseres Textes sich offenbar auf den Sohn bezieht, so war doch bereits zuvor durch אשר ימצא לו ולא לה und ראשית אנו ולא אנה sowohl der Nachlass, als der Erblasser, bei welchen das vermögensrechtliche Erstgeburtsrecht eintritt, auf den Vater beschränkt, und wenn noch einmal wiederholt wird, dass לו משפט הבכורה, so ist damit gesagt, dass überhaupt משפט הבכורה nur לו, nur dem im vorhergehenden bezeichneten väterlichen בכור und nur am väterlichen Nachlass erwächst, so dass auch ein väterlicher und mütterlicher בכור nur am väterlichen Nachlass בכורה-Anteil hat (siehe לחם משנה zu רמב׳׳ם הל׳ נחלות ב׳ ח׳).

Vergegenwärtigen wir uns diese Institution des בכור לנחלה, so dürften die beiden charakteristischen Gesetzesbestimmungen, dass בן שנולד לאחר מיתת האב אינו ממעט בחלק בכורה, dass bei Bestimmung des בכורה-Anteils ein nachgeborener Sohn nicht mit in Betracht gezogen wird, und dass אין בכור נוטל בראוי כבמוחזק, dass ebenso dieser Anteil nur auf die im Momente des Todes des Vaters in seinem Besitze vorhandenen, nicht aber auf die erst nach dem Tode der Masse zuwachsenden Vermögensstücke sich erstreckt, die Bestimmung des בכור dahin aussprechen, dass durch ihn sofort mit dem Ableben eines Vaters ein mit überwiegendem Güterbesitz ausgestatteter vermögensrechtlicher Fortträger seiner Persönlichkeit in Mitte der Überlebenden hergestellt sein könne und so die fortzusetzende einheitliche Leitung der Familie und des Hauses eine weniger plötzliche Erschütterung erleiden möge. Wie bisher um den Vater, so gruppiert sich jetzt um den vermögensrechtlichen Erstgeborenen die Familie und das Haus. Daher sind für seine Stellung nur die im Momente des Sterbens des Vaters bereits geborenen Kinder und die bereits disponibeln Erblassgüter massgebend. Einer eingehenden Erwägung wert erscheint noch die Tatsache, dass ebenso wie für das jüdische Staatsganze כהונה und מלכות zwei getrennte Potenzen bilden, so auch in dem kleineren Kreis der Familie die geistige בכור לכהן ,בכורה, und die vermögensrechtliche בכור לנחלה ,בכורה, auf zwei verschiedene Institutionen verteilt sind (vergl. Bereschit S. 83).

לו משפט הבכורה, “the rights of the firstborn are his.” (not a female firstborn.)

Die Beschränkungen, welche für Erbeinsetzungen gegeben sind, finden bei מתנות, bei Schenkungen nicht statt, und unterscheidet das jüdische Recht auch hier hinsichtlich der die Rechtsgültigkeit bedingenden Form מתנות שכיב מרע, Schenkungen vom Krankenlager, und מתנות בריא, Schenkungen Gesunder.

Obgleich aber eine ungleiche Erbverteilung, ja die Zuwendung eines Nachlasses auf dem Wege der Schenkung an einen Nichtberechtigten möglich ist, so wird ein solches Verfahren gleichwohl nicht gebilligt אין רוח הכמים נוחה הימנו (Baba Batra 133 b), und warnend wiederholt einer unserer Dezisoren (Tur. Ch. M. 282) bei diesem Anlass die Mahnung der Chachamim: שלא ישנה אדם לבן בין הבנים אפילו בדבר מועט שלא יבא לידי קנאה keiner bevorzuge auch nur in Kleinigkeiten ein Kind vor den andern, damit es nicht dem Neide ausgesetzt werde. —

Dass diese Ergänzung der bereits im vierten Buche Kap. 27, 6 f. gegebenen Erbschaftsordnung diesem Kompendium für die Niederlassung im Lande aufbewahrt blieb, motiviert sich schon von selbst, da in der Tat erst mit dieser Niederlassung im Lande Vermögen und Vermögensunterschiede in ihre eigentliche Bedeutung eintreten, während sie unter der allen Bedürfnissen fürsorgenden göttlichen Führung durch die Wüste kaum einen Einfluss gehabt haben dürften. —

סורר (from the root סור to deviate) means, one who deviates from the proper path of life.

A STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON. In the opinion of our Rabbis⁸⁸Sanhedrin 68b. he is not a minor, for a minor is not subject to any punishments ordained by the Torah or to [the observance of] any commandments. Rather, this verse applies to a boy who has grown two hairs [signifying puberty, and, therefore making the child subject to all the laws prescribed by the Torah]. Now, he is liable to two punishments: the first, because he dishonors his father and his mother⁸⁹Further, 27:16. and rebels against them, and the second, because he is a glutton, and a drunkard,⁹⁰Verse 20. transgressing that which we have been commanded, Ye shall be holy,⁹¹Leviticus 19:2. and it is further stated, and Him shall ye serve, and unto Him shall ye cleave⁹²Above, 13:5. — as I have explained,⁹³Ibid., 6:12. we are commanded to know G-d in all our ways, and a glutton, and a drunkard⁹⁰Verse 20. does not know the way of G-d. In general, then, as of now he [this stubborn and rebellious son] has not committed a sin punishable by death, but is judged because of [what he is destined to become in] the end, just as our Rabbis have mentioned.⁹⁴Sanhedrin 72a. This is the sense of the expression, and all Israel shall hear, and fear,⁹⁵Verse 21. for he was not executed due to the greatness of his sin, but in order to discipline the public, and so that he not become a menace to others. It is the manner of Scripture so to warn that when the death-penalty is imposed as a deterrent, the execution should serve as a benefit to others. Thus it mentioned the same in the case of the rebellious elder [who defies the decision of the Great Sanhedrin — And all the people shall hear, and fear]⁹⁶Above, 17:13. because, in his decision [contradicting that of the court] there is no sin deserving of death, but [the death sentence being imposed only to] deter dissension from the Torah, as I have explained there.⁹⁷Ibid., Verse 11. Similar is the case of plotting witnesses⁹⁸Ibid., 19:20: And those that remain shall hear, and fear. who are executed [for scheming to condemn someone to death] although they have not caused his execution.⁹⁹See Ramban ibid., Verse 19. Scripture also mentions it in the case of the beguiler¹⁰⁰Ibid., 13:12: And all Israel shall hear, and fear. because he is executed merely for his evil speech even though the beguiled has not worshipped the idols, nor hearkened to him; his [the beguiler’s] death is rather to chasten the survivors. This, too, is a newly-declared commandment — or it may be explanatory of the commandments, Honor thy father and thy mother,¹⁰¹Exodus 20:12. and Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father.¹⁰²Leviticus 19:3.

סורר ומורה, his obstinacy removed all hope that he would change his lifestyle.

כי יהיה לאיש…איננו שומע, "When a man has a delinquent son…he refuses to listen, etc." Why does the Torah write איננו instead of אינו? Perhaps the Torah wanted to emphasise that when the evil urge dominates within man this deprives man of his normal ability to hear and to understand. The reason is that the evil urge takes up its position at the entrance of man's heart preventing words to get through to the soul. I have compared the matter to a king whose security guards were thieves and robbers. Can one imagine that these guards would permit their victims who want to complain to the king that they have been robbed to gain entrance to the king's palace and thereby to help incriminate themselves? Our situation is quite similar.

מורה, obstinate, vexing. The word occurs in this sense in Lamentations 1,20 מרה, מריתי, “I kept disobeying.”

