Komentarz do Powtórzonego Prawa 23:34

לא יקח — This does not mean “he shall not take” but “he cannot take” his father’s wife: there can be no question of a legal marriage for him in regard to her, because the marriage ceremony (קדושין) has no legal hold on her (cannot make her his wife: it is no marriage) (Kiddushin 67b; cf. Rashi on Kiddushin 67b s. v. לא יקח)

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

לא יקח איש את אשת אביו, A man must not marry the wife of his father.” The reference is to a woman whom his father had once raped. This explains why this verse is appended to the subject of rape just discussed.

He cannot effect marriage with her, etc. Rashi is answering the question: It should have said “he may not expose” as it is written in the end [of the verse], “And may not expose.” He explains that קיחה implies that he cannot effect marriage with her, i.e. [he cannot] marry her with money, because we derive this law by comparing the expression קיחה written here to קיחה written regarding the field of Efron (Kiddushin 2a) [where it denotes marrying with money]. Rashi is referring to [marrying] her after the death of his father, otherwise, we would know [that he cannot marry her] because she is a married woman.

Kap. 23. V. 1. Während die auf Verwandtschaft beruhenden Eheverbote חייבי מיתת ב׳׳ד וחייבי כריתות bereits im dritten Buche ausgesprochen sind, folgen hier (Verse 2 — 9) noch auf Körperbeschaffenheit, Geburt und Abstammung beruhende Eheverbote, wodurch קהל ד׳, der Ehekreis des priesterlichen Gottesvolkes ebenso von ungeeigneten Elementen frei gehalten werden soll, wie innerhalb desselben die Priesterehen ihre noch engeren Umgrenzungen haben. Es sind dies חייבי לאוין וחייבי עשה השוין בכל, allgemein durch לא תעשה oder עשה verbotene Ehen, wie jene חייבי לאוין דכהונה sind. Ihnen voran stehen im Verse 1 zwei Eheverbote, die wir vielmehr im עריות-Kapitel des dritten Buches hätten erwarten dürfen, wo ja auch ohnehin אשת אב, hier das erste der beiden Verbote, schon steht, so dass es hier nur als eine Wiederholung erscheinen würde. Die Bedeutung und Stellung dieser beiden Verbote bedarf daher einer eingehenden Erwägung.

לא יקח איש את אשת אביו, “a man must not marry a woman who had been the wife of his father;” (even if she had only been raped by his father, and not legally married) This law does not come under the heading of a woman legally married to his father, as the offspring of such a marriage, i.e. the man the Torah speaks about here, would then be a bastard who cannot marry any Jewish woman. If he had done so he would be guilty of the karet penalty, and would forfeit his share in the afterlife. Here we speak of a woman who had been raped by his father, and this is why this verse follows the last verse of the last chapter which dealt with rape, when the penalty had been a financial one payable to the girl’s father. According to the opinion of rabbi Akiva, the karet penalty is sometimes also applicable to violation of commandments where this had not been spelled out. According to the other sages, our paragraph would have to speak of someone sleeping with his aunt while that aunt was awaiting completion of the process of completing the levirate marriage.

ולא יגלה כנף אביו AND HE SHALL NOT UNCOVER HIS FATHER’S SKIRT — This refers to the שומרת יבם of his father (the widow of his father’s brother who died without issue, and who is waiting (שומרת) for her brother-in-law (יבם) either to marry her or to put her through the ceremony of release, חליצה), who is thus destined for his father. But has he not already been prohibited about her (i.e. forbidden to marry her) on account of the law (Leviticus 18:14) “the nakedness of thy father’s brother [thou shalt not uncover]”?! But the prohibition is repeated here in order to make him transgress two negative commands if he takes her (Yevamot 4a), and in order to put into juxtaposition to it the law (v. 2) “one born of incest or adultery (ממזר) shall not come [into the assembly of the Lord]”, and thereby to teach that one is termed ממזר only if he is born from those liable to the penalty of excision on account of the intercourse between them, as is the case with one who take’s his father’s שומרת יבם, who is forbidden to him under the penalty of כרת as אשת אחי אביו; cf. Leviticus 18:14 and Leviticus 18:29 (but not if he was born of a woman intercourse with whom involves only flagellation), and it logically follows that the term applies also to one born from those liable to one of the death penalties by sentence of the court, for amongst the cases of forbidden intercourse there is none punishable with death by the sentence of the court which does not involve the penalty of excision (if it was not preceded by a warning) (Yevamot 49a; cf. also Rashi on Kiddushin 67b s. v. מהנ״מ).

ולא יגלה כנף אביו, ”and he shall not uncover the robe of his father.” The reference is to a woman who is slated to become his father’s wife as she was widowed from a brother of his father who had no children.

His father’s prospective levirate partner, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse needs to add, “And may not expose the edge of his father’s garment,” [which seems superfluous]? Therefore he says that it comes to include his father’s prospective levirate partner, etc.

Jebamot 97 a lehrt die Halacha: נושא אדם אנוסת אביו ומפותת אביו אנוסת בנו ומפותת בנו, dass die sonst durch Ehe eintretenden Eheverbote infolge eines unehelichen Umgangs nicht statthaben, בנשואין איכא שאר באונסין ליכא שאר, eine eheliche Verbindung begründet die Verwandtschaft zwischen Mann und Weib und deren Folgen, ein bloß geschlechtlicher Umgang nicht (daselbst). Das vorige Kapitel bespricht zum Schlusse die Fälle außerehelicher Vergehen, insbesondere schließt es (Verse 28 u. 29) mit einem solchen, und statuiert, daß bei אונס, bei gewalttätigem Verbrechen für den Verbrecher die Pflicht der Ehelichung mit versagter Scheidungsbefugnis eintritt. Dem dürfte sich nun der Satz: לא יקח אדם את אשת אביו mit Hinblick auf die im Wajikra Kap. 18 und 20 gegebenen Verbote ערות כלתך וגו׳ אשת בנך וגו׳ ערות אשת אביך וגו׳ usw. anschließen und wiederholt hervorheben, dass diese Verbote nur bei אשת אביך usw. eintreten, nicht aber bei אנוסת אביו ומפותת אביו usw. (ähnlich רלב׳׳ג). Damit ist denn der jüdischen Ehe der sittliche Charakter augenfällig vindiziert. Nur der sittliche Willensakt der Einigung zwischen Mann und Weib, קידושין, bildet das Band zwischen Mann und Weib mit seinen verwandtschaftlichen Folgen, nicht aber ביאה das bloß physische geschlechtliche Moment. קידושין ohne ביאה begründet שאר, nicht aber ביאה ohne קידושין.

ולא יגלה כנף אביו, “and neither is he to uncover his father’s robe.” According to the Talmud, tractate Yevamot, folio 49, what is meant here by the word כנף, is a robe which his father was in the habit of revealing, i.e. a woman with whom his father had indulged in extra marital relations. We find this word in a similar context in Ruth 3,9, where the latter requests that Boaz, as her late husband’s redeemer become her partner in a levirate marriage.

Evidently, to transgress, with her, against two prohibitions, etc. You might ask: There are three prohibitions, because there is also the prohibition, “Let the wife of the dead man not marry outside to a strange man” (below 25:5)! The answer is that these two prohibitions apply even after his father’s death, but the prohibition of “Let the wife of the dead man not marry outside to a strange man” applies only as long as he is alive.

ולא יגלה כנף אביו nach der (eben daselbst) rezipierten Halacha: כנף הראוי לאביו לא יגלה, eine dem Vater ausnahmsweise gestattete, ja gebotene Ehelichung einer Verwandten bleibt für den Sohn, selbst nach dem Tode des Vaters, verboten. Es ist dies שומרת יבם של אביו, die Witwe des kinderlos verstorbenen Vaterbruders (Kap. 25, 5). Der Vater hätte diese ehelichen sollen, oder durch חליצה das Band lösen; dem Sohne aber bleibt sie, selbst wenn der Vater vor Vollziehung des einen oder des anderen Aktes gestorben, als Tante verboten. Auch die Stellung dieses Verbotes dürfte durch den am Schlusse des vorigen Kapitels besprochenen Fall veranlasst sein. Es war dort die Bestimmung ולו תהיה לאשה und damit die Pflicht der Ehelichung einer bestimmten Person vom Gesetze ausgesprochen. Es gibt nur noch einen einzigen Fall, in welchem das Gesetz eine ähnliche Verpflichtung statuiert. Dieser Fall ist eben: יבום, und dürfte hier diese Ehelichung der Witwe des kinderlos verstorbenen Bruders durch den Ausdruck כנף angedeutet sein; vergl.: ופרשת כנפך על אמתך (Ruth 9, 9). Dass sich aber das Gesetz veranlasst sehen konnte, die Gestattung resp. Verpflichtung zur Schwägerehe ausdrücklich auf den Bruder des Verstorbenen zu beschränken und einen etwaigen Eintritt des Neffen zurückzuweisen, dürfte sich aus dem Umstande motivieren, dass in einigen anderen Fällen das Gesetz in der Tat einen ähnlichen Eintritt des Sohnes an die Stelle des Vaters kennt. So bei יעוד (Schmot 21, 9) und שדה אחוזה (Wajikra 25, 25).

To teach that the bastard is only, etc. Rashi means that this is another reason why the Torah writes, “And he may not expose the edge of his father’s garment,” in order to juxtapose to it, “the bastard may not enter, etc.” You might ask that the verse, “One may not enter — with injured or crushed genitals, etc.,” interrupts between these two verses! The answer is since such people cannot have children and so they are unable to produce bastards, the verse [concerning them] is not considered an interruption.

As no act of incest or adultery subject to judicial execution, etc. Rashi is saying that you should not ask: There is a rule that we cannot add extra punishments [or extra prohibitions to a transgression] through a kal vachomer [and similarly we cannot add the status of a bastard to a child resulting from this transgression through a kal vachomer]! He explains that “no act of incest, etc.” Therefore, since this transgression is liable to kares, the child will be a bastard even without a kal vachomer since he is the result of a kares prohibition. And the father’s prospective levirate partner is a kares prohibition because she is his aunt.

פצוע דכא means, one whose stones have been bruised (פצוע) or crushed (דכא) (Sifrei Devarim 247:1).

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

פצוע דכה, “someone whose testicles have been crushed;” even if only one of his testicles has been crushed. (Yevamot 75).
וכרות שפכה, “or whose male organ has been severed.” The reason the Torah employs the word שפכה, “poured out,” is that this organ serves to discharge either urine or semen.

Whose testicles were injured or crushed. Because afterwards it is written, “A base-born may not enter.” Theפצוע דכא is juxtaposed to the base-born to teach that just as the disqualification of the base-born resulted from the procreative organs, so too the disqualification of the פצוע דכא is connected with the procreative organs.

VV. 2 u. 3. לא יבא ממזר וגו׳ ,לא יבא פצוע דכה וגו׳. Mit diesen Sätzen beginnt eine Reihe von Bestimmungen (Verse 2 — 10), durch welche קהל ד׳, der jüdische Ehekreis von Elementen frei gehalten werden soll, die seiner Bestimmung: קהל ד׳, die um Gott von Gott für seine Menschheitszwecke Versammelten zu werden, widerstreiten. Diese fernbleibenden Elemente sind zuerst: פצוע דכה und ממזר, sie stehen im Widerspruche mit dem physischen und dem sittlichen Elemente, welche das Wesen der Ehe konstituieren. Wenn im vorhergehenden das Prinzip zur Geltung kam, dass für das Eheband das sittliche Element im Vordergrunde steht, das sittliche wohl ohne das physische, nimmer aber das physische ohne das sittliche Moment eine Ehe und deren Konsequenzen zu begründen vermag, so spricht doch sofort Vers 2 das פצוע דכה-Eheverbot die Tatsache aus, dass gleichwohl das geschlechtlich Physische wesentlich zum Zwecke der Ehe gehört, in ihr gerade zum sittlich freien Pflichtleben gehoben und geadelt werden soll, also, dass dem für diese Zwecke physisch Verstümmelten der Ehekreis des קהל ד׳ verschlossen bleibt, wie denn ja solche geschlechtliche Verstümmelungen an Menschen und Tieren durch das Gesetz verboten sind (siehe Wajikra 22, 24). — פצוע דכה בידי שמים כשר (Jebamot 75 b) und wird ein solcher zur Unterscheidung von סרים אדם auch סרים חמה genannt (daselbst 79 b).

'לא יבא פצוע דכה בקהל ה, someone with crushed private parts must not marry a Jewish woman. Seeing that such a person cannot sire children there is no point in his marrying a Jewish girl who will thus be prevented from becoming a mother.

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

ממזר ist nach der Jebamot 49 a und Kiduschin 66 b ׳תוספו (daselbst) rezipierten Halacha das aus einer geschlechtlichen Verbindung geborene Kind, dessen Vater und Mutter an sich einer קידושין-Ehe mit andern fähig wären, zwischen denen jedoch gesetzlich eine קידושין-Ehe unmöglich ist, אין קידושין תופסין, ein Kanon, der Kiduschin (daselbst) in den Worten niedergelegt ist: כל מי שאין לה עליו קידושין אבל יש לה על אחרים קידושין הולד ממזר. Es sind dies die Kinder aus allen עריות חייבי כריתות שאין קידושין תופסין בהן mit Ausnahme von הדנ, die obgleich בכרת, doch קידושין תופסין בה (daselbst 68 a). Dagegen, wo Vater oder Mutter überhaupt קידושין-unfähig sind, כל מי שאין לה לא עליו ולא על אחרים קידושין, da ist das Kind nicht ממזר, sondern folgt dem Charakter der Mutter הולד כמותה, so: ולד שפחה ונכרית (daselbst 66 b), und so auch נכרי ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד כשר אלא שפגום לכהונה, eine aus solcher Verbindung geborene Tochter sollte ein כהן nicht heiraten (Jebamot 45 a).

וכרות שפכה, “or maimed genitals;” this refers to a problem involving transmitting semen to the tip of the penis.

ממזר vergegenwärtigt somit durch sein Dasein ein Verbrechen gegen diejenigen Gesetze, durch welche Gott die Ehe seines קהל aus dem bloß physischen Bereiche in den Kreis des in קידושין seinen Ausdruck findenden geistig Sittlichen gehoben haben will. Ein ממזר bleibt daher von ׳קהל ד ausgeschlossen, dürfte aber eine Ehe mit גרים eingehen, nach dem Kanon, dass קהל גרים לא איקרי קהל (Kiduschin 73 a). Von sonstigen bürgerlichen Nachteilen ist übrigens ממור nicht betroffen, er ist בנו לכל דבר und steht auch im Erbschaftsrecht den כשרים nicht nach (Jebamot 22 a u. b).

Die Etymologie von ממזר ist nicht sicher. Der Bildungsform nach ist die Wurzel מזר. Dieser begegnen wir jedoch nur Hiob 37, 9. מן החדר תבוא סופה וממזרים קרה, und daselbst 38, 32: התציא מזרות בעתו ועיש על בניה תנחם. Aus der letzten Stelle ist, dünkt uns, klar, dass מזרות Sterne oder Sternbilder bezeichnen, deren Erscheinung am Himmel eine bestimmte Zeit ankündigen. Die erste Stelle ist Teil einer Schilderung des eintretenden Winters: "Aus seinem bisherigen Rückhalt kommt Sturm und die מזרים bringen Kälte. Ein Gotteshauch gibt Frost und die weite breite Wasserfläche steht fest." Offenbar sind hier wiederum מזרים Sternbilder, etwa die Winterzeichen des Tierkreises, die die kalte Jahreszeit ankünden. Vielleicht ist מזר lautverwandt mit מסר: überliefern, übergeben. Demgemäß würde מזרות und מזרים den Begriff der überliefernden Vermittlung bezeichnen und damit die durch sie geregelten Erscheinungen als Glieder einer Naturordnung vergegenwärtigen, welcher nicht das Prädikat der Selbstwaltung innewohnt, die vielmehr nur das vermittelt und weiter fördert, was ihr selbst von einem Höhern übertragen und übergeben ist. Danach wäre sodann מזר der Ausdruck für alles Physische, nur unfrei Vermittelte überhaupt, und ממזר wäre derjenige, der sein Dasein nur der physischen, nicht aber der sittlichen Ordnung verdankt, zu welcher vielmehr sein Dasein im konträrsten Gegensatz steht. Es ist ein Kind der מזרות im Gegensatz zur תורה. Jebamot 76 b wird der Begriff ממזר als Kompositum מום זר, als ein solches Gebrechen erläutert, das auf dem Boden des Gesetzes gar keine Stätte hat, ihm "fremd" ist, das somit keine persönliche Bezeichnung, sondern ein sachlicher Begriff ist, der das männliche und weibliche Geschlecht umfasst.