סורר ומורה, “wayward and rebellious;” Nachmanides points out that there are two culpable deeds here for which punishment is called for. !) Treating one’s parents with disdain, disrespect. 2) He drinks alcohol to excess and he is a glutton, something forbidden to Jews who have been commanded to be a holy nation, not one guilty of debauchery. Even so, neither one of these sins is one that carries a death penalty. This penalty can be justified only because it heads off the likelihood that the son in question when fully adult will become guilty of the death penalty after committing sins which may cost other people’s lives before he is brought to justice. Naturally, many people ask how someone can be convicted of the death penalty, or of any penalty for that matter, at a time when is not guilty of an indictable offence. We have a rule that no one is convicted except on the basis of the sins he has carried out, not for the ones he contemplated committing in the future. (Compare Sanhedrin 72) This rule was based on the words באשר הוא שם, which the Torah writes in connection with Ishmael who was about to perish from thirst just out of earshot of his mother Hagar, (Genesis 21,16-21). Ishmael’s survival at the time does not necessarily contradict the principle we quoted, as we do not know of any crime committed by Ishmael afterwards that would have made him guilty of the death penalty. [Who knows if his miraculous survival did not inspire him to observe a lifestyle more in accordance with what he had seen in his father Avraham’s house. Ed.] Although we have a rule that all is under the control of heaven except whether man will be G’d-fearing and observe a lifestyle which reflects this, i.e. he is not interfered with in his decisions by G’d, the wayward son raised under ideal circumstances by parents who both were models of piety, is judged by the Torah, by superhuman psychology, as growing up to be thoroughly depraved. The Torah, [i.e. also his parents who bring him to court, Ed.] are therefore doing him a favour by enabling the court which decrees his execution to preserve such a son’s share in the hereafter for him through his execution at this stage of his life

They warn him before three [magistrates] and have him flogged, etc. Rashi is citing the words of the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 71a) that says, “They warn him before three and have him flogged.” The Gemora explains that the Mishnah is speaking of two separate cases, that they warn him before two [witnesses] and he is flogged before three [magistrates]. You might ask, from where does Rashi derive that they have him flogged [and not some other form of chastening]? The answer is that it is written here “בן סורר (a wayward son),” and later (25:2) it is written, “והיה אם בן הכות הרשע (should the wicked one deserve flogging).” And we derive a law by comparing [the section here that says] בן to [the section there where it says] בן. Just as over there, there is flogging, so here too there is flogging.

V. 18. כי יהיה לאיש בן. An die בכור לנחלה-Institution, welche die Bedeutsamkeit des Sohnes als vermögensrechtlichen Fortträgers der Persönlichkeit des Vaters für Familie und Haus in den Vordergrund stellt, schließt sich ein Gesetz über den völlig missratenen Sohn, בן סורר ומורה, für welchen das Gesetz die Eltern selbst einen frühzeitigen Tod aus Richters Händen als Rettung vor gänzlicher Verderbnis fordern lässt. Wir haben im achten Jahrgang des Jeschurun dieses Kapitel von dem ungeratenen Sohn einer eingehenden Betrachtung unterzogen. Wir haben dort darauf hingewiesen, wie nach einer Auffassung (Sanhedrin 71 a) dieses Kapitel ein Problem behandelt, das לא היה ולא עתיד להיות, das in aller Vergangenheit und aller Zukunft nur "Probleme" war und bleiben wird, nach allen bedingenden Momenten nie zum konkreten Fall sich gestalten kann, das aber nichtsdestoweniger, oder vielmehr eben darum eine reiche Fundgrube pädagogischer Wahrheiten bildet, deren Erforschung דרוש וקבל שכר mit reichstem Gewinnst für das Erziehungsgeschäft der Eltern lohnt.

כי יהיה לאיש בן סורר ומורה, “if a man has a wayward son, etc.” the death penalty decreed here for what must appear to the reader as a relatively minor sin by a teenager, is understood as the Torah’s way to save this son from losing his share in the world to come, if he were allowed to continue in his lifestyle. This is how Rashi explains it. If you were to ask that at least he should not have to face a harsher death penalty than that administered for armed robbery, which is death by the sword, not death by stoning, the Torah wrote that he ignored both father and mother, a euphemism for this son cursing father and mother, a crime which carries the penalty of death by stoning. (Compare Leviticus 20,9, where the wording of the Torah for cursing father or mother is: דמיו בו, “his blood will be upon him.” Whenever this expression occurs it refers to death by stoning.

'כי יהיה לאיש וגו, “if a man has, etc.” the reason why the paragraph dealing with a wayward son is appended here is that if such a son is a firstborn, his rights as such are null and void, and the parent must deliver him to the court in order that he will be executed, i.e. he will inherit nothing, not only no double portion.

ומורה means, one who is disobedient to the words of his father, of the same meaning as ממרים in the phrase (Deuteronomy 9:7) “ממרים הייתם”, “ye have been rebellious”.

זולל וסובא, as in Proverbs 23,21 “guzzlers of wine and gluttons of meat.”

Wayward and rebellious son. The continuation of the verse explains what this means, “He does not obey his father or his mother.” In Mishlei the verse states, “Hear, my son, the instruction of your father, and do not forsake the teaching of your mother” (Mishlei 1:8). This means that the father teaches his son the Torah of Hashem, which is called “instruction” whereas the mother teaches correct behavior and customs, which is the “teaching of the mother.” The son who does not listen to the Torah of his father is called “wayward” and if he does not listen to the teachings of his mother he is called “rebellious.” In other words, this son does not follow in the path of Torah nor of correct behavior.

And consumes a tartamor of meat, etc. Because you might ask: What do the witnesses warn him about? [Therefore] Rashi explains, “The wayward, rebellious son is not liable, etc.” Therefore they warn him to not steal and to not eat a tartamor of meat.

בקול אביו ובקול אמו, "to the voice of his father or to the voice of his mother." Why did the Torah have to write the word: "his father," instead of merely writing "his voice," i.e. that of the man who has been described as having this son? The Torah wanted to emphasise that the rebellious son and those who have given birth to him of which the Torah speaks here are his original parents i.e. his Father in heaven and his Mother, i.e. community of Israel, G'd's partner (compare Zohar volume two page 85). This relationship between us and our Father in heaven, i.e. G'd, has already been formulated by Solomon in Proverbs 1,8: שמע בני מוסר אביך ואל תטש תורת אמך, "My son, hear the instruction of your father, and do not abandon the teachings of your mother." Solomon refers to G'd and the community of Israel respectively. If the son of a terrestrial union became a delinquent it was only because the parents failed to discipline him in time and did not give him proper guidance. This in turn caused him to rebel. The Torah tells us that "when a 'man' has a delinquent son, etc.," i.e. a son who rebels against G'd, remember that even if both his biological father and his biological mother discipline him he will not pay attention to them seeing that he does not even listen to his Father in heaven. In fact, the result of rejecting the laws governing our conduct between ourselves and G'd bring in its wake that we will also ignore the laws of conduct between man and his fellow.

Dieses Gesetz, das über einen jugendlichen Verbrecher als einen "Unverbesserlichen" den Stab bricht und seinen frühzeitigen Tod als einzige Rettung vor künftiger völliger Entartung statuiert, — בן סורר ומורה נידון על שם סופו ימות זכאי ואל ימות חייב (daselbst 17 b) — knüpft nämlich dieses sein Urteil an ganz bestimmte Momente des Alters, des Vergehens, ganz besonders aber des Verhaltens der Eltern zueinander und zum Sohne, die nur in ihrem vorhandenen Zusammenwirken die elterliche Erziehungsaufgabe als gelöst, und die Schuld allein in der unverbesserlichen Natur des Sohnes erscheinen lassen, die aber eben damit die bedeutsamsten Fingerzeige derjenigen Momente bilden, welche eine jede gedeihliche Erziehung zur Voraussetzung hat. Wir haben diese Momente in der erwähnten Abhandlung hervorzuheben und eingehend zu beleuchten versucht. Wir verweisen hierauf und beschränken uns hier darauf, diese Momente nur wie sie sich aus Erläuterung des Textes ergeben, zu verzeichnen.