לא יבא לו, ebenso V. 4, לא יבא להם, obgleich sonst nach dem Kanon: כל מקום שיש קידושין ואין עבירה הולד הולך אחר הזכר, bei jeder geschlechtlichen Verbindung, die קידושין-fähig und nicht gesetzwidrig ist, das Kind den Charakter des Vaters hat, so folgt doch bei ממזר und den andern פסולי קהל selbst in gesetzmäßiger Verbindung das Kind dem zurückstehenden Teil seiner Eltern, z. B. גר שנשא ממזרת הולד ממזר, das Kind folgt לו: dem פגום (Kiduschin 67 a und Jebamot 78 a).

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

MAMZEIR’ (BASTARD). The term signifies a man who is muzar (estranged) from his brothers and his friends, for it is not known whence he comes. This is similar to the verse, And a ‘mamzeir’ shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines,²²³Zechariah 9:6. the verse stating that no one will dwell in Ashdod save a foreigner or a stranger who will chance to pass by, for the pride of the Philistines will have been cut off from it [Ashdod]. Now, if a child is born to a man from his father’s wife, he [the father] will put him far away and not acknowledge him because of his shame and disgrace [resulting] from the evil deed that he committed. His mother also will cast him away by night, like the asufi (any cast-off child whose father and mother are unknown) that is mentioned in the Talmud.²²⁴Kiddushin 69a. Thus the mamzeir is “estranged” in his native city, and so also the offspring of any of the forbidden relations as our Rabbis have said in Yerushalmi Kiddushin:²²⁵Yerushalmi Kiddushin III. 14. “Rabbi Abahu said: What is the meaning of mamzeir? Mum zar (a strange blemish”).

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

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

He may not marry an Israelite woman. You might ask: Why Rashi does not explain this above by פצוע דכא? The answer is that Rashi’s intent here is not to explain the meaning of “Adonoy’s community,” as it is obvious that “Adonoy’s community” means to not marry an Israelite woman. Rather, Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written that “a base-born may not enter into Adonoy’s community,” as we would already know this from a kal vachomer. If a פצוע דכא who was not created through sin is forbidden to enter the community, how much more a base-born who was created through sin! Therefore he explains, “He may not marry an Israelite woman.” That is, even if he married her we force him to divorce her. But if a פצוע דכא married her he does not have to divorce her. Therefore we cannot learn the base-born from the פצוע דכא with a kal vachomer because the rule is, “suffice it for that learnt from the kal vachomer to be like the source.”

'לא יבא ממזר בקהל ה, “a bastard must not marry a Jewish woman;” seeing that he is a product of a union punishable by extinction of its seed, what point is there in such a male impregnating a Jewish woman with his seed?

The definition of a mamzer from the root זר, alien, is someone whose mother was out of bounds to the male who had impregnated her.

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

לא יבא עמוני ומואבי בקהל השם, "Neither an Ammonite nor a Moabite may become members of the Jewish people, etc." The reason which the Torah gives for denying the male members of these tribes the right to convert to Judaism, i.e. that they did not come forward with bread and water to assist the Israelites when the latter came out of Egypt is hard to understand. Does not the Torah itself testify in Deut. 2,29: "as did the members of the tribe of Esau and the Moabites?" The reference is to both of these nations having sold provisions to the Israelites at the time. Rashi explains the apparent contradiction as 1) the verse in 2,29 referring to the Israelites' offer to buy food in return for money (2,28). 2) What is written here refers to the fact that they hired Bileam to curse the Jewish people and to lead it into sin at the end of the 40 years trek through the desert whereas what is written earlier refers to what transpired in the first year of the Israelites' wanderings. Perhaps the word על דבר is meant to alert us that what they did with Bileam would have sufficed to exclude them forever as members of the Jewish people. The word קדמו means they should have come forward on their own account offering bread and water as gifts. This would have been only small recompense for all which our forefather Abraham had done for them. Instead of repaying good with good they had repaid good with evil. The plain meaning of the words לא קדמו אתכם is that they did nothing for your benefit.

He may not marry an Israelite woman. You might ask: Rashi already said this before on the verse, “A base-born may not enter into Adonoy’s community”! The answer is that since Ammonite and Moavite males are forbidden to enter the community, but females are permitted to enter the community, Rashi has to explain that a male may not marry an Israelite woman, but [an Ammonite and Moavite] woman may marry an Israelite man. This too is why the verse had to write, regarding an Ammonite and Moavite, that they may not enter the community of Adonoy.

VV. 4 —7. לא יבא עמוני ומואבי וגו׳. Jebamot 76 b wird als Halacha gelehrt: עמוני ומואבי אסורים ואסורן אסור עולם אבל נקיבותיהם מותרות מיד, von Ammon und Moab sind die Männlichen selbst nach ihrem Übertritt zum Judentum in allen Folgegeschlechtern für den jüdischen Ehekreis אסור, die weiblichen sind jedoch sofort nach ihrem Übertritt zum Judentum für den jüdischen Ehekreis gestattet; das Verbot trifft nur den Ammoniter und den Moabiter, nicht aber die Ammoniterin und Moabiterin, עמוני ולא עמונית מואבי ולא מואבית. Motiviert wird die Halacha mit Hinweis auf die im Gesetze gegebene Motivierung des Verbotes: על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים, weil sie die internationale Menschlichkeit nicht geübt, an ihr Gebiet vorüberziehende von langer Wüstenwanderung ermattete Menschen mit Speise und Trank zu laben, דרכו של איש לקדם ולא דרכה של אשה לקדם, die öffentliche Ausübung solcher internationalen Humanität aber zunächst von den Männern abhängt. Die Frauen trifft der Vorwurf nicht. Nicht zu übersehen dürfte auch der Wechsel des Numerus sein. Der Vorwurf der unterlassenen Labung wird im Plural ausgesprochen, ׳לא קדמו וגו; es ist dies ja eine internationale Menschenpflicht, die von jedem einzelnen ihre Erfüllung erwartet. Der Versuch, Israel durch Fluchen zu vernichten, war aber von der nationalen Spitze, dem Könige von Moab, versucht worden und spricht sich darin nicht sowohl die völkerfeindliche Gesinnung der einzelnen Nationalen, als die der Nation im Ganzen aus: Dieser Fluchversuch steht daher in der Einheit שכר עליך וגו׳.

'לא יבא עמוני ומואבי בקהל ה, “male members of the Ammonite or Moabite peoples must not marry Jewish women. This rule has been written here as the results of these marriages are similarly negative.

These verses may also be understood in light of what we have learned in Yevamot 76 where the Talmud searches for a reason why female members of the Moabite and Ammonite people are allowed to convert to Judaism. Rabbi Yochanan is quoted as saying that the daughter of a male Ammonite who converted may marry a priest. The Mishnah there already stated that the prohibition for Moabites and Ammonites to convert applies only to the males as the Torah speaks of עמוני and not of עמונית. It is not the way of the women to go out. Women are supposed to be in their homes. This is why they were not guilty of not coming forward with bread and water. This interpretation is based on the interpretation by Avner, Saul's general. In fact Amasa was very adamant about this halachah threatening to stab to death anyone who refused to accept it. [there was an attempt to use these verses to declare David as a bastard on the basis of his being descended from Ruth the Moabite. Ed.] According to the Talmud (at least one opinion) the tradition to permit a female member of these tribes to convert was approved at the time of the prophet Samuel already; otherwise how could Samuel have crowned David king if his great-grandmother Ruth had not even been Jewish? The argument between the teachers of the Mishnah Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon did not concern the validity of Ruth's conversion, but on which scriptural verse such a validity was based i.e. on the word עמוני being restrictive and excluding the females, or on the reason provided for by the Torah a for the non-admission of the male Moabites seeing only the males normally come out of their houses to welcome strangers, not females. Tossaphot on the following folio, commencing with the words: כתנאי, comment as follows: "if you were to argue that according to Rabbi Yehudah there is a difficulty where the Torah writes that a מצרי i.e. only a male Egyptian must not be rejected for conversion for up to three generations, the answer is that in the case of the עמוני and the מואבי the Torah could have written the shorter version עמון,מואב instead of the longer version עמוני,מואבי so that I have reason to believe that if the Torah employed more lettters than necessary it was in order to exclude the females. In the case of the Egyptians, however, this argument does not apply as the word מצרים instead would have been longer than מצרי not shorter as in the case of עמון.

Diese internationale Härte, Schroffheit und Unmenschlichkeit ist es auch, die Moab noch von den späteren Propheten vorgeworfen wird. Im Anblick der über Moab hereinbrechenden Katastrophe wird Jesaias 15 u. 16 darauf hingewiesen, wie alle Nachbarbevölkerungen über Moab zu schreien hatten, כי הקיפה הזעקה את גבול מואב, wie in der Ferne man nur von Moabs Hochmut und Stolz und blindem Wüten, גאותו וגאונו ועברתו hörte, so dass (daselbst) als einziges das Verhängnis noch vielleicht abwendendes Sühnemittel die Bekehrung zur Milde und die Betätigung derselben gegen unglückliche Flüchtlinge Moab auf der Mittagshöhe seines Glückes angeraten wird. "Schaffe Rat", ruft ihm Jesaias zu, "übe Überlegung, mache, als wär׳s schon Nacht deinen Schatten im hellen Mittag, birg Verwiesene, verrate keinen Flüchtling, lass meine Verwiesenen bei dir eine Stätte finden, Moab, sei ihnen Schutz vor dem Räuber; denn Erpressung hört auf, Raub geht zu Ende, es schwindet der Gewaltstritt von der Erde, und in Milde wird ein Thron errichtet usw."

I do not find the words of Tossaphot convincing at all. We do not find instances where the Torah writes something at the beginning of a paragraph prejudging a halachah to be discussed later; this would be especially inadmissible if it would lead to our misunderstanding the Torah's halachic intention. According to Tossaphot we would have to "guess" at why different yardsticks apply to the use of the word מצרי than apply to such words as עמוני or מואבי. Furthermore, even assuming that the Torah did have to write the word מצרי in order for us to know that there is a halachic distinction between the conversions of male and female Egyptians respectively, it could be argued that the Torah had to change the manner in which it described the nationalities mentioned earlier in order to fall in line with the word מצרי. However, if the word מצרי itself is already a change from the normal word מצרים which the Torah should have employed if it wanted to apply the same rule to male and female Egyptians then the whole thing cannot be explained other than that the Torah preferred to use as short a version of the word as was compatible with what the Torah wanted to say.

Wenn nach der Halacha an diesem Mangel internationalen Humanitätsgefühls, an diesem partikularen Nationalhochmut die moabitischen Frauen keinen Anteil hatten, so ist dies solchen Männern zur Seite doppelt hoch anzurechnen, und wohl dürfte in der Brust jener menschlich edeln Moabiterin Ruth, der großen Mutter des Davidischen Geschlechtes, die Flamme einer solchen alle Völkerscheiden überbrückenden Menschenliebe hell geleuchtet und einigen Anteil an dem Geist gehabt haben, der in den Harfentönen ihres Enkels den einstigen Morgen einer um Gott vereinten Völkergesamtheit singt und der Herold dieser Morgenröte inmitten der Menschheit geworden ist — מאי רות אר׳׳י שזכתה ויצא ממנה דוד שריוהו להב׳׳ה בשירות ותשבחות (Berachot 7 b).

However, to get to the crux of the problem; why did Avner use both arguments? First he relied on the Torah writing מואבי as excluding female Moabites, just as did Rabbi Yehudah a millenium later. Immediately afterwards the Talmud quotes Avner retorting to Doeg that the reason the conversion rules do not apply to female Moabites is that females do not go out and offer food and drink to another people. This latter argument was that of Rabbi Shimon, not that of Rabbi Yehudah. We must assume that Avner did not withdraw his first argument but buttressed it by additional proof from our verse here. Logic supports this theory for if Avner had retracted from his original argument that the word מואבי was restrictive, why would he have used it altogether knowing it could be refuted from the word מצרי a few verses later? True, if we accepted the answer Tossaphot have given it is conceivable that one could have construed Avner as changing his mind, although we raised objections to Tossaphot's answer. The fact is, however, that Avner made it clear by the manner he dealt with the objection based on the word מצרי that he did not share Tossaphot's opinion.

I believe that Avner shared the same approach as did Rabbi Yochanan who arrived at the halachah on the basis of both verses combined, i.e. the restrictive meaning of מואבי as well as the Torah citing the fact that these people failed to offer bread and water to the Israelites when the latter needed it. He needed this as the exegesis based on the latter verse alone could have been neutralised by the word מצרי. We would simply have assumed that even though women do not go out to offer bread and water to another people, the fact that the men failed to do so would disqualify the entire nation not merely their males. Besides, the Moabite and Ammonite women have at least 50% genes of their fathers who are disqualified as potential Jews, so why make special allowances for them, unless we had more cogent proof from the Torah such as the restrictive word מואבי instead of מואב. Under normal circumstances the genes of the father determine what nation one belongs to as per Numbers 1,2 "according to their fathers' families." Unless we had additional reason to do so, the word מואבי by itself would not have been sufficient proof to change the halachah from the norm. Only both indications combined could accomplish this exegesis as being ironclad.

This then is why Avner offered both verses as proof that Moabite and Ammonite women may convert to Judaism. Seeing that this argument appears to have been settled 1000 years before that of Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon, we must try and understand what Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon argued about. I believe that Rabbi Yehudah felt that the word מואבי is sufficient to prove the point that Moabite women may convert. As to the words על דבר אשר לא קדמו, etc, this neither adds nor detracts from his case, according to Rabbi Yehudah. I will explain later why this is so. The reason that although the Torah also wrote מצרי and אדומי, which at first glance suggests that this legislation also applies only to the males of these nations whereas we do not make such a distinction, is simple. In their case there is no reason to make a distinction as neither their males not their females had been called upon to provide the Israelites with bread or water. Seeing the Torah had used this as a criterion for denying the male Ammonites and Moabites the right to convert, there is no reason to treat Egyptian males and females as different from one another when it comes to accepting them as converts. This is precisely the reason the Torah did not have to bother to write the longer word מצרים in order to make its point. Rabbi Yehudah did not agree with Rabbi Shimon that one had to worry either about the comments of Avner or those of Doeg.

As to the reason why the Talmud interpreted the verse כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה, "that the true distinction of a king's daughter (a chaste woman) is the fact that her activities are confined to her house (Psalms 45,14)," the implications of this verse apply only to chaste women. The Moabite women who had already engaged in luring the Israelites into being both sexually and religiously disloyal to their G'd, could certainly not claim to be better than their male counterparts by reason of the verse in Psalms. The Torah could therefore have expected them to be at least equally forthcoming when it came to offer bread and water to the Israelites. Since neither they nor their males had done this, this constituted an a priori case for denying them the right to convert. On the other hand, one may argue that what these women did when they lured the Israelites into sexual promiscuity at Shittim did not reflect negatively on their character. 1) They were forced to do so by their respective husbands. 2) The fact that it is not normal for women to go out and offer food and drink to other nations is a natural trait of women. The fact that these Moabite women [not the Ammonites anyway. Ed.] did not act in character in one single instance, is no reason to deprive them of the status of normal women. As a result of all these considerations, the message from the word מואבי instead of מואב is inconclusive.

Rabbi Shimon holds that the message we derive from the verse in Psalms 45,14 is quite conclusive, i.e. it relieves the women from the obligation to offer food and water outside their homes. Moreover, he holds דרשינן טעמי דקרא, that when the Torah bothers to write a reason such a comment may be used exegeticaly to establish a halachah. When the Talmud refers to the dispute between teachers of the Mishnah it does mean that Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon disagree on something more than the applicability of the verse in Psalms 45,14 to the women mentioned in our verse.

As a result of what we have explained so far you may find that there are actually three distinct approaches to the subject in the Talmud as to why women of the tribes of Moab and Ammon may convert. 1) The opinion of Rabbi Yochanan who uses both the word מואבי and the words על דבר אשר לא קדמו jointly. 2) Rabbi Yehudah who relies exclusively on the word מואבי as distinct from מואב. 3) Rabbi Shimon who relies principally on the words על דבר אשר לא קדמו.

According to Rabbi Shimon then Rabbi Yochanan's reliance on the words על דבר makes sense. The question why we need the words על דבר at all remains open only according to the approach of Rabbi Yehudah. It may be answered in accordance with what we wrote previously.

After having taken another long look at the whole subject, I have come to the conclusion that one cannot fault the Moabite women for not offering bread or water as they could not have done so without first obtaining their husbands' consent. The conduct of their husbands towards the Israelites made it plain that even if these women had asked for permission to offer such supplies to the Israelites, their husbands would never have consented. The argument offered in the Talmud by Doeg therefore must be viewed as the argument of an heretic. We find something analogous when the prophet Achiyah Hashiloni was confronted with what he considered a spurious question by the wife of King Jerobam and he described it as being an heretic's question (compare Midrash Shemuel 22 on Kings I 14,6).

על דבר may be translated BECAUSE OF THE WORD — i.e. because of the advice which they gave you in order to entice you into sin (Sifrei Devarim 250:1).

BECAUSE THEY MET YOU NOT WITH BREAD AND WITH WATER. We find it stated [in Moses’ message to Sihon], Thou shalt sell me food for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink etc. as the children of Esau that dwell in Seir, and the Moabites that dwell in Ar did unto me.²²⁶Above 2:28-29. [This clearly states that the Moabites did not deprive them of bread and water, and in the verse before us it is mentioned that the Moabites did not meet them with bread and water!] Now, many scholars²²⁷Mentioned so in Ibn Ezra (above, 2:29). say that the Moabites did not meet them with bread and water, but that the Israelites bought it from them. But this is baseless, for it is adequate for a camp that they be sold [food] when they want to buy. Moreover, Israel came not within the border of Moab,²²⁸Judges 11:18. and the Moabites brought them forth bread and water for money, and Scripture tells that the Moabites acted as did the children of Esau — why, then, were the Moabites forever banned [from the congregation of Israel] on account of this [for not having met them with bread and water], and of the Edomites it declared that we are not to abhor them?²²⁹Verse 8. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra stated²²⁷Mentioned so in Ibn Ezra (above, 2:29). that “the expression as the children of Esau … and the Moabites did unto me²³⁰Above, 2:29. refers to the verse, Let me pass through thy land; I will go along by the highway,²³¹Ibid., Verse 27. but neither [the Edomites nor the Moabites] sold them bread and water. For the Israelites passed through Mount Seir [in Edom] and Ar [in Moab]; it was only to pass through his city where he dwelled that the king of Edom did not permit them — this being the sense of the expression, Thou shalt not pass ‘through me’²³²Numbers 20:18. [but he did allow them entry through other parts of Edom].” This interpretation [of Ibn Ezra] is also baseless, for the Israelites said to the king of Edom, “Let me pass through thy land,”²³³Ibid., Verse 17. The language there is: Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy land. and Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border.²³⁴Ibid., Verse 21. Thus they did not enter the border of Edom at all! And so it is written, And they journeyed from Mount Hor by the way to the Red Sea, to compass the land of Edom²³⁵Ibid., 21:4. because they had to retreat by way of the Red Sea from Mount Hor which is on the border of the land of Edom, but they did not come into the land of Edom itself at all. Jephthah said it clearly: But when they came up from Egypt, and Israel walked through the wilderness unto the Red Sea, and came to Kadesh; then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying: Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land; but the king of Edom hearkened not. And in like manner he sent unto the king of Moab; but he would not; and Israel abode in Kadesh. Then he walked through the wilderness, and compassed the land of Edom, and the land of Moab, and came by the east side of the land of Moab, and they pitched on the other side of Arnon, but they came not within the border of Moab.²³⁶Judges 11:16-18. Thus it is clearly explained that they did not come into the land of Edom or the land of Moab at all. Had they come there, the Edomites and Moabites would have sold them bread and water, for it is not customary for one who allows an army to pass through a land not to sell them bread and water.
It appears to me that Scripture banned these two brothers [Ammon and Moab, sons of Lot — from the congregation of Israel] because they were the beneficiaries of the lovingkindness of Abraham who saved their father and mother from the sword and captivity²³⁷See Genesis 14:16. and, by virtue of Abraham’s merit, G-d sent them out of the midst of the overthrow [of Sodom]²³⁸Ibid., 19:29. — hence they were obligated to do good to Israel and instead they did them evil. One of them [the Moabites] hired Balaam the son of Beor against Israel, and one [the Ammonites] did not meet them with bread and water as they approached their territory, as it is written, Thou art this day to pass over the border of Moab, even Ar; and thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon.²³⁹Above, 21:17-18. Now Scripture warned the Israelites [concerning the children of Ammon] harass them not, nor contend with them.²⁴⁰Ibid., Verse 19. And yet the Ammonites did not meet them at all [with bread and water], for otherwise Scripture would have stated, “As the children of Esau, and the Moabites, ‘and the Ammonites’ did unto me,” but the verse²³⁰Above, 2:29. does not mention Ammon because they did not meet them. Thus Ammon acted more wickedly than all of them, for the children of Esau and the Moabites, when they knew that the Israelites were warned against contending with them in battle, brought bread and water out of their border, but Ammon did not wish to do so. This is the meaning of the phrase, because they met you not, that they did not come forth toward them with bread and water as the others did. Therefore Scripture mentioned an Ammonite first [An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Eternal],²⁴¹Verse 4. and it cited his sin first, because they met you not with bread and water, and then it mentioned a Moabite and his sin [and because they hired against thee Balaam].
Now our Rabbis interpreted:²⁴²Yebamoth 76b. “An Ammonite, but not an Ammonitess [if she is converted to Judaism she may be married to an Israelite]. A Moabite, but not a Moabitess, because it is customary for a man to meet [a passing camp with bread and water] but it is not customary for a woman to meet,” to bring forth food outside of the border of the land. And so the Rabbis also mentioned in the Yerushalmi²⁴³Yerushalmi Yebamoth VIII, 3. and in the Scroll of Ruth Rabbathi:²⁴⁴Ruth Rabbathi 4:8. “It is customary for a man to hire but it is not customary for a woman to hire.”²⁴⁵Hence the Ammorite and Moabite women were not considered as having partaken in the sins of the men and, therefore, the women were excluded from the prohibition. When Ruth the Moabitess adopted the faith of Israel, therefore, Boaz was permitted to marry her.

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

על דבר אשר לא קדמו אתכם, “on account of their not having greeted you, etc.;” the last few words refer to the nation Ammon.

Because of their advice, etc. Otherwise, why does it say דבר, [which also means “word”]? It should have simply said “that they did not greet you, etc.”! Therefore we say it means as follows: “Because of the words,” i.e., the advice, that they did not greet you, etc., i.e. and also because of this thing too, “That they did not greet you, etc.” meaning, “that” actually means “and that.”

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

בדרך IN THE WAY — when you were in a state of exhaustion (Sifrei Devarim 250:2).

ואשר שכר עליך וגו., “and because it hired against you, etc.” a reference to the people of Moav who hired Bileam to curse the Israelites. On the other hand, the Moabites, as distinct from their cousins the Ammonites, did offer food and drink to the Israelites as we know from Moses’ own testimony in Deut. 2,28 אכל בכסף תשבירני כאשר עשו בני עשו ..והמואבים, “sell me food against payment in cash, as the Edomites and the Moabites have done for me.” I have explained this whole scenario on Deut.

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

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

THOU SHALT NOT SEEK THEIR PEACE. “Since it is written [with respect to a fugitive slave], He shall dwell with thee, in the midst of thee [where it liketh him best; thou shalt not wrong him],²⁴⁶Further, Verse 17. I might think that the rule also applies to this one [an Ammonite or Moabite fugitive slave]. Scripture, therefore, says, Thou shalt not seek their peace.” This is Rashi’s language. Now, this interpretation in the Sifre²⁴⁷Sifre, Ki Theitzei 251. is deduced from the expression [here] nor their prosperity [Thou shalt not seek their peace ‘nor their prosperity,’ and not as it might appear from the heading in our text of Rashi that it is derived from the expression their peace, for thus is the language of the Sifre]: “Since it is stated there [with respect to the fugitive slave] ‘batov lo’ (where it liketh him best); thou shalt not wrong him²⁴⁶Further, Verse 17. — exclude these [the Ammonite and Moabite fugitive slaves] from this tovah (good).”²⁴⁸Hence the language in the verse before us, Thou shalt not seek their peace ‘v’tovatham’ (nor their ‘good’). But the expression Thou shalt not seek their peace is interpreted in the Sifre as follows: “Since it is stated, When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it,²⁴⁹Above, 20:10. I might think that the same rule applies to Ammon and Moab. Scripture therefore says, Thou shalt not seek their peace. ” It is also so stated in Tanchuma.²⁵⁰Tanchuma, Pinchas 3. On “Tanchuma” see Vol. IV, p. 158, Note 1.
It appears to me that Scripture has forever forbidden war against Ammon and Moab, and the verse stating, neither contend with them²⁵¹Above, 2:9 (Moab); 19 (Ammon). was not only a temporary command, but a negative commandment for the generations. It is for this [reason] that He said, because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession.²⁵²Ibid., Verse 19. Thus their land belongs to them forever because it is the possession that G-d gave them. If so, the verse here stating, Thou shalt not seek their peace commands that if we wage war against them over a city which they captured from other peoples, that we are not to proclaim peace to them. Similarly, if they invaded our Land we are permitted to pursue them and capture cities from them, to smite the inhabitants of those cities who harmed us, as Jephtah did [of whom it is said], And he smote them from Aroer until thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities.²⁵³Judges 11:33. David also did so to all the cities of the children of Ammon²⁵⁴II Samuel 12:31. because they “breached the fence” first and warred against him. In that event we need not to proclaim peace to them and we may smite those fighting us in every city, the men, and the women, and the little ones²⁵⁵Above, 2:34. if we wish. Thus the Rabbis have said in Midrash Rabbah:²⁵⁶Bamidbar Rabbah 21:7. “And ye shall smite every fortified city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all fountains of water.²⁵⁷II Kings 3:19. These were the words of the prophet Elisha to Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, and Jehoram the son of Ahab, king of Israel, when they battled Moab. They [i.e., Jehoshaphat king of Judah and Jehoram king of Israel] said to him [Elisha]. ‘Scripture states, Thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof,²⁵⁸Above, 20:19. and you say thus [destroy them]!’ He [Elisha] said to them: ‘Scripture commanded this with respect to all peoples, but this one is minor and despised,’ as it is said, And this is but a light thing in the sight of the Eternal, and He will deliver the Moabites into your hand,²⁵⁹II Kings 3:18. for it is said, Thou shalt not seek their peace ‘v’tovatham’ (nor their good), this alluding to the ‘good trees.’” Now, all this is to harm them and to vex them, but the land is to remain that family’s for it is the possession which G-d gave them. This subject is mentioned in Agadoth [homilies],²⁶⁰See at the end of his notes to Rambam’s Sefer Hamitzvoth where Ramban quotes many of these Midrashim. Bereshith Rabbah,²⁶¹Bereshith Rabbah 74:13. and in Midrash Tehilim.²⁶²Midrash Tehilim 60:1.
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, the purport of the verse Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity is as if to say, “Although they are members of your family, and your father Abraham loved their father as his brother, that sucked the breasts of his mother,²⁶³Song of Songs 8:1. yet you should not act towards them like brothers seeking their peace and prosperity, for it is they who have broken the covenant of brotherhood;²⁶⁴See Zechariah 11:14. let it remain broken forever.” Thus G-d guarded for Lot’s children the merit of their father who accompanied His prophet [Abraham] on the path where G-d sent him. Therefore He gave them an inheritance from Abraham’s possession²⁶⁵See Ramban above, 2:10. and He punished his children for their sin that they could not become attached to Israel. Similarly He banned the Egyptians for three generations²⁶⁶Verse 9. I.e., the third generation of an Egyptian [or Edomite] proselyte may marry into the congregation of Israel. See text at the end of this section. because of their wickedness in bringing upon us many evils and troubles,²⁶⁷Further, 31:17. but He did not abhor them forever because we were strangers in their land where we found refuge with them in days of famine through the honor they showed our father [Jacob], and they appointed over themselves a chief and ruler from among us. So also did He do with the Edomites. He preserved the merit of the ancestors for them since they were of holy seed,²⁶⁸See Ramban above, 2:4. but he banned them for three generations²⁶⁶Verse 9. I.e., the third generation of an Egyptian [or Edomite] proselyte may marry into the congregation of Israel. See text at the end of this section. because they came forth against us with the sword and they remembered not the brotherly covenant.²⁶⁹Amos 1:9. Now, the tradition of our Rabbis²⁷⁰Yebamoth 78a. is that the third generation does not mean “the third generation from the days of Moses” but when one of them [Edomites or Egyptians] becomes a proselyte his third generation [i.e., his grandchild] may enter into the assembly of the Eternal.

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

Perhaps this one as well, etc. Rashi is answering the question: Why would I think one should pursue their peace and benefit? He answers, “By inference from what is said, etc.” It seems to me that the correct text in Rashi is, “‘Do not pursue, etc.,” [omitting the words “their peace”], as he is explaining the latter part of the verse, where it says “and their good.” Because we learned in Sifrei: “Do not pursue their peace.” You might think that because it says (earlier 20:10), “When you near a city (to do battle against it, you are to offer it peace),” you might think the same applies here too. Therefore the verse says, “Do not pursue,” regardless [of what it said earlier]. “And their benefit.” And because it says (below v. 17), “do not distress him” you might think the same applies here too. Therefore the verse says, “And their benefit, etc.” The printers did not understand Rashi’s intention and omitted the word “etc.” [from the text] (Kitzur Mizrachi).

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

לא תתעב אדמי THOU SHALT NOT ABHOR AN EDOMITE utterly, although it would be proper for you to abhor him because he came out against thee with the sword (Numbers 20:18—20).

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

Completely, etc. Rashi is answering the question: It is written afterwards, “Children who will be born to them, in the third generation, will enter.” This implies that the second generation may not enter and if so he is despised! Why then does it say in the beginning, “Do not despise”? Rashi explains that when it is written, “Do not despise,” it means do not despise completely, but you may despise a bit.

VV. 8 u. 9. לא תתעב אדמי וגו׳. Obgleich beide Völkerschaften sich euch vor allem feindlich gezeigt haben, hast du sie doch nicht durchaus zu scheuen, darfst ihnen den Eintritt in einen Ehekreis gestatten; jedoch erst das dritte Geschlecht, der Enkel und die Enkelin eines zum Judentum übergetretenen אדמי und מצרי, dürfen sich mit ישראל verheiraten. Bis dahin dürfen sie nur untereinander oder mit anderen גרים sich verheiraten (siehe V. 3).

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

לא תתעב אדומי ומצרי, “do not abhor an Edomite for he is your brother, nor an Egyptian for you were a stranger in his land” [for many years when you were not slaves. Ed.] This verse is written here as the members of these nations could not convert to Judaism until the third generation after the Exodus.