בן סורר ומורה, “a son who is stubborn and rebellious.” We have learned concerning this in the Mishnah in Sanhedrin folio 70, that such a son does not become legally guilty of such treatment by his parents until he has consumed a certain amount of meat and drunk a certain amount of wine, both of which he had stolen from his parents. There is some discussion of what precisely is the amount of meat and wine described there. Either way, it is a relatively insignificant amount. Furthermore, according to the Talmud, this theft must occur while the son in question is between 13 years and three months, but before he has become thirteen and a half. Rashi explains that the law as it stands is not only not cruel, but is designed to preserve the afterlife for such a wayward son, for if, at such a tender age he were allowed to continue in this way, most likely he would become guilty of the kind of crime that would lead to his forfeiting his share in the world to come because he would have killed an innocent person. If you were to ask how it is that we punish someone for a sin never committed, or punishable merely by a fine, consider the law of the רודף, someone observed chasing a second person with clear intent to murder that person unless stopped in time. Jewish law not only permits, but expects us to kill this potential murderer before he can carry out his evil intention. Do not quote me Genesis 21,17 when Yishmael is about to perish from thirst and an angel is dispatched to save him, (against the protestations of other angels who predict the harm his descendants will do to the descendants of Avraham), and where G-d explains that He cannot allow him to die now as now is not guilty. [The comparison is very lopsided when examined closely and with reference to a period when no Torah had as yet been given. Ed.]

ויסרו אתו AND THEY SHALL CHASTISE HIM — admonish him in the presence of three people, and if he still remains refractory they cause him to be lashed through the court (Sanhedrin 71a; cf. Sifrei Devarim 218:11). The refractory and rebellious son is not liable to the death penalty until he proves to be a thief and eats at one meal a “tartemar” (a weight of half a Maneh) flesh and drinks half a Log wine, for it is said of him, (v. 20) זולל וסבא, and in another passage (Proverbs 23:20) it says: “Do not be among wine-guzzlers (בְסֹבְאֵי-יָיִן), among gluttonous eaters of meat” (Sanhedrin 70a; cf. Sifrei Devarim 219:4). — The refractory and rebellious son is put to death on account of the final course his life must necessarily take (not because his present offence is deserving death); — the Torah has fathomed his ultimate disposition: in the end he will squander his fathers property and seeking in vain for the pleasures to which he has been accustomed, he will take his stand on the crossroads and rob people, and in some way or other make, himself liable to the death penalty. Says the Torah, “Let him die innocent of such crimes, and let him not die guilty of them” (Sifrei Devarim 220:3; Sanhedrin 72a).

ויסרו אותו, “and they shall discipline him.” They administer corporal punishment after having duly warned the guilty party of what is in store for him if he persists (Sanhedrin 71).

Do not be among the wine guzzlers, among those who gluttonously consume meat [for themselves], etc. This indicates that the terms זולל וסובא applies to meat and wine. Rashi then asks: Why should he be killed for stealing and eating a tartamor of meat and drinking a half log of wine? He explains, “The wayward, rebellious son is executed in consideration of his [ignoble] end, etc.” You might ask: Why is the wayward and rebellious son singled out that “the the Torah penetrates to the logical conclusion of his thought” and is executed in consideration of his ignoble end? But regarding Yishmael it is written (Bereishis 21:17), “in the place where he is,” and Rashi explains, “He is judged according to his present deeds and not according to what he will do in the future, etc.” See Rashi there in parshas Vayera. The answer is that there regarding Yishmael who was still a child, so he had not started doing anything connected to that [future] sin of killing Israel by thirst. But the wayward and rebellious son began [doing things that will ultimately lead] to that sin [of robbery], because he ate a tartamor of meat. Another answer is that the Heavenly court does not judge [a person] in consideration of his end, but it is a mitzvah for the Beis Din below [i.e., our court system] to judge a person in consideration of his end.

.כי יהיה לאיש בן, es heißt nicht einfach: ׳כי יהיה בן סורר ומורה וגו, auch nicht: כי יהיה לאב בן wie בן הייתי לאבי (Prov. 4, 3), in welchen beiden Fällen der Sohn ganz allgemein als Kind seiner Eltern zu begreifen wäre, sondern: כי יהיה לאיש בן, ähnlich wie das vorhergehende כי תהיין לאיש שתי נשים, und ist damit der Sohn in seinem Verhältnis zum Vater als Mann begriffen, als ein Kind, in welchem der Mann bereits einen einstigen Nachfolger und Fortträger seiner Mannespersönlichkeit zu erblicken berechtigt sein sollte, einen "Baustein und Fortbauer" seines Hauses, wie das Wort ja eigentlich sagt. Ein Gedanke, der durch den Gegensatz um so schärfer hervortritt, in welchem der hier zu besprechende בן סורר ומורה zu dem im vorigen Gesetze besprochenen Sohne steht, der als ראשית אנו bezeichnet ist. Dort erblickt der sterbende Vater in seinen Söhnen die vermögensrechtlichen Fortträger seines Haus und Familie ernährenden Mannesstrebens. Hier sieht er in dem זולל וסובא den einstigen Vergeuder des väterlichen Vermögens, שסוף מגמר נכסי אביו (Sanhedrin 72 a). Während daher בן an sich den Sohn auch im Kindesalter umfassen würde, bezeichnet: כי יהיה לאיש בן den Sohn in demjenigen Altersstadium, in welchem der Vater als Mann in ihm schon den künftigen Mann, den ihm, dem Manne, schon näher gerückten erkennt, כי יהיה לאיש בן בן הסמוך לגבורתו של איש (daselbst 68 b), es sind dies nach der Halacha die ersten drei Monate nach erlangter Jünglingsreife, nach zurückgelegten dreizehn Jahren. כל ימיו של בן ס׳ו׳מ אינן אלא ג׳ חדשים בלבד daselbst 69 a).

מורה, “rebellious;” compare Genesis 26,35: מורת רוח, “of rebellious spirit.”

Station himself near an intersection and plunder, etc. I.e., and he will kill them. You might ask: Why is he punished with stoning, which is a more severe form of death? But the [death of] a murderer is [execution] by the sword! The answer is that he sometimes robs and kills on Shabbos. Thus he desecrates Shabbos and is therefore liable to be executed by stoning because of taking a life [and he is punished with stoning for desecrating Shabbos].

Einen höchst bedeutsamen Wink, glauben wir, gibt das Gesetz mit dieser Beschränkung allen um die sittliche Zukunft ihrer Zöglinge ernst bedachten Erziehern. In den ersten Monaten nach erreichter בר מצוה erblickt das Gesetz die über die sittliche Zukunft entscheidende kritische Zeit. Gerade in der Zeit, in welcher nach gewöhnlicher Anschauung mit der erwachenden Sinnlichkeit das "Böse" im Menschen wach wird, erwartet das Gesetz den entscheidenden Durchbruch des "Guten", das eben im Kampfe mit der Sinnlichkeit לגבורתו של איש, sich zu der sittlichen Mannesstärke emporarbeitet. Der Menschenschöpfer, der dem Menschenjüngling die Zeit des Kampfes gegeben, hat dieselbe Zeit zu einer Weckerin des Geistes geschaffen, der für alles sittlich Edle und Große erglüht und sich von allem Gemeinen und Niedrigen mit empörtem Ekel abwendet. Und vor allem der jüdische Menschenjüngling, wenn die Eltern an ihm ihre Pflicht getan und ihn "auf den Knieen der Lehre und der Pflicht", der תורה und מצוה haben heranwachsen lassen, so dass sie ihn nun als בר מצוה, als "Sohn der von Gott gebotenen Pflicht" eben der weiter erziehenden Macht dieses Pflichtbewusstseins überantworten können, von ihm heißt es in noch höherem Grade: בראתי יצר הרע ובראתי לו תורה תבלין (Kiduschin 30 b). An dem Gehorsam, den der zum Jüngling gereifte Sohn in dieser ersten Zeit seines Jünglingsadels seinen Eltern zollt, an dem Maße, in welchem er sich in dieser Zeit von dem Gemeinsinnlichen entfernt und dem Geistigsittlichen sich zuwendet: will das Gesetz die Macht erkennen, die der Geist der "Mizwa" über ihn hat, zu deren Fahne er jetzt mit Mannesernst und Jünglingsfreude getreten sein soll. Es scheint uns nicht fern zu liegen, dass dies auch der Gedanke der Mischna (Sanhedrin 68 a) sei, die nicht sagt: בן ולא איש קטן פטור שלא בא לכלל עונשין sondern קטן פטור שלא בא לכלל מצות; denn nicht so sehr von der Furcht vor Strafe, als von der Macht des freudigen Mizwageistes erwartet das Gesetz den sittlichen und sittigenden Einfluss auf den Menschenjüngling. So fasst auch die erläuternde Gemara בא לכלל מצות und בא לכלל עונשין als zwei getrennte Momente (daselbst).