לא תתעב מצרי THOU SHALT NOT ABHOR AN EGYPTIAN all in all (utterly), although they cast your male children into the river. And what is the reason that you should not abhor him utterly? Because they were your hosts in time of need (during Joseph’s reign when the neighbouring countries suffered from famine); therefore although they sinned against you do not utterly abhor him, but —

The Holy Blessed One wanted to acclimate Israel to the refinements of the soul. And as a soul becomes more exalted it draws closer to that which it is close to. Therefore, he commanded him to remember the ties of brotherhood with the children of Edom. 

Totally, etc. Since it is written afterwards, “the third generation will enter,” this implies that the second generation may not enter. Why then does it say, “Do not despise the Egyptian”? Rashi answers that this is what it means, “‘Do not despise,’ totally,” but you may despise a bit, as I explained above regarding “do not despise the Edomite.” Rashi says here, [do not despise them] totally, because it says (Shmos 1:22) [that Pharaoh ordered], “Every boy who is born must be thrown into the river, but every daughter shall be allowed to live.” Even though they cast your males into the river, do not despise them [totally]. “What is the reason? Because, etc.” Therefore Rashi says here [do not despise them] totally.

בנים אשר יולדו להם (siehe zu V. 3).

לא תתעב מצרי, “do not detest the Egyptian.” Even though in the end they enslaved you, do not detest them as you were welcome and well treated residents in their country for many years.

And this too is a characteristic of a refined soul to pay back the good that is done to one and not to be ungrateful such that one would be considered base. And for this reason the Holy Blessed One trained us with this mitzvah.

What is the reason? Because they received you hospitably, etc. There are those who ask: Why does Rashi have to explain the reason why the third generation may enter, for the verse itself explains the reason, “For you were a stranger, etc.”? The answer is that Rashi was questioning — should they [be allowed to] enter the community merely because you were a stranger in his land, after they perpetrated all this evil of killing your firstborn? Do other countries harboring foreigners kill their firstborn? Therefore Rashi explains, “What is the reason, etc.” [and he says that the Egyptians helped us]. This “what is the reason” is the explanation of “for you were a stranger” written in the verse.

Fassen wir die Verse 2 —9 gegebenen פסולי קהל zusammen, so soll sich der jüdisch-nationale Kreis aufbauen durch Wahrung physischer und sittlicher Integrität des Geschlechtslebens (איסור פצוע דבה וממזר), internationaler Humanitätsverwandtschafts- und Dankbarkeitsgesinnungen כפסול עמוני ומואבי היתר עמונית ומואבית מיד ואדמי ומצרי דור שלישי).

Seit den assyrisch-babylonischen Eroberungskriegen sind jedoch die ursprünglichen Einwohner der Länder Ammon, Moab, Edom und Ägypten aus ihren Sitzen vertrieben und unter anderen Völkern gemischt ansässig, כבר עלה סנחריב מלך אשור ובלבל את כל האומות שנאמר ואסיר גבולות עמים ועתידותיהם שושתי ואוריד כאביר יושבים (Jesaias 10. 13), die Nachkommen der von den hier (Verse 4. — 9) gegebenen Ausschließungsgesetzen betroffenen Völkerschaften sind daher nicht mehr zu erkennen, und ist seitdem ein jeder גר gewordene Nichtjude, auch von den jetzt in עמון und אדום ,מואב und מצרים wohnenden Bevölkerungen sofort für sich und seine Nachkommen מותר לבא בקהל, nach dem Grundsatz: כל דפריש מרובא פריש (Berachot 28 a תוספות; Jebamot 76 b ד׳׳ה מנימין וכו׳ — siehe Schmot S. 302).

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

The other nations, however, are permitted immediately. I.e., do not ask what punishment is it to delay them until the third generation? The same law applies to other nations as well! Therefore Rashi explains, “The other nations, etc.”

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

Someone who incites a man to sin is worse than someone who murders him, etc. You might ask: Why are they not totally despised? If Amon and Moav who did nothing except to incite Israel to sin, and they were totally despised, why then were Edom and Egypt who wanted to kill them not totally despised? You cannot answer because [Amon and Moav] “did not greet you, etc.” (v. 5), since it is obvious that Edom too did not greet you, for otherwise, why does the verse say you should not despise Edom “for he is your brother,” and also not say the reason is because he met you, etc.? This indicates that this is not the main reason! You also cannot say the difference is that Moav hired Bilam to curse them while Edom did not hire Bilam, because perhaps Edom failed to hire Bilam only because Edom was not aware that whomever Bilam cursed was cursed, whereas Balak knew this from the war against Sichon, as Rashi explains above (Bamidbar 22:6). Thus there is no reason to show gratitude to Edom because of this. On the contrary, we should despise them more because they wanted to kill them by the sword. And if because he is your brother, Amon and Moav are also related to us, as Avraham said to Lot (Bereishis 13:8), “For we are kinsmen.” Rashi answers, “Thus we learn, etc.”

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

WHEN THOU GOEST FORTH IN CAMP AGAINST THINE ENEMIES, THEN THOU SHALT KEEP THEE FROM EVERY EVIL — “because Satan indicts [people] in the hour of danger.” This is Rashi’s language.
The correct interpretation regarding this commandment appears to me that Scripture is warning of a time when sin is rampant. The well-known custom of forces going to war is that they eat all abominable things, rob and plunder, and are not ashamed even of lewdness and all vileness. The fairest of man by nature comes to be possessed of cruelty and fury when the army advances against the enemy. Therefore, Scripture warned, then thou shalt keep thee from every evil. And by way of the simple meaning of Scripture this is an admonition against doing anything forbidden. And in the Sifre it is stated:²⁷¹Sifre, Ki Theitzei 254. “I might think that Scripture is speaking of the laws of defilements and purities and tithes. It therefore says ‘ervah’ [an unseemly thing, which refers to unchastity].²⁷²Further, Verse 15: and that He see no ‘unseemly thing’ in thee. Whence do I know to include idolatry, lewdness,²⁷³“Lewdness.” In our Sifre this term is not mentioned here, and rightly so, since it has already been expressly forbidden, as explained above. bloodshed, and blasphemy? Scripture therefore says, then thou shalt keep thee from every evil. Or perhaps the verse is speaking of defilements and purities, and tithes? It says ervah (an unseemly thing):²⁷²Further, Verse 15: and that He see no ‘unseemly thing’ in thee. just as ervah uniquely represents a deed for which the Canaanites were driven from the Land²⁷⁴Leviticus 18:24. and which removes the Divine Presence [from Israel], so all deeds for which the Canaanites were driven from the Land and which remove the Divine Presence [from Israel] are included in the admonition of this verse. When Scripture states davar [thing, but literally ‘word’ — then thou shalt keep thee from every evil ‘davar’] it includes also ‘evil talk.’” This also is included in the purport of the verse we have explained, that besides the [specific] admonitions which are stated concerning these stringent sins, he added yet a [special] prohibition to an army that we guard against any of these sins so that the Divine Presence withdraw not from the Israelites who are there, just as he said, For the Eternal thy G-d walketh in the midst of thy camp²⁷⁵Further, Verse 15. Thus he who commits any of the great sins while in the army, those about which it is written, they have set their detestable things in the house whereon My Name is called to defile it,²⁷⁶Jeremiah 7:30. [he causes the Divine Presence to withdraw from Israel]. Moreover, [we are to avoid these sins] in order that the enemy should not overpower us because of our committing the very deeds that cause them to be driven from before us, this being the sense of the expression, and to give up thine enemies before thee.²⁷⁵Further, Verse 15. The Sages [in the Sifre] added evil talk [as derived from this admonition] in order that contention should not increase among them and smite them with a very great plague, [even] more than the enemy [will inflict upon them].

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

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

V. 10. כי תצא מחנה וגו׳. Individuelle Sittlichkeit und internationale sympathische Gesinnungen, das haben die zunächst vorangehenden Gesetze als Grundzüge des zu bildenden jüdischen Nationalcharakters sichern wollen. Es folgen nun Verse 10 — 15 und Verse 16 u. 17 zwei Momente, קידוש מחנה und עבד שברח, in welchen diese beiden Grundrichtungen des jüdischen Wesens sich in besonderer Weise ausprägen.

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

כי תצא מחנה, selbst wenn du aus den Umschränkungen des gewöhnlichen Familien- und bürgerlichen Lebens hinausgetreten bist und dich in einem wider deine Feinde gerichteten Kriegeslager befindest — (על אויביך, hebt ספרי hervor, כנגד אויביך אתה נלחם, das Gesetz setzt voraus, dass du nur gegen diejenigen zum Kriege ausziehst, die sich dir als אויביך erwiesen haben, von denen du Feindschaft erlitten und Feindschaft zu erwarten hast, gegen welche somit selbst ein Angriff zur Verteidigung wird. Es schließt dies jeden Eroberungskrieg aus) — also, selbst wenn du im Kriegslager dich befindest, wo so leicht die Bande der Zucht und Sitte sich lösen und der Kriegszweck selbst ungebundener Roheit Vorschub leisten könnte: ונשמרת מכל דבר רע, sollst du den selbstbeherrschenden Blick nach innen nicht verlieren, und dich vor jeglichem "Schlechten" hüten. Dieses כל דבר רע, welches im ספרי mit Hinblick auf das ושב מאחריך im V. 16 zunächst auf solche Ausschreitungen, die, wie קללת השם ,שפיבת דמים ,ע׳׳ז ,ערוה, die Gegenwart Gottes verscherzen, מסלקין השכינה und auf לשון הרע bezogen wird, wird (Aboda Sara 20 b) in Zusammenhang mit dem unmittelbar folgenden V. 11 ganz besonders von allem Unkeuschen verstanden, das selbst mit bloßen Gedanken gemieden werden soll, שלא יהרהר אדם ביום ויבא לידי טומאה בלילה. Vor jedem unzüchtigen Gedanken sollen wir uns hüten und soll

מקרה לילה [IF THERE BE AMONG YOU ANY MAN THAT IS NOT CLEAN BY REASON OF] UNCLEANNESS THAT CHANCETH HIM BY NIGHT — By night: Scripture speaks of what usually occurs (but the law applies also if the uncleanness happens at day time) (Sifrei Devarim 255:3).

Scriptural law is expressed in common circumstances. Because it is common to have an emission at night but it is not common during the day. But, certainly if one has an emission during the day, he too will become defiled.

And by way of the simple meaning of Scripture the verse warns that a man to whom a [nocturnal] pollution occurred, should leave the camp completely for the reason mentioned, that G-d walks among us to help us and the camp is holy, and that our hearts are to be intent towards the Holy One, blessed be He, hoping for His help and that we put not our trust in a human arm.²⁷⁷See ibid., 17:5. A similar reason is also for the command to cover excrement,²⁷⁸See Verse 14. for the entire camp is like the Sanctuary of G-d. From this law we deduce, concerning a place of prayer, that we must remove ourselves four cubits away from excrement [if it is behind us]²⁷⁹Berachoth 25a. or as far as the eye can see [if it is in front of us]. However, our Rabbis interpreted it:²⁸⁰Pesachim 68a. In other words, while according to the plain meaning of Scripture the person who suffered a pollution is to leave the entire camp, the Rabbis say that he is required to leave only the camp of the Levites, and, of course, the camp of the Divine Presence, if the ark of G-d was there with them (see above 10:1). See also “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 39, Note 2 with respect to such “camps” in the city of Jerusalem. An army with the ark of G-d in its midst has the status of “a Sanctuary of G-d” as Ramban expressed it above. Therefore the laws of the three camps into which Jerusalem was divided when the Sanctuary existed were also applicable to an army camp. “Then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp²⁸¹Verse 11. — neither in the camp of the Levites, nor in the camp of the Divine Presence” when the ark of G-d was there with them. The covering of excrement also, in their opinion, is required when mentioning G-d’s Name in prayer or in the reading of the Sh’ma. If so, this too, is an admonition which he restated²⁸²The commandments pertaining to sending out the impure have already been stated in Numbers 5:2-3. But here they were “restated” with respect to an army etc. here with respect to an army in order that everything should not be as lawless as in the camps of the peoples. These commandments as well are then explanatory [of those mentioned before].²⁸²The commandments pertaining to sending out the impure have already been stated in Numbers 5:2-3. But here they were “restated” with respect to an army etc.
Now, the reason for covering excrement is not because excrement is like something unclean that defiles its location and breaks through and rises [like the impurity of the dead]. Rather it is because it is forbidden to see it during time of prayer when the heart cleaves to the Glorious Name,²⁸³Further, 28:58. because ugly things give rise to ugliness in the soul and they confound the intent of the pure heart, but when it is hidden from the seeing eye there is no harm.

VV. 11 u. 12. כי יהיה וגו׳ selbst im Kriegeslager das Bamidbar 5, 2 — 4 angeordnete שלוח מחנה hinsichtlich der טומאות היוצאות עליו מגופו (siehe daselbst) beachtet werden; selbst im Kriegslager

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

ויצא אל מחוץ למחנה THEN HE SHALL GO ABROAD OUT OF THE CAMP — This is a command,

He is not permitted to enter the camp of the Levites, certainly not, etc. Rashi means, because “camp” is written twice in the verse. You might ask that these two “camps,” are being used, one for a positive command and one for a negative command! Furthermore, why does Rashi learn the camp of the Shechinah from a kol shekein? He should have [simply] said, “And he is not permitted to enter the camp of the Levites or the Shechinah.” The answer is that Rashi is saying as follows. When it is written, “He must go out of the camp,” this must mean the camp of Shechinah because why should we include any other camps? Afterwards when it is written, “He may not enter into the midst of the camp,” this includes even the camp of Levites. But this raises a difficulty, since one with the defilement of an emission enters the camp of Shechinah which has greater sanctity, transgresses only a positive command as it is written, “He must go out, etc.,” but if one enters the camp of the Levites which has less sanctity, one transgress a negative command, which is more severe than a positive command, as it is written, “He may not enter, etc.” [To resolve this difficulty] Rashi answers that if a negative command forbids one from entering the camp of Levites, then “certainly [too], he may not enter the camp of the Shechinah.” You might ask that one is not permitted to derive [new laws that incur] punishment from a kol shekein? The answer is that this rule only applies when the law is not hinted to in the Torah at all, but here it is written that he transgresses a positive command, and only the negative command has to be derived from a kol shekein, in this case we would punish [someone who transgresses by using such a derivation]. Re”m answers that the camp of the Shechinah and the camp of the Levites are both [forbidden] because of the sanctity of the Shechinah and are [therefore] regarded as one camp, etc., [and in such a case we can derive punishment from a kol shekein]. See there where he discusses this at length.

לא יבא אל תוך המחנה HE SHALL NOT COME WITHIN THE CAMP — This is a prohibition (Sifrei Devarim 255:4). He is forbidden to enter the “camp of the Levites”, and all the more so, the "camp of the Shechinah". (cf. Sifrei Devarim 255:5; Pesachim 68a and Rashi on Numbers 5:2).

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

He does not become pure without the setting of the sun. Meaning, he can certainly immerse himself whenever he wants [during] the entire day. But, Rashi wants to explain that when the verse writes, “As sunset nears he is to immerse in water,” you should not say that he cannot do so before this. Rather the verse is giving good advice as it writes afterwards, “And after the sun has set he may enter the midst of the camp.” Since before sunset he remains defiled, why then should he immerse himself when it is still broad daylight? Therefore Rashi says, “Close to the setting of the sun he should immerse himself, as he does not become pure, etc.

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

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

Outside the cloud. You might ask: After Aharon died, the clouds of glory departed! The answer is that the Torah is not written in the order that events had taken place, and this was said before Aharon’s death.

VV. 13 u. 14. ויד וגו׳ von dem unvermeidlich Tierischen der menschlichen Leiblichkeit dem Anblick und der Erinnerung jede Spur entzogen bleiben. —

מחוץ למחנה WITHOUT THE CAMP — i.e. outside the area enclosed by the clouds of glory.

אין יד אלא מקום שנא׳ והנה מציב לו יד ואומר איש על ידו :יד (Sam. I. 15, 12 und Bamidbar 2, 17) יד .ספרי bezeichnet eine Örtlichkeit, wahrscheinlich: eine für einen Zweck dargebotene Örtlichkeit, eine Gelegenheit, dem sonstigen Begriffe: Hand entsprechend. So Ezech. 21, 19 ויד ברא eine Örtlichkeit für etwas auswählen oder herrichten ת׳׳י: .ואתרא אתקין

ויתד, sonst Nagel, Pflock, hier: ein spitzes Instrument zum Graben einer Vertiefung in die Erde. אזנך, wie das rabbinische כלי זיין mit vorgesetztem א (vergl. לחם): Rüstzeug.

על אזנך [AND THOU SHALT HAVE A PIN] על אזנך — i.e. besides (על, “in addition to”, not “upon”) your other implements.

על אזניך, in addition to your other equipment.

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

Aside from your other utensils. I.e., you are to have a peg aside from your other utensils in order to dig with it.

ויתד תהיה לך על אזנך, ”you shall have a paddle amongst your weapons;” seeing that with a few exceptions most of the people going out to fight a war are males, and seeing that they had the Holy Ark with them and they were not able to build separating walls, which would have insulated it from exposure to contaminated air by the ritually impure, the people who had nocturnal seminal emissions and should by rights have left the camp, could not do so because of the danger. This is why every one had to dig his own hole to bury his excrement and cover it.

אזנך has the same meaning as זין in the phrase כלי זין.

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

והיה מחניך קדוש, both free of ritual impurities as well as from repulsive things, even though not ritually impure.

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

[Let] the Holy One, Blessed Is He [not see] disgraceful objects. [He] Who is mentioned at the beginning of the verse. Because otherwise, [i.e., if the verse meant, “Disgraceful objects should not be seen with you”], לא יראה should have had a tzeirei under the יו"ד.

V. 15. כי ד׳ אלהיך וגו׳: Dein Sieg ist durch die Gottesgegenwart in deiner Mitte bedingt, also, dass dein Sieg einen Sieg des Gottesreichs auf Erden bedeutet; und diese Gottesgegenwart in deinem Lager ist nicht in erster Linie durch deine Tapferkeit nach außen, sondern durch deine zu allererst gegen dich selbst gerichtete Tapferkeit bedingt, dass du dich selber überwachest und "dich vor jedem sittlich Schlechten hütest", also dass alles nackte Tierische des Menschen und alles daran Erinnernde aus deiner Umgebung, deinem Erscheinen, deinem Tun und Reden, deinem Denken und Fühlen zurücktrete; denn Gott schreitet deinem Lager nicht voran, sondern מתהלך בקרב מחנך, wandelt im Innern deines Lagers mit jedem einzelnen deines Kreises (siehe Sota 3 b), darum sei dieser Kreis ein sittlich heiliger, lasse nirgend in deinem ganzen äußeren und inneren Wesen ערות דבר: "eine Blöße, in welcher Beziehung auch immer" erblicken; denn nur um diesen Preis ist Gott dein Gott und wandelt mit dir und begleitet dich und zieht sich nirgend zurück, dich zu begleiten. מאחריך: du musst voran gehen, und wenn der Weg, den du gehst, der rechte ist, dann begleitet dich Gott.

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

ולא יראה בך ערות דבר, a description of Jewishly unfit offspring or some other impediment to G’d’s Shechinah resting over the Jewish people, as our sages (Kidushin 70) said: “the Shechinah rests only over the ancestrally pure Jewish families.” They added that anyone who can trace his ancestry to King David, (folio 76) by his ancestor having been a soldier in his army, is acceptable without question.

מחניך, Plural, wohl um damit das, was hier zunächst für ein Kriegslager ausgesprochen ist, in seiner Geltung für alle Kreise zu erweitern, in welchen wir uns zeitweilig oder bleibend aufhalten. Alle sollen sie das Gepräge reiner menschlichen Sittlichkeit tragen. Alle unsere Lebensräume, nicht nur unsere Gottes- und Lehrhäuser, sollen durch Gedanken an die aus der Gotteslehre zu schöpfende Erkenntnis unserer Lebensaufgaben, welche uns überall und immer erfüllen sollen, nicht weihelos sein; verwiesen aus ihnen alles an den tierähnlichen Anteil der menschlichen Leiblichkeit Erinnernde — צואה בהרחקה במחיצה ,בכסוי — verhüllt jede "Blöße" am menschlichen Körper — ערוה בכל יראה — auf dass wir uns ungehindert der Geistesrichtung auf Gott und die Lehre seines Gesetzes hingeben können (והיה מחניך קדוש מקום חניתך תהא בקדושה וטעמא משום דישראל מהרהרין תמיד בד׳׳ת Raschi Schabbat 150 a); denn das ungetrübte Bewusstsein von der geschiedenen persönlichen Wesenheit und sittlich freien Hoheit unseres durch den Gotteshauch mit unserem physisch gebundenen Leibe zeitlich vermählten Geistes, es bildet die allererste unerlässliche Basis unserer von Gott gewiesenen Lebensaufgabe, mit ihr steht und fällt alle Sittlichkeit und jeder Gedanke eines Pflichtlebens. Wie daher die טומאה- und טהרה-Gesetzgebung jeden Wahngedanken an tierische Gebundenheit aus den unserer sittlichen Erhebung und Heiligung des Lebens geweihten Kreisen des מקדש וקדשיו symbolisch verweist, so bannt dieses קדוש מחנה-Gesetz jede konkrete Erscheinung tierischer Leiblichkeit aus dem Gott und unserer Pflicht zugewandten Kreise unseres Denkens und Strebens vor ihm, auf dass wir uns der höheren Dignität unseres Gott verwandten und von Ihm mit göttlicher Freiheit ausgestatteten geistigen Wesens bewusst bleiben und keiner materialistischen Wahnvorstellung Raum geben, in welcher alle Sittlichkeit und jedes Pflichtleben zu Grabe geht. Daher denn die Sätze: בכל מקום ת׳׳ח אסור לו לעמוד במקום — ,מותר להרהר בדברי תורה חוץ מבית המרחץ ומבית הכסא הטנופת לפי שאי אפשר לו לעמוד בלא הרהור תורה, und alle die Bestimmungen über הרחקה מצואה ומי רגלים und ערוה-Verhüllung בזמן ק׳׳ש ותפלה והרהור בד׳׳ת; daher die צניעות-Gesetze בעשיית צרכיו und נטילת ידים אחריהם usw. (Berachot 22 b ff.). Alles Bestimmungen und jüdische Lebensgewöhnungen, die immer die Grundwahrheit von der Doppelnatur des Menschenwesens dem jüdischen Bewusstsein präsent halten sollen, und deren hohe Bedeutsamkeit nie lebhafter zu würdigen sein dürfte, als so oft der Jude seine die sittliche Freiheit präzisierende Lebensbestimmung inmitten einer von Jahrhundert zu Jahrhundert wiederkehrenden materialistischen Verkümmerung alles sittlichen Menschenadels unbeirrt durchzutragen berufen sein mochte. —

מאחריך, if you were to turn your rear to Him by ignoring these laws and thus insulting Him.

Vergleiche Bereschit S. 61. 66 u. 67.

An unsere Sätze: ונשמרת מכל דבר רע וגו׳ (Verse 10 u. 11), mit welchen wir zur steten nach innen gerichteten Aufmerksamkeit auf uns selbst und zur Bewahrung unserer Züchtigkeit selbst in Gedanken geladen sind, knüpft Rabbi Pinchas ben Jair, der Mann, den seine Zeitgenossen selbst des unverwelklichen Kranzes höchsten Sittenadels würdigten, einen inhaltsreichen Ausspruch: ת׳׳ר ונשמרת מכל דבר רע שלא יהרהר אדם ביום ויבא לידי טומאה בלילה מכאן אמר ר׳ פנחס בן יאיר תורה מביאה לידי זהירות, זהירות מביאה לידי זריזות זריזות מביאה לידי נקיות נקיות מביאה לידי פרישות פרישות מביאה לידי טהרה טהרה מביאה לידי קדושה קדושה מביאה לידי ענוה ענוה מביאה לידי יראת חטא יראת חטא מביאה לידי חסידות חסידות מביאה לידי רוח הקדש רוח הקדש מביאה לידי תחיית המתים וחסידות גדולה מכולן שנאמר אז דברת בחזון לחסידך (תהלים פט, כ׳) ופליגא דרבי יהושע בן לוי דאמר ר׳ יהושע בן לוי ענוה גדולה מכולן שנאמר (ישעי׳ ס׳׳א, א׳) רוח ד׳ אלקי׳ עלי יען משח ד׳ אותי לבשר ענוים חסידים לא נאמר אלא ענוים הא למדת שענוה גדולה מכולן (Aboda Sara 20 b, nach der Lesart des ריף). Das Lernen des Gesetzes bringt zur Achtsamkeit, Achtsamkeit zur sittlichen Rüstigkeit, Rüstigkeit zur äußeren Reinheit, äußere Reinheit zur Enthaltsamkeit, Enthaltsamkeit zur inneren Reinheit, innere Reinheit zur Heiligkeit, Heiligkeit zur Demut, Demut zur Sündenfurcht, Sündenfurcht zur Liebeshingebung, Liebeshingebung zum heiligen Geist, heiliger Geist zur Wiederauferstehung, und ringen Liebeshingebung (חסידות) und Demut (ענוה) um die Palme. Nach Psalm 89, 20, wo die Prophetie dem חסיד, dem Manne selbstopfernder Liebestat prädiziert wird, wäre חסידות das höchste, nach Jesaias 61, 1, wo alle Heileszukunft den ענוים, den Menschen selbstloser Demut verheißen ist, wäre ענוה das höchste. Diese Stufenleiter sittlicher Vervollkommung, deren erste Sprosse aus der geistigen Beschäftigung mit der göttlichen Gesetzeslehre hinansteigt, wäre der eingehendsten Erwägung nach der ganzen Tiefe und belehrenden Wahrheit ihres Inhalts wert.

Wir wollen hier nur wiederholt erinnern, wie eine sich selbst beschränkende, selbst Erlaubtes sich versagende Enthaltsamkeit, worin man gemeinhin das Wesen des חסידות zu erblicken pflegt, die aber in Wahrheit nur dem Begriffe פרישות entspricht, hier nur als eine sehr frühe Vorstufe sittlicher Veredelung erscheint, während der Charakter: Chassid, חסידות, als Blüten- und Fruchtgipfel sittlicher Reife glänzt. Im übrigen dürften die meisten jener Tugenden, welche die Sprossen dieser sittlichen Stufenleiter bilden, zum größten Teile bereits in unserem Texte ihre Andeutung finden. Wir verzeichnen: ויד וגו׳ ויצאת וגו׳ ויתד וגו׳ :זריזות ;ונשמרת וגו׳ :זהירות ;ולא יראה בך וגו׳ :ענוה ויראה חטא ;והיה מחניך קדוש : קדוש ;כי יהיה וגו׳ :טהרה ;וכסית :נקיות כי ה׳ אלקיך מתהלך בקרב מחנך :רוח הקדש.. Wenn diese Charaktertugenden hier nicht in der Stufenfolge jener Fortschrittsleiter erscheinen, so wolle man bedenken, dass es sich hier ja um eine gleichzeitige Betätigung ihrer aller handelt und eben damit ja die Wahrheit sich ankündigt, dass auf dem Wege sittlicher Vollendung keine Vorstufe etwa durch eine spätere höhere erübrigt wird, sie vielmehr alle in ihrem Werte bleiben, ja mit jedem Fortschritte noch in ihrer Bedeutung steigen, und auf höchster Stufe selbst ihre vollendetste Betätigung erreichen. Heißt es doch hier, dass erst ענוה, diese höchste oder zweithöchste Perle im Kranze der Charaktertugenden, zur wahren יראת חטא führe.

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

THOU SHALT NOT DELIVER UNTO HIS MASTER A BONDMAN THAT IS ESCAPED. This is connected with the section above that [when you go forth against the enemy] if a slave flees from his master against whom the host has gone forth and saves himself by fleeing to your camp you are not to deliver him to his master for money that he may give you. And since it states, he shall dwell with thee, in the midst of thee, in the place which he shall choose,²⁸⁴Verse 17. it appears that it is a commandment that he become a free man and that we should not enslave him. The reason for this commandment is that with us he will worship G-d and it is not proper that we return him to his master to worship idols. Moreover, it is possible that he [the bondman] may show them the entrance into the city,²⁸⁵Judges 1:25. for in that way they will capture many cities through slaves and captives fleeing from there. And our Rabbis have said²⁸⁶Gittin 45a. [that this prohibition is applicable] even [to] a Canaanite bondman who belongs to an Israelite who fled from outside the Land into the Land of Israel, for this one too, should preferably work for those who dwell in the Land of G-d and be saved from working for those that dwell in an unclean land,²⁸⁷Amos 7:17. and where not all commandments are binding.

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

לא תסגיר עבד לאדוניו, “Do not turn over a slave (who has escaped from his master) to his owner.” According to Nachmanides the reason why this verse is appropriately written at this point, is that that during the confusion which reigns during a siege or battle, many slaves use the opportunity to escape from their masters. A soldier who leaves his own camp in order to relieve himself, is liable to encounter such fleeing slaves in the no-man’s land where he answers a call of a nature. The Torah, especially has in mind, that the soldier in question not turn over the escaping slave by collecting a fee for this from his master, and thereby engage in slave-trading.

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

As Targum [Onkelos] renders, etc. עבד עממין (a slave of nations), meaning, a Jewish slave sold to non-Jews, as it says in Gittin (45a). According to this, why then does the verse call him a slave? He is a Jew! Therefore Rashi explains, “Another interpretation, etc.” But according to the alternative interpretation you might ask that since the term לא תסגיר implies freedom, as it says (Gittin 53b), “From here [we say that] if someone sells his slave to a non-Jew or outside the Land [of Israel], he goes free,” if so, why does the verse use the expression לא תסגיר, it should have said, “Do not enslave a slave to his master.” Therefore Rashi also needs the first interpretation.

V. 16. לא תסגיר וגו׳. Gittin 45 a wird der in unserem Texte besprochene Fall dahin erläutert: בעבד שברה מחוצה לארץ לארץ הכתוב מדבר, es spricht von einem kanaanitischen Sklaven, der sich von seinem jüdischen Herrn aus dem Ausland in das jüdische Land geflüchtet. Dem haben die jüdischen Behörden Schutz und Fürsorge zuzuwenden, sie haben — nach der auch im י׳׳ד rezipierten Auffassung des רמב׳׳ם (Abadim 8, 10) — ihm jedenfalls die Freiheit zu bewirken, haben dem Herrn die Alternative zu stellen, dem Sklaven einen Freibrief auszustellen und dagegen einen Schuldbrief auf dessen Wert entgegenzunehmen, widrigenfalls hat das Gericht kraft der ihm innewohnenden Expropriationsermächtigung ihn ohne weiteres frei zu sprechen. Er erlangt sodann als גר צדק das jüdische Bürgerrecht und steht unter der besonderen Agide des öffentlichen Rechts und Wohlwollens. Im Anklang an dieses Gesetz galt die Bestimmung, dass ein aus dem jüdischen Lande Auswandernder nicht befugt war, seine Sklaven wider deren Willen mit ins Ausland zu nehmen, und dass, wer seinen Sklaven nach dem Auslande verkaufte, ihm damit die Freiheit bereitete, המוכר עבדו לח׳׳ל יצא בן חורין (Gittin 43 b).