סורר ומורה, während סרר wie סור das beharrliche Weichen von einem angewiesenen Wege, das Nichteingehen auf denselben bezeichnet, so: פרה סוררה (Hosea 4. 16), ein störrisches, unlenksames Tier, liegt in מרה auch das positive Zuwiderhandeln (siehe Bereschit S. 361). So auch ומורה שמורה לעצמו דרך אחרת :ספרי und: סורר על דברי אביו ומורה על דברי אמו סורר על דרכי תורה ומורה על דברי הדיינים (nach Lesart im Jalkut). Dem Vater folgt er nicht und der Mutter handelt er zuwider, ebenso tut er nicht, was Gott geboten, und das gerade Gegenteil von dem, was Menschen fordern.

איננו שומע בקול אביו ובקול אמו: nur wenn das Kind einen Vater und eine Mutter hat, und nur, wenn sowohl der Vater als die Mutter ihren erziehlichen Einfluss auf ihn geltend machen, und nur, wenn, wie dies V. 20 heißt: איננו שומע בקולנו, Vater- und Mutterstimme eine Stimme ist, beide dem Kinde in gleichem Ernst, in gleicher Würdigkeit und vor allem in übereinstimmendem, einheitlichem Meinen und Wollen gegenüberstehen: nur dann können sie sich sagen, ihre Schuld sei es nicht, wenn ihr Kind missraten. Wo eines dieser Momente fehlt, wo vor allem Übereinstimmung, die Einheit in der Erziehung zwischen Vater und Mutter fehlt, da ist das Missraten des Kindes noch kein Beweis für die sittliche Verderbnis seiner Natur — unter einer wirklichen, besseren väterlichen und mütterlichen Erziehung wäre das Kind vielleicht ein anderes geworden und was die Eltern verfehlt, kann vielleicht das Leben und die Erfahrung bessern. —

Diese völlige Übereinstimmung zwischen Vater und Mutter als unerlässliche Vorbedingung dieses Problems ist auch allen folgenden Bestimmungen aufgeprägt, so:

ותפשו בו אביו ואמו, “his father and his mother are to take hold of him, etc.” The procedure suggested by the Torah can be enacted only if both father and mother are willing to testify against their own son before the court. If either father or mother forgive their son, he goes free (Sanhedrin 88).

V. 19. היה אביו רוצה ואמו אינו רוצה, אביו אינו רוצה ,ותפשו בו אביו ואמו נעשה בן סורר ומורה עד שיהיו שניהם רוצין (Sanhedrin 71 a). Ja, die bereits erwähnte Ansicht, die in diesem ganzen Gesetze nur ein lehrreiches Problem erblickt, bedingt die Verurteilung des ungeratenen Sohnes sogar durch eine Gleichheit der Eltern in dem sinnlichen Eindruck der körperlichen Erscheinung. אם לא היתה אמו שוה לאביו בקול ובמראה ובקומה אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה מ׳׳ט דאמר קרא איננו שומע בקולנו מדקול בעינן שוין מראה וקומה נמי בעינן שוין (daselbst). Und in der Tat, bei der sinnlichen Anlage des Kindes unseres Problems fällt sicherlich auch der sinnliche Eindruck körperlicher Erscheinung ins Gewicht und lässt eine Ungleichheit, z. B. in dem mehr oder minder Imponierenden des Vaters oder der Mutter, in Stimme, Wuchs usw. auch auf eine Ungleichheit des sittlichen Eindrucks auf das zu erziehende Gemüt schließen. Auch körperliche Gebrechen der Eltern können in derselben Richtung den erziehlichen Einfluss geschwächt haben. Wenigstens hat das menschliche Gericht, dem ja zunächst nur solche äußere Merkmale vorliegen, in solchem Falle sein Urteil zurückhalten. Alle die Tätigkeiten, die in unserem Texte von den Eltern ausgesagt werden: והוציאו ,ותפשו, איננו שומע בקולנו בננו זה ,ואמרו fasst die Halacha auf und lehrt an ihnen, dass unser Text keine an Hand oder Fuß gelähmten, an Stummheit, Blindheit, Taubheit leidenden Eltern voraussetze.

זלל ,זולל וסובא ist der spezifische Ausdruck für gefräßiges Fleischessen, sowie סובא für den Weinsäufer. So Prov. 23 20: אל תהי בסבאי יין בזללי בשר למו כי סבא זלל .וזולל יורש וקרעים תלביש נומה, verwandt mit צלל in die Tiefe versinken, bezeichnet den höchsten Grad der Entwürdigung als Gegensatz von יקר, so Jirmija 15, 19. ואם תוציא יקר מזולל כפי תהיה, "wenn du es verstehst, Würdiges aus Gemeinem hervorzubringen, wird dein Mund gottähnliche Kraft bewähren". זולל ist daher der viehisch gewordene Mensch, und ein זולל בשר kennt keine höhere Glückseligkeit als einen großen guten Braten, er ist Vieh im Fleischgenuss. סבא, verwandt mit צבא anschwellen, שבע satt werden usw.: sich mit Getränk füllen, saufen. Der בן סורר ומורה verfällt dem richterlichen Urteil nur, wenn er seinen Ungehorsam gegen die Eltern in viehischem Fleisch- und Weinschlemmen betätigt, und zwar, da er es gegen den Willen der Eltern verübt und er als dreizehnjähriger Mensch voraussetzlich kein eigenes Vermögen hat, stiehlt er es, wie die Halacha lehrt, den Eltern und verprasst es mit gleich ihm nichtswürdigen Genossen (Sanhedrin 71 a u. 70 b). Indem das Gesetz unter allen möglichen Verirrungen das als Kriterium hoffnungslosester Entartung hervorhebt, wenn in der Zeit, in welcher der zum Jüngling gereifte jüdische Knabe sich begeisterungsvoll jedem Ideale des Geistigen und Sittlichen zuwenden soll, er sich dem "Schlemmen und Saufen" ergeben zeigt, so liegt da wiederum ein bedeutsamer Fingerzeig für Vater und Mutter, überhaupt für den ganzen Tenor eines Hauses, in welchem junge Menschenseelen ihrer geistigen sittlichen Zukunft entgegenreifen sollen, schon um dieser ihrer Kinder willen sich zu hüten, nicht "gut Essen und Trinken" als ein überwiegendes "wichtiges" Anliegen des Hauses und der Hausgenossen hervortreten zu lassen. Nur, wo geistigen und sittlichen Momenten eine unvergleichlich höchste Wertschätzung zugewendet wird, bildet sich die Atmosphäre, in welcher junge Menschengemüter vor sinnlicher Vertierung geschützt bleiben. —

An die Aussage der Eltern: איננו שומע בקולנו knüpft die Halacha den Satz, dass nicht nur, wenn der ausschweifende Genuss bei einer Mizwagelegenheit stattgefunden, אכל דבר שהוא מצוה, sondern auch, wenn der Genuss in gesetzlich verbotenen Speisen bestanden אכל דבר עברה, wie: נבלות וטרפות ושקצים ורמשים, die Verurteilung nicht statthabe, es heiße: איננו שומע בקולנו ולא בקולו של מקום (daselbst 70 b). Wir haben diese auffallende, für die Erfahrungen unserer Gegenwart und durch dieselben in nicht geringem Maße lehrreiche Bestimmung in unserem eingangs erwähnten Artikel im Jeschurun ausführlich beleuchtet und verweisen hierauf. —

זולל וסובא, such gluttons will become impoverished so that they will resort to robbery with violence in order to satisfy their needs. (Sanhedrin, 71, based on Proverbs)

ואמרו אל זקני העיר בננו זה סורר ומורה, and they will say to the elders of the city: “this son of ours is wayward and rebellious.” At the beginning father and mother bring this child to a court composed of three judges. They produce two valid witnesses that he has stolen from his father and used the proceeds to buy meat and wine and that he has consumed same. The court sentences the boy to corporal punishment of 39 lashes if he had been duly warned. If he repeats the crime the parents take the boy to a tribunal of 23 judges who have authority to preside over capital offenses, and they bring their witnesses with them. His trial is then concluded and the boy will be stoned to death (Maimonides Hilchot Mamrim 7,7).

וכל ישראל ישמעו ויראו AND ALL ISRAEL SHALL HEAR AND FEAR — From here we derive the law that his execution requires public announcement by the court: “The man named so-and-so is stoned because he was a refractory and rebellious son” (Sanhedrin 89a).

וכל ישראל ישמעו וייראו, “and the whole people of Israel will hear about this execution, and they will become more G’d-fearing.” According to Nachmanides this is the Torah’s way of making clear to the people that G’d’s objective with this legislation is even more aimed at the people on the whole than at the victim, as it is hoped to make the carrying out of this legislation totally unnecessary in the future. Execution of the recalcitrant Torah scholar, זקן ממרא, who may even have been objectively correct in his interpretation of Torah law, is also based on the fact that the authority of legally appointed judges must be respected, even if until the final handing down of the judgment there is freedom to argue the merits of the verdict. Public interest as interpreted by the lawgiver, the Torah, sometimes overrides what we in our limited vision consider the infringement of the right of the individual. Stamping out the roots of religious disputes by nipping such dissent involving civil disobedience in the bud, prevents the forming of schisms and different groups ultimately each upholding a version of the Torah of their own. [Some of the wording is my own, though not the thrust of the message. Ed.]

From here [we derive] that there must be a proclamation, etc. You might ask: How does Rashi know that all that is required is a proclamation? But the verse writes here, “Let all Yisroel hear,” why does Rashi not write “that we wait with him until the festival” as he explains in parshas Shoftim (above 17:13) [the verse] “Let all the people hear and fear” [in the section] dealing with זקן ממרא (the rebellious elder)! The answer is that there (17:7) it is written, “Let the hand of the witnesses be against him first to execute him, and the hand of the entire people afterward,” whereas here it implies that the people of his town begin first to stone him as it is written, “And all the men of his city will stone him.” Therefore one must explain [here that the verse means] in the presence of all the people of his city, as Rashi explains below (22:21) regarding, “the people of her city will stone her” written in [the parsha of] the defamer, “in the presence of all the people of her city.” But if you say that here [too] we wait with him until the festival, why does it say [to stone him] in the presence of all the people of the city? It would take place in the presence of all Israel since all Israel would be there! Therefore, [this proves that] we certainly do not wait with him until the festival and when Scripture writes “Let all Israel hear,” it means that “there must be a proclamation at the courthouse.” Another answer is: One might ask why it is written [here], “All the men of his city will stone him etc.” when it is written [earlier] (17:7), “Let the hand of the witnesses be against him first etc”? You cannot answer that when it is written “all the men of his city” it means “in the presence of all the men of his city,” because Scripture writes “and let all Israel hear,” which implies that this takes place in the presence of all Israel. So the verse should have said, “All Israel will stone him.” If so, our [original] question returns, that it is written, “Let the hands of the witnesses, etc.” Rashi answers that “all Israel” comes [to teach] that there is a proclamation and [therefore we can answer] as we said originally, “All the men of his city will stone him” [means] “in the presence of all the people of his city.” See more about this subject in parshas Shoftim.

V. 21. וכל ישראל ישמעו ויראו (siehe zu Kap. 17, 13).

וכי יהיה באיש חטא משפט מות AND IF THERE BE IN A MAN A SIN DESERVING THE JUDGMENT OF DEATH — The juxtaposition of these sections (this and that of the rebellious son) tells us that if father and mother spare him (the rebellious son), he will in the latter end turn to mischief and commit sins for which he will become liable to the death penalty by the court (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 1).

AND THOU SHALT HANG HIM. “Our Rabbis have said:¹⁰³Sanhedrin 45b. All that have been stoned must be hanged. It is this which is stated, for he that is hanged is a reproach unto G-d,¹⁰⁴Verse 23. and is a degradation of the King, for man is made in the image of the King, and the Israelites are His children. There is a parable of two brothers who resembled each other etc.”¹⁰⁵“One became king and the other was arrested for robbery and hanged. Whoever saw him hanging said that the king was hanged.” (Rashi, quoting the words of the Rabbis in Sanhedrin 46b). This is Rashi’s language. “All that have been stoned must be hanged” are the words of an individual Sage [i.e., Rabbi Eliezer],¹⁰³Sanhedrin 45b. but the law is according to the words of the Sages that no offender [executed by] stoning is hanged save the blasphemer and the idolator. This is the sense of the phrase, for he that is hanged is a reproach unto G-d,¹⁰⁴Verse 23. — because people will say, “Why was this person hanged? Because he blasphemed G-d or worshipped a particular idol by means of this particular service, and he saw therein this sign or wonder.” The discussion of the idol and the service thereof are considered a k’lalah [“a reproach” to G-d]. Or it is an expression of “degradation” as the Rabbi [Rashi] mentioned, from the expressions and he cursed me with a grievous ‘k’lalah (curse);¹⁰⁶I Kings 2:8. that his sons did bring ‘a curse’ upon themselves¹⁰⁷I Samuel 3:13. [both verses being expressions of] contempt. And the parable concerning the twin brothers contains a secret; it does not refer, as the Rabbi thought, to the Israelites who are called the children of G-d.¹⁰⁸See above, 14:1. Aboth 3:15.
In line with the simple meaning of Scripture the verse is stating: “If a man has committed a great sin for which he is deserving of death and of hanging on a tree because of the grievous nature of his sin, nevertheless his body shall not remain all night upon the tree,¹⁰⁴Verse 23. for the most accursed and blasted of all people is the hanged. Among all forms of death, there is none as ugly and despicable like it [this degradation of the human body], and it is not fitting that we defile the Land and that G-d’s curse be within the Holy Land, for there the Eternal commanded the blessing, even life forever.¹⁰⁹Psalms 133:3. Therefore Joshua commanded and they took them down off the trees.¹¹⁰Joshua 10:27.
In my opinion the affair of Saul’s children who were left hanging¹¹¹II Samuel 21:1-10. Related there is the event of a three-year famine in the days of King David. When he asked G-d the reason for it, he was told that it was in punishment of Saul’s mistreatment of the Gibeonites. (See Note 116 for the nature of Saul’s sin.) When David asked the Gibeonites how they could be appeased, they requested that they be given seven men of Saul’s family whom they would hang. As much as the king tried to mollify them, they insisted upon satisfying their lust for vengeance upon members of Saul’s family. When David acceded to their wishes, they left the victims hanging for a long period of time until the rains came. — The question here arises as to why David allowed the victims to be left hanging when the Torah states, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree? The answer follows in the text. — It should also be pointed out that because of their display of cruelty the Gibeonites were forever banned from marrying into Israel (Yebamoth 79a). was because they were not hanged by a court of Israel, nor by any Israelite. Rather, David who turned them [the seven members of Saul’s family] over to the Gibeonites to do as they pleased with them, and it was they who hanged them [Saul’s relatives] and did not wish to bury them in order to demonstrate their vengeance against Saul’s family, and those that remain shall hear, and fear.⁹⁸Ibid., 19:20: And those that remain shall hear, and fear. But when water was poured upon them from heaven¹¹²II Samuel 21:10. then David knew that their sin had been forgiven, and that G-d was entreated for the Land,¹¹³Ibid., Verse 14. that the Eternal had remembered the Land¹¹⁴See Ruth 1:6. with rain and the famine would end. Then he commanded and they [the Israelites] buried them with their fathers¹¹⁵See II Samuel 21:13-14. in honor of their royal status. David bore no guilt at all [in the entire affair], for we were commanded only that we not defile the Land by allowing someone whom we hanged [to remain on a gallows overnight]. Now, G-d did not want to forgive their sin [i.e., the sin of Saul’s conduct towards the Gibeonites] immediately in order to let it be known that G-d loves proselytes, as our Rabbis have said.¹¹⁶Joshua had made the Gibeonites hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the Eternal (Joshua 9:26). When Saul smote Nob, the city of the priests (I Samuel 22:19) the Gibeonites were thus deprived of their source of livelihood. It was this grudge that they held against Saul and his family. When they finally satisfied their vengeful feelings against the members of Saul’s family, all the heathens proclaimed “There is no nation as worthy of our allegiance as Israel! See how the G-d of Israel atoned for a wrong inflicted upon wretched proselytes through the sons of kings!” At that time, one hundred and fifty thousand heathens were converted to Judaism, because it was shown that G-d loves proselytes (Yebamoth 79a).
And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said by way of the plain meaning of Scripture [that the phrase ki kilelath Elokim talui¹⁰⁴Verse 23. means] “that it is G-d Who invokes the evil, and the curse will descend upon the place near the hanged person, for there is a secret [in the fact that the contaminated air surrounding the corpse] affects the soul [of the living]. Therefore thou defile not thy Land. ”¹⁰⁴Verse 23. Thus whoever allows the body [of a criminal] to hang overnight transgresses both a negative commandment [his body shall not remain all night upon the tree]¹⁰⁴Verse 23. and a positive commandment¹¹⁷These are so listed among the Taryag (613) Commandments. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 243-244, and Vol. II, p. 65. [but thou shalt surely bury him the same day].¹⁰⁴Verse 23. Our Rabbis have likewise interpreted¹¹⁸Sanhedrin 46a-b. that the same law applies to all other dead, that whoever suffers his dead to remain overnight, except in order to render it honor,¹¹⁹Such as the need for more time to secure a coffin, burial clothes, mourners, etc. (ibid.). If the burial is delayed for any of these reasons, no transgression is committed. [violates the above commandments]. Just as [leaving the criminal hanging overnight upon] “the tree” is a form of disgrace, so all forms of disrespect [shown to the dead are also forbidden]. Now, according to the opinion of the Rabbis [that this law applies equally to every deceased, we must say] that the phrase ki kilelath Elokim talui¹⁰⁴Verse 23. states that “although this criminal is deserving of disgrace” because of his great sin, nevertheless you shall not do so. And the parable of the two brothers [mentioned above] applies to everyone who suffers his dead to remain overnight. So also the curse [emanating from a corpse] to which Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra referred, applies to every house where there is a dead person, and therefore he defiles everyone that cometh into the tent, and every thing that is in the tent.¹²⁰Numbers 19:14.