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

עמך ישב במקום אשר יבחר, “he shall dwell with you in a location of his choice;” it is a positive commandment that this slave live as a free human being. The reason why this law has been given, and especially has been mentioned at this point, is that the former slave is to be encouraged to join us Jews in serving Hashem, instead of our turning him over to his former master and thereby increasing the number of pagans serving idols. Furthermore, by turning him over to his former master, there is a chance that this slave has become privy to information that might help the enemy to invade our country or to infiltrate the encampment of the Israelite army. History is full of stories of such “slaves” having been used as spies by their masters. Our sages interpret this verse as applying primarily to a Canaanite slave who has fled his master seeking refuge within Israel. Even though, basically, the Torah decreed that we must kill these people, here where the initiative comes from the Canaanite who is aware that he will likely be treated far more humanely by Jews, the Torah encourages us to bring him closer to Hashem by allowing him to embrace Judaism.

Wir haben bereits (Bereschit S. 213 und Schmot S. 122) die rechtliche Stellung des עבד כנעני im jüdischen Hause und im jüdischen Nationalkreise zu beleuchten Gelegenheit gehabt. Er ist Genosse des jüdischen Bundes und hat Teil an dem sittlichen Adel der Gesetzespflicht. Wir begreifen die ganze Größe des Kontrastes zwischen der menschenwürdigen Anschauung, die unter dem Regime des Gottesgesetzes im jüdischen Lande auch dem עבד כנעני bewahrt blieb, und der Auffassung des Sklaventums, die überall außer dem jüdischen Lande herrschte, und welcher auch der עבד כנעני eines Juden im Auslande ausgesetzt sein musste, und glauben wir, wie in den Gesetzesbestimmungen (Verse 11 — 15) eine Pflege, des sittlichen Momentes, so in diesen (Verse 16 u. 17) eine Pflege der internationalen Humanitätsgesinnung erblicken zu dürfen, welche beide nach den vorangehenden Gesetzesbestimmungen die hervorragenden Grundzüge des jüdischen Nationalcharakters bilden sollen.

V. 17. לא תוננו (siehe Schmot 22, 20 u. Wajikra 25, 17)

במקום אשר יבחר, “in a place of his choice;” a place where he could find an opportunity to earn a livelihood.

(בערכין כ׳׳ט א׳ מיירי לרב ביבי קרא דבטוב לו לא תוננו בגר תושב. לכאורה היינו אליבא דת׳׳ק דברייתא גטין מה א׳ שנדחה מפני קושית ר׳ יאשי׳ אלא שיש לומר דלרב ביבי מיירי בעבד כנעני של נכרי שברח מח׳׳ל לארץ שהוא נכרי גמור וכשניתן לו רשות לשבת בארץ הוא בתנאי שלא יעבוד ע׳׳ז ואם כן הוא גר תושב דהא סתם עבד כנעני של ישראל כבר ישנו במצות כאשה וכשנעשה ,בן חורין הרי הוא גר צדק, ונראה דסברת רב ביבי היא כתרגום אונקלס עבד עממין כלומר עבד כנעני של נכרים וזהו כוונת רשי׳ בפירושו לתורה כתרגומו [כלומר עבד כנעני של נכרי] דבר אחר אפי׳ עבד כנעני של ישראל עכל׳ דלא כרא׳׳מ דס׳׳ל דפירוש ראשון של דשי׳ הוא ישראל שנמכר לנכרי והנה מימרא דר׳ שמעון בן אלעזר שם דאין מקבלין גר תושב אלא בזמן שהיובל נוהג היא אליבא דהלכתא מאין חולק וכן פסק הרמב׳׳ם [הל׳ שמיטה י׳ ט׳ והל׳ ע׳׳ז י׳ ו׳] והלכה זו בנויה על ג׳׳ש דטוב טוב דרב ביבי ע׳׳ש וא"כ) צ׳׳ל דקרא סתמא כתיב עבד אל אדוניו ומיירי בין בעבד כנעני של נכרי בין בעבד כנעני של ישראל, כך נראה לענ׳׳ד.)

לא תוננו, “do not treat him unfairly.” The Torah bids us to treat him fairly, just as it had bidden us to treat all aliens fairly, escaped slaves or not.

Verse 18 und 19 stehen wieder in enger Beziehung zu jenem sittlichen Momente und Verse 20 und 21 enthalten eine Berichtigung jener internationalen Beziehungen.

לא תהיה קדשה THERE SHALL BE NO קדשה [OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ISRAEL] — i.e. a prostitute, — one who is devoted to and ever ready for illicit intercourse (cf. Rashi on Genesis 38:21 s. v. הקדשה; Rashi on Exodus 19:22 s. v. יתקדשו).

THERE SHALL BE NO ‘K’DEISHAH’ OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ISRAEL — “one who is devoted to and always prepared for illicit intercourse. NOR SHALL THERE BE A ‘KADEISH’ OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL — one who is always prepared for pederasty.” This is Rashi’s language. Now, if this prohibition constitutes an admonition against the woman so engaged and warns her against being “devoted to and always prepared for illicit intercourse,” then an unmarried woman who has [illicit] intercourse with a man unpremeditatedly and secretly is not among those guilty of transgressing a negative commandment! So also in the matter of the kadeish, why did Rashi mention that he is devoted to “and always prepared” [for such sin] — even one who permits himself to be so abused in an innermost chamber is guilty of extirpation [if there are no witnesses] and death by the court [if there are witnesses]! Moreover, it would have been proper for Scripture to state, “There shall not be among you a k’deishah, nor shall there be among you a kadeish,” for the expressions of the daughters of Israel and of the sons of Israel make it appear that the verse discusses another nation!
It appears to me concerning this prohibition that it constitutes an admonition addressed to the members of the court that they should not permit one of the daughters of Israel to sit in public view at the crossroads for the purpose of illicit intercourse, or prepare herself a tent of prostitution as is customary in foreign lands where they sit at the door with timbrels and harps, similar to what is written, Take a harp, go about the city, thou harlot long forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered.²⁸⁸Isaiah 23:16. And similarly Scripture warns the court concerning a kadeish. And in line with the plain meaning of Scripture, even if he should lie with women in a tent which he prepared himself for such illicit relations or that he should sit in public view at the crossroads [on the lookout for such women], he warned the court [against permitting such activities].
It appears to me that such is the opinion of Onkelos [who rendered the verse: “A woman of the daughters of Israel shall not become the wife of a slave, and no man of Israel shall marry a bondwoman”].²⁸⁹Thus it is clear that Rashi’s interpretation: “a k’deishah is one who is devoted to, and always ready for illicit intercourse” is different from that of Onkelos. The same is with regard to a kadeish. But he [Onkelos] combined with this prohibition the matter of a slave and bondwoman who live with Israelites in [common law] marriage, because everyone knows concerning this slave who married the daughter of an Israelite that his betrothal of her is invalid and yet she remains with him like a wife with her husband, and if so she is a k’deishah in broad daylight.
Now, I have seen in the Sifre the following text:²⁹⁰Sifre, Ki Theitzei 260. “There shall be no ‘k’deishah’ of the daughters of Israel — you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations. Nor shall there be a ‘kadeish’ of the sons of Israel — you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations. Now, I could have reasoned: if the k’deishah [commits] a minor transgression [seeing that the punishment for violation of this prohibition is stripes] yet you are warned against it in Israel, is it not logical that [the crime of] the stringent kadeish [which is punished] by extirpation and death by the court, as explained above] be forbidden in Israel! [Why then was it necessary to state, nor shall there be a ‘kadeish’ of the sons of Israel?] Or vice versa: if the kadeish commits a stringent [crime, yet] you are not admonished against it among the nations, is it not logical that you should not be admonished against the minor k’deishah with respect to the nations etc.”²⁹¹In other words, the Sifre is stating that both admonitions were necessary. The minor transgression of k’deishah we could not have derived from the stricter kadeish, and the exclusion of the nations regarding the prohibition of kadeish we could not have derived from the same exclusion regarding the lighter prohibition of k’deishah. Hence both admonitions had to be stated. From this text of the Sifre it would appear that the interpretation of the Rabbis does not agree with that of Onkelos, for according to his rendition there is nothing stricter about the kadeish than the k’deishah [since the prohibition against a slave marrying a Jewish woman is of equal stringency to that of a Jewish man marrying a bondwoman]. Moreover, what does the Sifre mean by, “you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations” [according to Onkelos’ interpretation]? Similarly, if the interpretation [of the Sifre] of the term kadeish were to have been “the male who is the subject of pederasty” as in the interpretation of Rabbi Yishmael in Tractate Sanhedrin,²⁹²Sanhedrin 54b. then in that case too, the Sifre could not have said “you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations,” for he who permits himself to be so abused by a heathen is liable to stoning!
Rather, it appears that the opinion of the master of this Beraitha is as we have mentioned. Scripture warns the court that a woman may not stand at the crossroads for illicit intercourse, for there she will prostitute herself with those who are forbidden to her, relatives and strangers, for they cover their faces in order to have illicit relations even with their brothers and relatives, this being the sense of what Scripture states, When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a harlot, for she had covered her face²⁹³Genesis 38:15. Similarly he warns the court against him who is ready to be abused by males, similar to what is written, And there was also sodomy in the Land; they did according to all the abominations of the nations.²⁹⁴I Kings 14:24. Now, aside from the admonition against those who commit the sin, he warns the court here that they should not permit a sodomite to stand on the road [ready for such abuse], as is known of them in the land of Egypt that they stand on the road with covered faces like women to do this abominable act. Now the Rabbis interpreted in this Beraitha [i.e., the Sifre quoted above] that we are not admonished concerning others except for ourselves if they do so with one another, for only in matters of idolatry are we admonished with respect to the nations.
The terms kadeish and k’deishah, in the opinion of the commentators,²⁹⁵Ibn Ezra, here and R’dak, in Sefer Hasharashim, root kadeish. are an expression of readiness, for they found this usage in the verse, I have commanded ‘lim’kudashai’ (My devoted ones).²⁹⁶Isaiah 13:3. So also, ‘hikdish’ (He hath prepared) His guests;²⁹⁷Zephaniah 1:7. ‘kadshu’ (prepare ye) war against her.²⁹⁸Jeremiah 6:4. And in my opinion these are all expressions of “holiness” [consecration], for he who separates himself from illicit sexual relations is called “holy,” just as it is said, They shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; neither shall they take a woman sent away from her husband, for he is ‘holy’ unto his G-d.²⁹⁹Leviticus 21:7. Thus the woman who guards herself from forbidden relations and lewdness is called k’doshah (holy), while she who separates herself from holiness and becomes defiled with illicit sexual relations is called k’deishah. This is comparable to the usage customary in the [Sacred] Language [to use the same root-letters to express the negative as well as the positive], as for example: and all mine increase ‘th’shareish’ (it would root out);³⁰⁰Job 31:12. Now, the word shoresh means “a root,” and here it means the opposite: “uproot.” ‘v’dishnu’ (and they shall take away the ashes) from the altar.³⁰¹Numbers 4:13. Here too the word deshen (ashes) is used to indicate the opposite: “to take away the ashes.” For the known harlot, the defiled one of name and full of tumult³⁰²Ezekiel 22:5. is separated from all holiness. This name [k’deishah] applies to her only because she is always ready for this abomination, for she has no moment for propriety and holiness at all. And the expression ‘hikdish’ His guests²⁹⁷Zephaniah 1:7. is a figurative expression, for he who makes a feast consecrates his guests and cleanses them so that they should not defile the table and the bread, as it is said, he is unclean; surely he is not clean.³⁰³I Samuel 20:26. So also ‘kadshu’ war against her²⁹⁸Jeremiah 6:4. means that they should cleanse themselves, like one who cleanses his guests in order that scholarly people [who are meticulous in observing the laws of purity] should not separate themselves from them.

קדשה, a harlot; an unmarried woman engaging in adultery (with a married man)

לא תהיה קדשה מבני ישראל, “There shall not be a promiscuous woman among the daughters of Israel.” Rashi interprets the reason for Moses choosing the word קדשה, related to קדוש, holy, for such a woman as being that among the Israelites there must not be people who dedicate, “sanctify” their lives by practicing promiscuity.

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

For she, too, engages promiscuously, etc. Rashi is saying: Do not regard this translation of Onkelos as a difficulty against me [that I said קדשה means promiscuous], as I can answer that [Targum] Onkelos agrees with me for “she, too, engages promiscuously, etc.” And Rashi explains similarly afterwards [regarding the maidservant].

V. 18. לא תהיה וגו׳. Wie קדוש die gänzliche Hingebung an das sittlich Gute bedeutet, so קדש die Hingebung an das sittlich Schlechte. Einige Analogie bietet die Wurzel כבד, die als כבוד so den Eindruck eines geistig sittlichen Gehaltes bezeichnet, wie כבד den Eindruck eines materiell sinnlichen Gehaltes. Unzucht ist jeder geschlechtliche Umgang, dem die קידושין-Weihe fehlt, daher auch die vermeintliche Ehe von קידושין unfähigen Personen, שאין קידושין תופסין בהם, wie denn אונקלום den Begriff קדשה und קדש durch solche konkrete Beispiele wiedergibt, אתתא מבנת ישראל לגבר עבד und לא יסב גברא מבני ישראל אתתא אמתא. Der Wortlaut unseres Textes fordert von Israels Söhnen dieselbe keusche Züchtigkeit, wie von Israels Töchtern und erkennt in Wahrung keuscher Züchtigkeit die Bewährung des jüdischen Namens. בנות ישראל und בני ישראל, "Töchter Israels" und "Söhne Israels", diese Namen sollen für ewige Zeiten jeden unzüchtigen Anhauch ausschließen. — So Sanhedrin 82 a: כי חלל (מלאכי ב׳ יא׳) זו יהודה קודש ד׳ זונה וכן הוא אומר לא יהיה קדש ופירשי׳ וז׳׳ל קדש מפקיר קדושתו והולך לרדוף זונות קדשה מחללת קדושתה וכן קדש מחלל קדושתו ע׳׳ש.

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

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

קדש, a male sleeping promiscuously with women without bothering to marry them. Since the women in question do not sleep with him exclusively they are not even concubines.

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

אתנן זונה [THOU SHALT NOT BRING] THE PROSTITUTION HIRE OF A WHORE [… INTO THE HOUSE OF THE LORD, THY GOD FOR ANY VOW] — This means, if he (the paramour) gave her a lamb as the hire of her prostitution it is unfitted for sacrifice (Sifrei Devarim 261:1; Temurah 29a).

THOU SHALT NOT BRING THE HIRE OF A HARLOT, [OR THE PRICE OF A DOG, INTO THE HOUSE OF THE ETERNAL THY G-D FOR ANY VOW]. Harlots are wont to do good deeds with their hire, thinking thereby to atone for their sins, as our Rabbis mentioned in their proverb,³⁰⁴Vayikra Rabbah 3:1. “She commits illicit sexual intercourse for apples and she divides them among the sick.” Therefore the Torah prohibited a harlot’s gift to be brought for any vow, for now they sin more and more.³⁰⁵Hosea 13:2. By bringing it for a vow into the House of G-d, she will be inclined to sin more, for she will think that her sin has been forgiven. Similarly the matter of the price of the dog is that hunters using dogs and watchmen of walls raise brazen dogs that harm the public, and the owners vow [to contribute] their value [to a cause which they consider sacred], as an atonement for their soul. Such is still the custom among men who ride to the hunts that they place the waxen image of their dogs before an idol that they may be successful with them. And the commentators [as mentioned by Ibn Ezra] have said [that the reason for the prohibition is] because they [i.e., these payments] came about in a contemptible manner.