וכי יהיה באיש חטא משפט מות, "And when a man is guilty of a sin carrying the death penalty, etc." The reason the legislation in this paragraph follows on the heels of the legislation of the previous paragraph is because G'd extols the importance of refining man. First the Torah was concerned with man's personal refinement as expressed in the verse כי תצא למלחמה, man goes to war against his evil urge. Next G'd showed His concern about the rehabilitation of man's children, hence the paragraph about the delinquent son, בן סורר ומורה. In our verse the Torah refers to the scholars of the respective generation whose task it is to watch over evil doers. The Torah writes: כי יהיה באיש חטא משפט מות and he continues to be rebellious against G'd's law without repenting he will wind up being executed, והומת. The Torah blames the fact that it came to an execution on negligence by the leading scholars, the Rabbis. When the Torah writes: ותלית אותו על עץ, "you must hang him from a tree," this refers to the scholar, the fruit-bearing tree, who will have to bear the guilt or punishment of the sinner. G'd had charged the scholars with ensuring that errant sinners become penitents by disciplining them both by word and by deed (compare Erchin 16). We have written about this duty of the scholars already in Parshat Kedoshim. When the scholars are derelict in their duty to persuade the sinner to mend his ways the result is the death by execution of the sinner.

The Rabbis remark that all those who are stoned are also hung, etc. Because it is written, “[If a man is guilty of a capital offense] and is executed; you shall hang [him from a tree].” This is a general rule (כלל) that implies that all those who are executed are hung. Afterwards it is written, “For a hanging corpse is an affront to Hashem.” This is a specific statement (פרט) that implies that only someone who blesses [i.e. curses] the Name, is hung [because when people see him they are reminded of his sin that was an affront to Hashem], but not others who are executed, even those executed by stoning. When they (i.e., a כלל and a פרט) are juxtaposed, it is considered [a case of] כלל ופרט where [the rule is] the general rule only includes what is in the specific case; [implying] someone who blesses the Name, yes [i.e., he is hung, but] any other case, no [i.e., he is not hung]. But now [in our verses] they [the כלל and the פרט] are distant from each other, the general rule comes [and teaches] to include all who are executed. And the particular case comes and limits the general rule [and teaches] that only those who are stoned are hung, since they are partially similar to the particular case, for they are stoned just as the one who blessed the Name [is stoned].

V. 22. וכי יהיה באיש וגו׳. Das vorangehende בן סו׳׳מ-Gesetz schloss mit der Bestimmung: וכל ישראל ישמעו ויראו, und wird damit das dort behandelte Verbrechen zu den drei andern gefügt, deren Strafvollzug als Warnung für alle andere zu veröffentlichen war. Daran schließt sich hier das Verbot, nicht etwa in gleicher Absicht diejenigen Verbrecher, deren Leichen nach der Hinrichtung vorschriftsmässig an einen Pfahl schwebend hingehängt werden, zur Abschreckung anderer an dem Pfahle hängen zu lassen. Vielmehr sollen sie sofort wieder herabgenommen und, wie jeder andere Verstorbene, vor Sonnenuntergang begraben werden. Denn das augenblickliche Schwebenlassen der Leiche an dem Pfahl hat einen anderen Zweck und geschieht keineswegs in der Absicht, einen abschreckenden Anblick zu bereiten.

וכי יהיה באיש חטא משפט מות, “If someone had been guilty of a capital offense, (and had been duly executed);” this was added at this point as the corpse is going to be hung (for a few hours maximum)

ותלית אתו על עץ [AND IF THERE BE IN A MAN A SIN DESERVING THE JUDGMENT OF DEATH] THOU SHALT HANG HIM ON A TREE — Our Rabbis said, All those who have to be put to death by stoning must afterwards be hanged, for it is said here (v. 23) “for cursing of God ends in hanging”, and we are told that one who curses God is punished with stoning (cf. Leviticus 24:15—16; Sanhedrin 45b).

The Torah continues with לא תלין "do not let the body hang overnight." This is a commandment addressed to the people at large not to suspect a Torah scholar of a sin when they have observed him commit a deed which could be interpreted as a sin. You must assume that even if had committed a sin, he had already repented it by nightfall so that he would have rehabilitated himself before the following morning. The word נבלתו, "his dead body" in the sequence לא תלין נבלתו is a reference to the sin. We find that sin is also referred to as a "dead body" on occasion. כי קבר תקברנו, "for you must surely bury him." The Torah speaks about the need for you to bury this sin on that very day when it had been committed or presumed to have been committed. The reason for this is כי קללת אלוקים "for it is a curse of G'd." If you were not to give the scholar in question the benefit of the doubt and at least assume that he has meanwhile repented his mistake you would be desecrating the name of the Lord and would besmirch His honour.

Dieser ganze V. 22 ist Vordersatz und לא תלין וגו׳ ist der Nachsatz. Denn keineswegs ist die Leiche eines jeden Hingerichteten aufzuhängen. Nur bei zwei Verbrechen, מגדף und ע׳׳ז, ist dies Vorschrift, dass ihre Leiche nach der סקילה aufgehängt werde. Wir haben dies, sowie die Bedeutung dieser תליה als Vervollständigung des in סקילה sich verwirklichenden Gedankens des דמיו בו bereits Wajikra S. 442 zu entwickeln versucht. Hier folgt nur die gesetzliche Bestimmung, dass selbst bei diesen das allgemeine Verbot und Gebot לא תלין und קבר תקברנו nicht außer acht gelassen werden soll. Daher die Form: קבר תקברנו.