לא תביא אתנן זונה ...בית ה', “You must not bring to the Temple the proceeds from your activity as a harlot.” Nachmanides writes that these harlots would use some of the gifts they received from their customers to make donations and offer sacrifices in the Temple, to expiate for the wrongs they had done. The Torah legislates, while it cannot prevent such harlots to use some of their ill gotten gains to give charity with such money, that such proceeds from sinful activities cannot be accepted as something sacred. [In our parlance, this would be an early example of money laundering. Ed.] Instead of cleansing themselves from sin, they would sink deeper into the moral morass that they were already in. The Torah legislates something similar concerning the proceeds from selling a dog. The Torah singles out dogs seeing that people who hunt by using dogs, or people training dogs to attack potential intruders, contribute to many innocent people being harmed by such dogs. Nachmanides also quotes instances from his own experience in which people hang the images of dogs near the idols that they worship, so that a dog, in many cultures, is identified with something idolatrous. The proceeds from the sale of such dogs are equally unwelcome in the Temple.

This adds alterations in form, etc. You might ask, why Rashi leaves the opinion of Beis Hillel who said (Bava Kama 94a), “Them but not their alterations in form,” and explain [the verse] according to Beis Shamai who expounds, “‘Even both’ to include their alterations in form”? The answer is that since the Gemora said that there is a difficulty also according to Beis Hillel, he therefore explains according to Beis Shamai.

V. 19. מחיר כלב .לא תביא וגו׳, wenn man für einen Hund einen in natura zur Verwendung als Opfer oder Tempelschmuck tauglichen Gegenstand eingetauscht hat. אתנן זונה und מחיר כלב sind nur selbst und unverändert zum Tempelgebrauch אסור, שניהם ולא ולדותיהן ולא שינוייהן Temura 30 b). Züchtigkeit ist eine der Grundtugenden, deren Pflege das jüdische Gottesheiligtum geweiht ist. Nichts was, wie אתנן זונה, einen dem entgegenstehenden Akt vermittelt, und nichts, was, wie מחיר כלב, an einen dem entgegenstehenden Tiercharakter erinnert, hat Eingang in das Tempelheiligtum zu finden. In Beziehung auf מחיר כלב kann man jedoch zweifelhaft sein, ob dessen Verweisung aus dem Tempelbereiche mit Hinblick auf diese Charakterseite geboten ist. In תנ׳׳ך ist es diese Seite nicht, für welche כלב und כלבים als Typus vorkommen. Es ist vielmehr immer eine soziale Verächtlichkeit oder Verworfenheit, für welche כלב und כלבים bildlich gebraucht werden. Es ist daher nicht unmöglich, dass auch hier die Vergegenwärtigung dieses sozialen Momentes den איסור מחיר כלב motiviert. Ja, es ist dies das Wahrscheinlichere, da das גם שניהם unseres Textes eine begriffliche Verschiedenheit von אתנן זונה und מחיר כלב voraussetzen dürfte, und wäre dann mit beiden איסורים die Vergegenwärtigung von geschlechtlicher und sozialer Entartung aus dem Bereiche des Heiligtums verwiesen.

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

ומחיר כלב [THOU SHALT NOT BRING …] THE PRICE OF A DOG [INTO THE HOUSE OF THE LORD …], if one has exchanged a lamb for a dog (Sifrei Devarim 261:2; Temurah 30a).

גם שניהם, “both of them.” Seeing that the first example, the price paid for a harlot’s services, or the animal paid is a greater abomination than the proceeds of the sale of the dog, Moses wants to make sure that we do not consider the latter as in a completely different class, i.e. as a far less offensive sin. Alternatively, seeing that up until now the Torah had disqualified potential use of certain animals as sacrificial offerings forbidden only if the animal had certain physical blemishes, here we hear for the first time that the animal may have a moral blemish due to the lifestyle of its owner. In the case of animals having a physical blemish the Torah had introduced the legislation with the words: לא תזבח לה' אלוקיך שור או שה..אשר יהיה בו מום וגו', “you shall not slaughter for the Lord your G’d an ox or lamb that has a blemish, etc.” (Deut 17,1) The reason given is that such a blemish is considered an abomination. Here too, the reason given for the legislation is that it would be considered an abomination to offer an animal to Hashem that was acquired in payment for committing a sin.

GAM SHNEIHEM’ (‘EVEN THEY BOTH’) [ARE AN ABOMINATION TO THE ETERNAL THY G-D]. “Even they both — this includes the products into which they have been processed, such as wheat which she made into flour.” This is Rashi’s language. But in the Gemara³⁰⁶Temurah 30b. the Rabbis have said that the School of Shammai forbid it and the School of Hillel permit it.³⁰⁷And the accepted law is, in line with the legal rule, in accordance with the teachings of the School of Hillel. Why, then, did Rashi base his interpretation here upon an opinion held by the School of Shammai? Instead, the verse [in accordance with the teaching of the School of Hillel] is to be interpreted as follows: “They [are forbidden] but not their young; they [are forbidden] but not the products into which they have been processed.” And the purport of the expression gam shneihem is that since one of them is indeed a great abomination — namely, the hire of a harlot, since the harlotry was committed for it — [while the price of a dog might be considered less of an abomination] the verse states that “even both of these” [including the price of a dog] G-d will reject. Similarly, He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous, ‘even they both’ are an abomination to the Eternal;³⁰⁸Proverbs 17:15. the verse attaches the smaller offense [i.e., he that justifies the wicked] to the bigger one [he that condemns the righteous]. So also, then they shall both of them die,³⁰⁹Above, 22:22. as I have explained [there, that the man is the greater sinner of the two, and therefore the verse states that even she is also to die].
Or it may be that the purport [of the expression gam shneihem] is that since he had already warned against the disqualifications of the offering through blemishes, and stated concerning them, Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Eternal thy G-d an ox, or a sheep, wherein is a blemish, even any evil thing; for that is an abomination unto the Eternal thy G-d,³¹⁰Above, 17:1. he supplemented here saying that the hire of the harlot and the price of the dog — although in themselves perfect — that they too are the abomination of the Eternal like those [blemished offerings]. This is the correct interpretation. So also, The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Eternal hath made even both of them,³¹¹Proverbs 20:12. the verse alludes to man in general and states that G-d created man and also made these characteristics in him. Similarly, Diverse weights, and diverse measures, both of them alike are an abomination to the Eternal,³¹²Ibid., Verse 10. the verse intimates to whoever robs, extorts, and exploits in any manner which are greater abominations than these [false weights and measures], although it does not mention them, [and declares that even diverse weights and diverse measures are an abomination to G-d].

גם שניהם FOR EVEN BOTH THESE ARE [ABOMINATION UNTO THE LORD, THY GOD] — The words גם שניהם taken as גם שנוייהם are intended to include in the prohibition the things into which they (whatever is given as hire) are changed, as, e.g., if he gave the woman wheat and she made it into flour (Temurah 30b).

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

LO THASHICH³¹³The hiph’il form tashich is understood in a causative sense as meaning: “Thou shalt not cause thy brother to take interest.” See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 224-225. L’ACHICHA’ (THOU SHALT NOT CAUSE THY BROTHER TO TAKE INTEREST). This also is an explanatory commandment, adding here an admonition to the borrower as well, unlike all civil cases, for if a person wishes to damage his belongings he may do so [and it should, therefore, be permitted to the borrower to give freely to the lender]. However, because of the habitual nature of this sin [of giving interest], Scripture admonishes the borrower as well.³¹⁴In other words there is no need to admonish people against needlessly diminishing their fortunes through improvident gifts. But the paying of interest to a creditor is a common practice; therefore the Torah specified that the prohibition extends even to the borrower. And he explained here³¹⁵Verse 21. See Ramban above, 15:3. that a heathen’s interest is permissible. This he did not mention with reference to robbery and theft, as the Rabbis have said.³¹⁶Baba Kamma 113b. “Theft from a heathen is forbidden.” But borrowing for interest, which is agreed upon by both parties and is done voluntarily, was forbidden [by the Torah] only because of brotherliness and kindness, as He commanded, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,³¹⁷Leviticus 19:18. and as he said, Beware that there be not a base thought in thy heart etc. [and thine eye be evil against thy needy brother, and thou give him nought].³¹⁸Above, 15:9. Therefore he said [here], that the Eternal thy G-d may bless thee,³¹⁹Verse 21. for it is an act of mercy and compassion that one does for his brother by lending him without interest, and it will be accounted to him for righteousness.³²⁰Genesis 15:6. The release of debts [in the Seventh year] is also an act of mercy among brothers, and therefore he said, Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it,³²¹Above, 15:3. and for him [who releases the debt of a brother] he designated a blessing,³²²See ibid., Verse 4. for Scripture mentions a blessing only in connection with charity and acts of mercy, and not for [the mere abstention from] robbery, theft, and fraud.
He mentions interest of money, interest of victuals³²³In Verse 20 before us. in order to explain that he who lends one measure of wheat for a measure and a half is [guilty of taking] true interest even if at the time of payment a measure and a half is not worth as much as was the one measure that he lent him. And he further explained, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest,³²³In Verse 20 before us. meaning even building-blocks and other articles which are lent. For it might occur to one to think that “interest” applies only to money with which everything can be purchased and to victuals which sustain life, but in other things we should go according to the cash value at the time of the loan and the repayment [therefore Scripture prohibited all such interest expressly]. Now our Rabbis have interpreted³²⁴Sifre, Ki Theitzei 263. See also Ramban above 15:3 where this subject is explained more fully. the verse, Unto a foreigner thou shalt lend upon interest³¹⁹Verse 21. as being a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment [which carries the force of a positive commandment] with respect to lending to an Israelite.³²⁵Thus one who lends money to an Israelite on interest violates both an explicit negative commandment that is inferred from a positive Scriptural statement, which has the same force as the positive commandment from which it is derived. This excludes the interpretation that there is a positive commandment that we are to lend a foreigner upon interest. [They rendered this interpretation] because the verse is redundant, for he already stated ‘lo thashich’ thy brother [which implies clearly that it is permitted to exact interest from a foreigner; why then the repetition, Unto a foreigner etc.? It was to teach that an interest-bearing loan to an Israelite is in violation of both a negative and a positive commandment].

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

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

לא תשיך, ”do not let the lender, your brother, take interest.” We have been taught already (Leviticus 25,36-37) that we must not lend money at interest to fellow Jews, but here Moses warns the borrower not to allow his brother, the Jew to become guilty by accepting such interest from him. This is a dimension not found in other aspects dealing with laws involving money, etc. The Torah, ordinarily, does not use preventive legislation to stop people from causing themselves financial harm. Seeing, however, that the incidence of paying and accepting interest on loans is so widespread, the Torah made an exception in this instance. It went further in the definition of what is interest, writing:

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

This prohibits the borrower. Otherwise it should have written לא תשך. [לא תשיך in the causative] implies that the borrower is causing the lender to extract interest from him.

V. 20. לא תשיך וגו׳ ist das Verbot an den לוה, den Anleiher, keinen Zins für Darlehen zu geben (B. M. 61 a u. 75 a). Es liegt dies in der הפעיל-Form נשך, im Kal eigentlich Beißen, heißt: Abbruch tun und bezeichnet das Zinsennehmen. Daher im Hiffil: Zinsen geben. Und zwar wird hier durch נשך כסף וגו׳ נשך כל דבר ׳וגו der Begriff Zinsen in weitester Ausdehnung gefaßt, so dass darunter eine jede Leistung verstanden wird, die der Schuldner dem Gläubiger infolge seines Darlehns zuwendet, so dass der Gläubiger sich von dem Schuldner als solchem auch keine Botschaft, keine Erkundigung etc. vermitteln lassen darf, יש רבית דברים לא יאמר לו דע כי (נ׳׳א אם) בא איש פלוני ממקום פלוני, ja sogar ein zuvorkommendes Grüßen des Gläubigers darunter begriffen wird, wenn sonst der Schuldner ihm gegenüber dies nicht zu tun gewöhnt war מנין לנושה בחברו מנה ואינו רגיל להקדים לו שלום שאסור להקדים לו שלום ת׳׳ל נשך כל דבר אשר ישך אפילו דבור אסור (B. M. 75 a).

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

נשך כסף, נשך אוכל, וגו', “regardless of whether such interest consists of actual money, or its equivalent such as food, etc.” The Torah is at pains to warn us that the concept of “interest” is not limited to the payment of cash, but includes any consideration that normally would not have been shown by the borrower to the lender had he not been in a position of owing money to the lender. Charging interest is not by itself something reprehensible, as one receives a compensation for services rendered. However, charging interest to a fellow Jew is denying that he is family, is one’s brother, and that is why the Torah keeps stressing the element אחיך, “who is your brother.” The Torah stresses that charging or paying interest when dealing with a gentile is in order, to tell us that this is a normal commercial transaction. It is not even remotely related to stealing or robbing, as it is freely given.

Wir haben bereits zu Schmot 22, 24 und Wajikra 25, 36 das Zinsverbot ausführlich beleuchtet. Wir haben erkannt, dass das jüdische Zinsverbot das Nehmen landesüblicher Zinsen keineswegs als ein dem Rechtsbegriff widerstreitendes Unrecht begreift, dass dasselbe vielmehr in den Kreis jener großen jüdisch gesetzlichen Bekenntnistaten gehört, durch welche, wie יובל ,שמיטה ,שביעית ,שבת, Gott als der eigentliche Eigentümer alles jüdischen Besitztums begriffen und bekannt wird. Wir haben die hervorragende Stellung des Zinsverbots und dessen bedeutungsschweren Folgen für den ganzen nationalen Verkehr anzudeuten versucht, den die Gründung Israels als "Gottes Volk" anzubahnen beabsichtigte. Wir haben auch bereits bemerkt, wie eben durch die beiden gesetzlichen Tatsachen, dass einerseits nicht nur das Zinsnehmen, sondern in ganz gleicher Schärfe auch das Zinsgeben verboten, und anderseits beides Nichtjuden gegenüber gestattet ist, das רבית-Verbot entschieden der allgemeinen Rechtssphäre enthoben und als große von Gott geforderte Bekenntnistat charakterisiert wird, ein Bekenntnis, dem ebenso das Zinsgeben wie das Zinsnehmen entgegensteht.

כל דבר אשר ישך, “anything that he may take as interest.” This includes any kinds of vessels, and other items that most people would never consider as representing interest when someone gives it to them. The Torah added these words to make sure we would not think that unless paid in hard cash it does not fall under the heading of “interest.” Cash, after all, is only a means to acquiring items that we need or want to possess. Hence it is not the actual cash that is the interest, but what this cash enables you to do with it.

Wir begreifen demnach auch, warum nicht nur ein wiederholtes Einschärfen des רבית-Verbotes, sondern ganz eigentlich die beiden charakteristischen Seiten desselben diesem Kompendium für die Niederlassung im Lande vorbehalten blieben. Beginnt doch eben mit dieser Niederlassung erst der eigentliche Geschäfts- und Volksverkehr, für welchen die Pflicht zum zinslosen Darlehen, insbesondere aber das Verbot jeglichen Darlehnzinses, von grundlegendster Bedeutung und jenen Geist zu pflegen geeignet sind, unter dessen Einfluss allein die sozialen Volksverhältnisse eine des Heiles und des göttlichen Segens würdige Gestaltung zu gewinnen vermögen.

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

לנכרי תשיך, you are allowed to pay interest to the gentile (on your loan from him) and you must not betray his trust by citing the prohibition to charge or collect interest.

לנכרי תשיך ולאחיך לא תשיך. "You may pay interest to a Gentile but you must not pay interest to your brother (the Jew)." Why did the Torah repeat here once more that we must not pay interest to a Jew when this had already been stated in verse 20? Our sages in Baba Metzia 75 say that the repetition is to teach that anyone doing this is guilty of the violation of two separate negative commandments. Perhaps the Torah meant here that although the interest you give to your fellow Jew ultimately goes to the Gentile, this is prohibited when the go-between is a Jew and the Jew does not know the Gentile in question either through having borrowed from him or through holding some kind of collateral belonging to the Gentile in question. This is also the halachah.