על עץ, not a tree that is still rooted in the earth, but on a wooden structure that had once been a tree. All the sinners guilty of death through stoning, including the rebellious son, will be hung afterwards as a deterrent, but must be buried before sunset. Compare Esther 5,14, where the gallows constructed by Haman to hang Mordechai from is called: עץ, “tree.”

The Torah concludes this paragraph with לא תטמא את אדמתך, "do not defile your soil." We can best understand this in conjunction with Shabbat 119 that Jerusalem was not destroyed until people were wont to impute base motives to the Torah scholars. The Talmud bases this on a verse in Chronicles II 36,16: "But they mocked the messengers of G'd and disdained His words and taunted His prophets." This is the reason that G'd commanded that people must not insult the Torah scholars. If they do, the Jews would be replaced by Gentiles in the Holy Land, who in turn will defile the land by their very presence.

ת׳׳ר אילו נאמר כי יהיה באיש חטא משפט מות ותלית, הייתי אומר :והומת ותלית תולין אותו ואחר כך ממיתין אותו כדרך שהמלכות עושה ת׳׳ל והומת ותלית ממיתין אותו ואחר כך תולין אותו (Sanhedrin 46 b). Offenbar ergibt sich aus dem Wortlaut unseres לל Textes, dass תליה keine Todesart, sondern eine Prozedur ist, welche nach der Hinrichtung vorzunehmen sein soll, und zwar, wie daselbst bemerkt wird, verschob man bei den Verbrechen, die תליה erforderten, Urteilsfällung und Hinrichtung bis gegen Ende des Tages, vollzog nach der Hinrichtung die תליה der Leiche an einen Pfahl und nahm sie sogleich wieder herab.

כי קללת אלהים תלוי FOR HE THAT IS HANGED IS A קללת אלהים — i.e., a degradation of the Divine King, for man is made in His image and the Israelites are His children. A parable! It may be compared to the case of two twin brothers who very closely resembled each other: one became king and the other was arrested for robbery and was hanged. Whoever saw him on the gallows thought that the king was hanged (Sanhedrin 46b). — Wherever the term קללה occurs in Scripture it has the meaning of bonding in light esteem and despising, as e.g., (1 Kings 2:8) “[Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of Bahurim] who cursed me with a severe curse (קללני קללה נמרצת)” (cf. II Samuel 16:5—8).

כי קללת אלוהים תלוי, every disembodied creature is known as elohim; this includes the soul of human beings known as צלם אלוהים, “image of G’d.” [as He is without body, so this essence of a human being is without a body, does not need a body. Ed.] (Genesis 1,27) This is how we can understand the woman, known as בעלת אוב in Samuel I 28,13 whom King Sha-ul approached and asked to raise the prophet Samuel for him producing a disembodied image. Seeing that the disgrace done to a person after he has died is also an insult to this disembodied essence of him, the Torah describes it as קללת אלוהים, equivalent to cursing the dead person’s eternal essence. קללת אלהים, leaving the dead corpse hanging without burial is an insult to that very eternal essence of a human being called אלהים.

כי קללת אלוקים תלוי, when passers by view the corpse of a person who has been hanged they are in the habit of cursing the judge who decreed this penalty, or the relatives of the victim curse the judges accusing them of handing down a harsh verdict for a “minor” offence, such as the collecting of kindling on the Sabbath. (Numbers 15,33) If the Torah considered it asr necessary to warn the people against cursing their judges, (אלוהים לא תקלל, Exodus 22,27) it did so because it is familiar with people’s psyches, more so than people themselves. Therefore, to counteract such violation of the law not to curse judges, לא תלין נבלתו, “his corpse is not to spend the night unburied,” but כי קבור תקברנו...ולא תטמא את אדמתך, “you must proceed forthwith to bury him, for as long as he stays unburied people may contract severe ritual impurity through contact with that body, or through being under the same roof as the corpse.”

כי קללת אלוקים תלוי. ”for a hanging person is a curse of G’d.” Some sages learn from this verse that all people who were executed by stoning are to have their bodies hung publicly during the balance of the day of their execution. The expression קללת אלוקים does not refer to the act of hanging and displaying the body of the sinner in question, but it refers only to the person who was executed for blaspheming. In practice, this hanging is applied only to the body of the blasphemer who, more than anyone else, had cheapened the whole concept of a human being, whom G’d had created in His image, and he had the unforgivable nerve to curse his Creator. His body, by his own admission then, is not worth treating with the dignity accorded to other dead bodies. Nachmanides writes that when viewing the text at its face value, the meaning is that whenever a person commits a sin deserving of the death penalty by public hanging, his corpse will not be hung from a tree as there is no greater curse that can be applied to a human being than to publicly hang him. It is therefore not appropriate that such a stain on human dignity, akin to ritual contamination, should ever be seen in the Holy Land. Our sages interpret the words קללת אלוקים as referring to the person executed, saying that the message is that although this person deserves the debasement of being hung, but that seeing that this would reflect negatively on his Creator, the Torah spared him this indignity. They also say that we learn from the words קללת אלוקים that anyone hanging a dead corpse thereby inflicting an indignity on that body, is guilty of transgressing a negative commandment (compare Sanhedrin 15)

It is an affront to the king, etc. Rashi’s intends to explain the word כי, “for.” What reason is this for what is [said] above? He explains, “It is an affront, etc.” This [answer] is according to what our Rabbis (i.e. R. Eliezer, Sanhedrin ibid.) expound, “All those who are stoned are also hung.” However, according to the sages who say that the ones who are stoned are not hung except for the blasphemer and the idolater, who is also similar to the blasphemer, you have to say that when it is written כי קללת אלהים, it means “(For) the one who curses Hashem (is hung),” and קללת is an expression of cursing. [If so, why does Rashi not explain the verse according to the sages whose opinion is accepted as halacha?] The reason is that] by explaining the verse according to the Midrash [that says that each parsha is connected to the one adjacent to it] brings it closer to the plain meaning [of the verses], and the juxtaposition of the sections indicates that all those who are stoned are also hung, Rashi therefore explains [like R. Eliezer] that קללת is an expression of “affront.” (See Re”m who discusses this at length). Another answer [that the word קללת means both “affront” and also “curse,”] is that otherwise you might ask, from where does Rashi know that all those who are stoned are also hung if he [later] explains that קללת is an expression of an affront [and not an expression of “curse.” How then does he know that the verse is talking about someone who incurred stoning for cursing?]. [The answer is] that one must to say that [קללת] implies both [curse and an affront], because if it means only to “bless” the Name, it should have said, “(For he who) blesses Hashem,” [which is] a “clean” expression. Therefore [this indicates that] קללת is an expression denoting an affront. And, if it was an expression denoting only an affront, it should have said explicitly an expression denoting an affront. Therefore [we must say that] it is also coming [to be understood] as blessing Hashem. (I found [this interpretation])

AND THOU DEFILE NOT THY LAND. In the opinion of our Rabbis this is not merely a reason, meaning [that a corpse may not be left hanging] “in order that you defile not your Land,” for, if so, it would be permissible [to leave the dead overnight] outside the Land. Instead, this is a second negative commandment. Now, whoever leaves overnight the corpse of a criminal hanging, or of any dead body in the Land transgresses two negative commandments [his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, and thou defile not the Land] and a positive commandment [but thou shalt surely bury him the same day]. Outside the Land [whenever someone allows any corpse to remain overnight] he violates the positive commandment [mentioned] and the negative commandment [his body shall not remain all night] which is derived from the law of the hanging corpse, as I have explained. It is by reason of this negative commandment that Joshua buried the Canaanite kings¹²¹Joshua 10:27. during the day of their execution, although, in their hanging, there would not have been the curse which our Rabbis mentioned with regards to the blasphemer and idol-worshipper. Rather, it was on account of the uncleanness of the Land [which their hanging would have caused] or because he was apprehensive of the desecration of G-d on the basis of the parable of the two brothers, as I have mentioned.

V. 23. לא תלין וגו׳ כי קבר תקברנו וגו׳. Wir haben schon zum vorigen Verse bemerkt, dass dieses Verbot und Gebot an sich allgemein gelten, כל המלין את מתו עובר בלאו (daselbst), hier sind sie nur bei Gelegenheit einer mit תליה verbundenen Hinrichtung niedergelegt, um zu sagen, dass auch hier dieselben in Geltung bleiben sollen.

כי קללת אלוהים תלוי, “for an impaled body is an affront to G–d;” a body that has not been buried is as if one had cursed G–d, as anyone seeing that corpse will realise that the body while alive had cursed the Lord by his activities and tarnished the concept of man having been created in G–d’s image.

.לא תלין נבלתו על עץ , “you must not allow his corpse to remain hanging from a tree or gallows,” but bury him on the same day. The reason for this is so that people will not confuse this corpse with the one of a blasphemer whose body is to be displayed by hanging, and people might believe that the corpse they are looking at is that of a blasphemer. It would be considered as an insult to a mortal king if too much publicity would be given to someone who had mutinied against him even if he had already been punished for his crime. Similarly, it would be an insult to the immortal King, our Creator, if too much publicity were to be given to someone who had been audacious enough to insult the Creator through blasphemy. An alternate interpretation for the line: כי קללת אלוקים תלוי, people seeing the corpse of someone who had been executed for violating G-d’s commands would reason that the guilty party had already paid the price for what he had done; why subject him to indignities by displaying his body?A third interpretation for the above line: this line is addressed to the judges; people seeing the face of the corpse hanging, and knowing the judges who decreed the corpse’s execution might curse them for having executed him for a minor crime, or for not looking for a technicality to avoid having to convict that person of a capital crime.

ולא תטמא, do not allow the spirit of impurity, death, to linger overnight in a location where a body remains unburied.

ולא תטמא את אדמתך, “so that you do not contaminate your land.” Nachmanides writes that this cannot be the only consideration for having to bring the corpse of the judicially executed sinner to burial before nightfall, as if it were, it would be permissible to let such a corpse remain unburied overnight in the Diaspora. The true interpretation is that it is forbidden to leave a corpse unburied [or untended Ed.] overnight, whereas when this happens in the Holy Land one transgresses an additional commandment by doing so.

And the Israelites are His children. Rashi means, and especially Israel who are also His children, therefore, “Do not leave his corpse overnight on the tree.” Because “This is compared to two brothers, etc.”

כי קבר וגו׳ der Pfahl, an welchem die תליה vollzogen war, wurde auch begraben.

כי קבור תקברנו ביום ההוא, “but you must inter him the day of his execution,” instead of becoming ritually contaminated under the same roof as the sinner.

כי קללת אלקי׳ תלוי (siehe Wajikra S. 442). Die תליה hat nicht den Zweck der Abschreckung, sondern ist eine für מגדף (und so auch für ע׳ ע׳׳ז) die vorangegangene סקילה ergänzende מצוה. Diese מצוה ist mit geschehener תליה vollzogen und ist daher die Leiche sofort herabzunehmen und zu Grabe zu bringen.

ולא תטמא וגו׳. Wir haben wiederholt erkannt, wie der durch eine Menschenleiche vergegenwärtigte Wahngedanke der Unfreiheit des Menschen die Grundquelle aller טומאה ist. אדמתך, "dein Menschenboden", der dir zur Verwirklichung des sittlich reinen, freien, gottebenbildlichen Menschenwirkens gegebene Boden, hat keinen Raum für die dem Zwange physischer Notwendigkeit anheimgefallene Leibeshülle eines aus ihr geschiedenen Menschen, sie ist von der Oberfläche des "Menschenbodens" weg, der Erde zu übergeben, der sie angehört und der sie entstammte, כי עפר אתה ואל עפר תשוב (Bereschit 3, 19), וישב העפר על הארץ כשהיה והרוח תשוב אל האלקים אשר נתנה (Pred. 12, 7), deine "Adama" bleibe rein dem lebendigen und im Leben freien, reinen "Adam", ולא תטמא את אדמתך אשר ד׳ אלקיך נתן לך נחלה. —

Es wird aber die Pflicht des Begräbnisses einer Leiche zugleich als eine Pflicht gegen den heimgegangenen Menschenbruder begriffen, dessen Persönlichkeit in der zurückgelassenen Leibeshülle uns gegenwärtig sein und vor entwürdigendem Anblick geschützt werden soll, wie sich diese Pflicht ja auch in dem היתר טומאה לקרובים für die כהנים ausspricht (Wajikra 21, 2 u. 3), und auch die Halacha lehrt, dass, obgleich כל המלין את מתו עובר בלאו, dennoch הלינהו לכבודו להביא לו ארון ותכריכין אינו עובר עליו, Verschiebung des Begräbnisses zu Ehren des Toten, das Erforderliche zur Bestattung herbeizuschaffen, nicht gesetzwidrig ist (Sanhedrin 46 a u. b). Wird ja die Bestattung einer unversorgt liegenden Leiche, מת מצוה, als eine so hohe Liebespflicht begriffen, dass vor ihr die sonst höchsten positiven Pflichten und auch die טומאה-Verbote eines כה׳׳ג und Nasir, selbst wo sie kumulativ auftreten, zurückzustehen haben, z. B. הרי שהיה בה׳׳ג ונזיר והלך לשחוט את פסחו ולמול את בנו מטמא למת מצוה wenn er gleich dadurch an Erfüllung der פסח ומילה-Pflicht gehindert wird (Berachot 18 b תוספו׳ daselbst; — siehe Wajikra 21, 11 und Bamidbar 6, 7). Ja, eine unbestattete Leiche wäre als בזיונא דכלהו חיי, als eine Entwürdigung aller Lebenden zu begreifen, deren leibliche Würde durch den Anblick der Verwesung litte (siehe im übrigen לחם משנה zu הל ׳אבל יב׳ א׳).

(וצ׳׳ע׳׳ע דמאי קמבעי ליה בסנהדרין אי קבורה משום בזיונא או משום כפרה הא בברכות י׳׳ט ב׳ סברת הש׳׳ם בפשיטות דמת מצוה איכא משום כבוד הבריות וגם כמו שכתבתי בפנים הא דמותר להלין לכבודו מוכיח דקבורה משום בזיונא, וצ׳׳ע. ולולי דמסתפינא הייתי אומר דהאבעי׳ הוא דוקא אי קבורת קרקע משום בזיונא או משום כפרה.דהא רק ע׳׳י קרקע הויא כפרה ע׳׳ש וצ׳׳ע)

Kap. 22 beginnt mit einer Gesetzesgruppe (Verse 1 — 5), in welcher für das nunmehr beginnende eigentliche bürgerliche Verkehrs- und Berufsleben drei Fundamentalgrundsätze zum Ausspruch kommen, unter deren Einfluss allein sich das soziale Volksleben seiner Bestimmung gemäß gestalten kann. Diese drei Grundsätze sind: Brüderliche Solidarität aller für den Schutz des Eigentums eines jeden (Verse 1 — 3), brüderliche Solidarität aller für die Förderung der Unternehmungen eines jeden (V. 4), Aufrechthaltung der natürlichen Sonderung der Geschlechter nach der einem jeden eigentümlichen Berufs- und Lebensweise (V. 5). Wie gewöhnlich, kommen diese Grundsätze an einzelnen konkreten Problemen und Beispielen zur Erkenntnis, von denen namentlich das erste zugleich nach verschiedenen Seiten hin für die Gesetzeskunde lehrreich ist.

Dieses erste Problem השבת אבדה dürfte zu der vorangehenden Verpflichtung der Bestattung einer Menschenleiche in natürlichem Zusammenhange stehen. Eine Leiche ist nichts als eine אבדה, als die abgefallene, zurückgelassene Hülle eines Brudermenschen. Derselbe Pflichtgedanke, der in der Leiche die Menschenpersönlichkeit, der sie angehörte, gegenwärtig sein lässt und sie der Fürsorge aller Brudermenschen überantwortet, lässt auch in jedem verlorenen Gute die Persönlichkeit des Eigners erblicken und überantwortet es der brüderlichen Fürsorge eines jeden Menschengenossen.