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

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

So that he transgresses, for this, two negative commandments and one positive commandment. “You may not pay usury to your brother,” and, “To your brother you may not pay usury.” You might ask: There are three negative commandments, because it is written (Vayikra 19:14), “Before a blind person you shall not place a stumbling block.” The answer is that this negative commandment is a לאו שבכללות (a negative general commandment that includes many different things), because [besides the verse’s simple meaning] we expound from it, “Someone who is blind regarding some matter,” i.e., you should not give someone bad advice, and we do not give lashes for [violating] a לאו שבכללות. Alternatively, because they expound this as [also] meaning someone who was blind regarding some matter, they do not want to count it among the negative commandments [here]. Re”m explains that he transgresses two negative commandments, the negative command of “You may not pay usury to your brother,” and the negative commandment of “Before a blind person you shall not place, etc.” He discusses this there at length. But what I have written, so I have found.

V. 21. ספרי) קבע לו הכתוב ברכה בשליחת ידו :בכל משלח ידך) "Allem ist Segen verheißen, indem du es in die Hand nimmst". Nicht physische Ursachen reichen aus, um den Segen zu bewirken. Eine von der im Geiste dieser Gesetze gepflegten, Gott huldigenden Brüderlichkeit bei ihrem Tun und Schaffen geleitete Hand bringt den irdischen Dingen, die sie schafft und handhabt, den himmlischen Segen. —

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

ולאחיך לא תשיך, even though according to the deal you made you obligated yourself to pay him interest and you are perfectly willing to pay same.

There is also an allusion here to a subject debated by the codifiers and later authorities in Yoreh Deyah 159. Some authorities, including Rabbi Joseph Karo, hold that extending loans to pagans is permitted only when the Jew finds it difficult to make a living without doing this even though there is general agreement that the Torah has permitted the practice. The wording לנכרי תשיך may be understood as "you may extend loans with interest to Gentiles, provided that as a result of this permission you will not ultimately charge interest on loans to Jews."

למען יברכך, in order that you will receive G’d’s blessing instead. By not desecrating G’d’s name in your dealings with the gentile by reneging, you will merit G’d’s blessing.

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

כי תדור נדר לה' אלוקיך, you are, of course, expected to honour your undertakings without reinforcing them in the form of a vow or oath. When you made a vow to G’d, however, not only are you obligated to pay up, but the payment must be made without undue delay.

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

For three festivals. The Rabbis derive this from Scripture, etc. Because it is written earlier at the end of parshas Re’ey (16:16), “in the festival of Matzos, and on the festival of Shovuos, and on the festival of Sukkos.” The verse [there] should only have said, “(Three times a year are all your males to be seen in the presence of Adonoy, your God), in the place that He chooses, and he shall not appear (in Adonoy’s) presence empty-handed),” [without mentioning the three festivals by name], because the beginning of the verse it is already written “three times a year” and probably refers to these three. So why is this stated? To allow a person three festivals to fulfill his vow. If he does not fulfill his vow within three festivals he will transgress a negative command and a positive command.

V. 22. כי תדר וגו׳. Dieses Gesetz über Gelübde schließt sich enge dem Vorhergehenden an. Das רבית-Verbot beruht auf der Wahrheit, dass Gott der eigentliche Herr und Eigentümer alles dessen sei, was wir unser nennen, und darüber zu verfügen habe. Diesem fügt sich das Gesetz über Gelobungen an, weil durch sie auch innerhalb des uns gestatteten Verfügungsbereiches Gott auf das und an das ein noch besonderes Anrecht erhält, was wir Ihm geloben, und von ihm die Erfüllung des einmal Gelobten gefordert wird, obgleich in der Regel das Unterlassen eines jeden Gelobens Gott wohlgefälliger ist. Das Gelübdegesetz an sich bildet bereits ein besonderes Kapitel (Bamidbar Kap. 32; — siehe daselbst). Die hier ergänzenden Bestimmungen: לא תאחר לשלמו und וכי תחדל לנדר וגו׳ dürften für dieses Kompendium umsomehr vorbehalten geblieben sein, weil durch die nun eintretende Entfernung vom Heiligtum hinsichtlich eines großen Teils der נדרים ונדבות, deren Erfüllung nur im Tempel möglich ist, ein solches Geloben um so bedenklicher und zu einem pflichtwidrigen Verschieben der Erfüllung eine größere Veranlassung gegeben ist. Spricht doch auch unsere Gesetzesbestimmung nicht sowohl von נדרי איסור, welchen zunächst das Kap. 42 im Bamidbar gewidmet ist, als vorzugsweise von נדרי הקדש, deren Erfüllung größtenteils — mit Ausnahme von den auch dahin gehörigen נדרי צדקה, die in der Regel überall und immer erfüllt werden können — auf den Tempel und dessen Umgebung hingewiesen ist. So R. H. 5 b: ת׳׳ר כי תדור נדר וגו׳ אלו הדמין הערכין והחרמין וההקדשות וגו׳ חטאות ואשמות עולות ושלמים וכו׳ צדקות ומעשרות ובכור לקט שכחה ופאה (siehe daselbst).

כי תדור נדר, “When you shall vow a vow, etc.” It is possible that this verse appears here as we read previously (verse 19) about a harlot not being allowed to fulfill a vow she had made to the Lord by using money earned from practicing her trade.

כי דרוש ידרשנו, He will demand it of you,

Dass hier zunächst von Gelübden die Rede ist, die durch Leistungen mit Gütern des Eigentums ihrer Erfüllung harren, dafür spricht schon einerseits das לא תאחר לשלמו, für dessen Anwendbarkeit auf andere Gelübde sich nur schwer Fälle ermitteln lassen (siehe Nedarim 3 b), andererseits, wie uns scheint, auch der Ausdruck: כי דרש ידרשנו וגו׳ מעמך, welches voraussetzt, dass irgend ein Gott zugesagtes Objekt noch pflichtwidrig "עמנו", bei uns, in unserem Besitze ist.

והיה בך חטא, “and you would wind up having committed a punishable sin instead of a good deed.”

so that if that becomes necessary you are already guilty of a sin of omission.

לא תאחר לשלמו. Wir haben bereits zu Wajikra 23, 38 dieses Verbot erläütert und bemerkt, dass schon das erste רגל die Mahnung an Erfüllung des Gelobten bringt, deren Nichtbeachtung eine Übertretung des Gebotes ובאת שמה והבאתם שמה. (Dewarim 12. 5 u. 6) wäre, dass aber das Verbot לא תאחר erst nach pflichtwidrig vorübergegangenen drei רגלים übertreten wird. Für צדקה-Gelübde tritt aber dieses Verbot sofort ein, sobald Arme vorhanden sind, durch welche zur Erfüllung des Gelübdes Gelegenheit geboten ist (siehe daselbst).

BUT IF THOU SHALT FORBEAR TO VOW, IT SHALL BE NO SIN IN THEE. Because those who bring a burnt-offering and sacrifices for G-d³²⁶Exodus 18:12. receive a good reward for it, as it is written, I will offer unto Thee burnt-offerings of fatlings, with the sweet smoke of rams; I will offer bullocks with goats. Selah;³²⁷Psalms 66:15. I will come into Thy House with burnt-offerings.³²⁸Ibid., Verse 13. He also said concerning freewill offerings, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him,³²⁹Leviticus 1:4. and again He said, of a sweet savor unto the Eternal.³³⁰Ibid., Verse 9, etc. And if so, vows serve as encouragement [to the observance] of a commandment, and it is written, I will pay my vows unto the Eternal, yea, in the presence of all His people.³³¹Psalms 116:18. Therefore Scripture states here: “Beware of your vows, for although they serve as encouragement in bringing offerings to G-d which will be accepted favorably on your behalf, yet you may come to sin if you vow and do not fulfill, or you delay fulfilling it. But if you do not vow, no sin can attach to you in the matter, for even if never in your lifetime do you bring a [vow-] offering, it will be no sin in thee. If so, observe that which is gone out of your lips, according to the word which proceeded out of your mouth, and do afterwards as you have spoken, to fulfill all that your spirit caused you to willingly bring forth from your mouth.” Solomon said it in the same way: When thou vowest a vow unto G-d, defer not to pay it; for He hath no pleasure in fools; pay that which thou vowest. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.³³²Ecclesiastes 5:3-4. Solomon states that G-d has no pleasure in fools who think that they do a good deed when they utter many vows to serve as encouragement to fulfill a commandment which they plan to do and they do not consider in their hearts, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say,³³³Isaiah 44:19. “Perhaps I will not be able to fulfill all these vows.” Instead he thinks that the desire he had at the time of his vow will be accounted to him for good. Therefore Solomon warned again, Suffer not thy mouth to bring thy flesh into guilt, neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error;³³⁴Ecclesiastes 5:5. that is to say, do not make many vows, [for if you make them and you do not have the means to fulfill them] you will have to say before the cruel angel sent against you, “It was an error, I meant to bring them.” You pledged them with a perfect heart and now you are unable to do so, but G-d will be angry at thy voice and — the aforementioned angel — will destroy the work of thy hands.³³⁴Ecclesiastes 5:5.

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

וכי תחדל לנדר לא יהיה בך חטא. "If you refrain from making vows this will not be considered as a sin for you." This can also be understood in light of a statement in Gittin 7 that "if a person experiences that his income is barely sufficient he should give some away as charity. If he has ample income he must certainly be charitable." In addition to this the Talmud states in Ketuvoth 66 that "if one wants to "salt away" one's money he will find that it decreases." It is a psychological truth that inasmuch as man is very fond of his money he is loath to part with it. A person may wish to counteract his natural tendency to hang on to his money by making a vow to G'd so as to obligate himself against his avaricious nature to give some of his money away for a worthy cause. This is why the Torah has to warn us that the consequences of not living up to the promises one has made in the form of a vow may be devastating.

V. 23. וכי תחדל לנדר (siehe zu Bereschit 28, 20). Gelübde tun ist an sich nicht nur nichts Verdienstliches, sondern gehört geradezu in den Kreis des Sündhaften. כל הנודר אעפ׳׳י שמקיימו נקרא חוטא, ist Grundsatz der Weisen; selbst wenn das Gelübde erfüllt ist, war das Geloben an sich Sünde. Es wäre richtiger gewesen, das Gute zu tun, ohne es gelobt zu haben; denn es heißt: וכי תחדל לנדור לא יהיה בך חטא ,הא לא חדלת איכא חטא nur das Enthalten von jeder Gelobung ist keine Sünde (Nedarim 77 b). הנודר כאלו בנה במה, Gelübde tun gleicht dem Bamabauen zur Zeit des Bamaverbots (siehe Kap. 12, 13); beide versündigen sich, indem sie glauben, etwas Gott gefälliges "Besonderes" zu tun (Nedarim 22 a ר׳׳ן daselbst) לא דייך מה שאסרה לך תורה, heißt es in Beziehung auf נדרי אסור (Jeruschalmi Nedarim Xl, 1) "hast du an dem nicht genug, was dir die תורה verbietet?" und ist es hinsichtlich נדרי אסור nach Nedarim 59 a מצוה לאיתשולי עליהן, eine Mizwa, sie zu einer etwaigen Lösung einer eingehenden Prüfung unterziehen zu lassen (siehe zu Bamidbar 30, 3). Nur בשעת צרה wie Jakob (תוספו׳ Chulin 2 b) oder im Kampfe mit der Sinnlichkeit, wie der Jüngling des שמעון הצדיק (Nedarim 9 b) werden נדרים gebilligt. Auch werden הרי זו) נדבות) von הרי עלי) נדרים — siehe Bamidbar 30, 3) unterschieden, und werden die ersten, wo die Erfüllung sofort durch Weihung und Widmung eines bestimmten Gegenstandes beginnt und Gelübdebruch nicht zu befürchten ist, von der Missbilligung ausgenommen (Chulin 2 b und Nedarim 10 a).

Concerning paying a vow late the Torah says that the party guilty of this is guilty of a sin, i.e. he may experience being deprived of someone his is fond of. Concerning people who fail to give charity the Torah says וכי תחדל לנדר, that even if the failure to make vows may result in your not donating to charity and this in turn may result in your own money-supply diminishing in worth or amount, at least you will not suffer the additional disaster of losing someone dear to you, such as when והיה בך חטא applies to you..

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

מוצא שפתיך תשמר, "You shall carry out what you have promised with your lips." The Torah suggests that you should wait before making a vow, a promise, until you are in a position to honour it forthwith. In that event it is perfectly acceptable for you to make vows. This is why the Torah writes immediately adjoining ועשית כאשר נדרת, "and you will do in accordance with what you have vowed." The famous teacher of the Mishnah Hillel conducted himself according to this principle by not designating the lamb he would offer as a passover offering as such until he had reached the Temple yard where it was to be slaughtered (compare Pessachim 86).

This specifies a positive commandment with the negative. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture has already written above, “Do not delay in discharging it.” This indicates that one must fulfill his obligation!

V. 24. מוצא שפתיך תשמר (Schebuot 26 b) wird mit Hinweis auf כל נדיב לב (Schmot 35, 5) gelehrt, dass eben für נדרי הקדש, von welchen unser Text zunächst spricht, schon der Gelübdevorsatz, גמר בלבו, ohne Ausspruch bindend ist, während für alle anderen Gelobungen, mit Ausnahme von נדרי צדקה, die in dieser Hinsicht den נדרי הקדש gleichstehen, der Grundsatz gilt, dass ein Gelübdevorsatz erst durch den Ausspruch perfekt und bindend wird, גמר בלבו צריך להוציא בשפתיו (siehe zu Schmot 35, 5 und Wajikra 5, 4). Jedoch gilt auch für נדרי הקדש der Grundsatz, dass, wenn das Gelübde nicht bloß gedacht, sondern ausgesprochen worden, בעינן פיו ולבו שוין, das Ausgesprochene mit dem Gedachten nicht im Widerspruch stehen darf; — siehe Trumot III, 8, ר׳׳ש daselbst).

מוצא שפתיך תשמור, “that which has come forth from your lips you should observe and do.”

Another meaning of our verse may be this: the words מוצא שפתיך תשמר mean that you should be very careful before you say anything (as it may be in the nature of a commitment). If, however, you did say something, treat it as if it were as sacred as a vow, i.e. כאשר נדרת לשם אלוקיך נדבה, "as if you had made a sacred vow to the Lord your G'd, instead of merely a voluntary gift of a secular nature." The Torah uses the expression נדבה to indicate the generous frame of mind you were in when you made this promise. We know that this is the general meaning of the word נדבה from Exodus 25,20: "which he donates in his heart," or Exodus 35,21: "which his spirit had donated."

נדר ,כאשר נדרת לד׳ אלקיך נדבה mit der Formel הרי עלי, z. B. הרי עלי עולה, übernimmt die Verpflichtung, Gott ein Opfer zu bringen. נדבה mit der Formel הרי זו, z. B. הרי זו עולה, weihet einen Gegenstand, z. B. ein Tier zum Opfer. Nun ist es klar, dass bei allen נדרי הקדש, z. B. beim Opfergelübde, zwischen der Gelobung und der Erfüllung, d. i. der Darbringung, ein Weiheakt liegt, mit welchem ein Tier zu dem angelobten Opfer geweiht wird. Jedes נדר fasst daher eine נדבה in sich. Jedes הרי עלי עולה gelobt ein Tier zum עולה zu weihen und es dann als solches darzubringen. Wenn nun hier der Text bei נדר diesen נרבה-Zwischenakt hervorhebt, כאשר נדרת נדבה, so will damit nach Sebachim 2 a zugleich angedeutet sein, dass es Fälle gibt, in welchen der aus einem נדר hervorgegangene נדבה-Akt zu einer selbständigen נדבה wird, durch welche das נדר nicht seine Erfüllung erreicht, z. B. in den Fällen, wo ein קרבן durch שנוי קדש oder שנוי בעלים wohl כשר bleibt, aber לא עלה לבעלים לשם חובה (siehe Wajikra S. 30) מוצא שפתיך תשמר ועשית כאשר נדרת וגו׳ נדבה האי נדבה נדר הוא אלא אם כמה שנדרת עשית יהא נדר ואם לאו נדבה יהא (Sebachim 2 a).

כאשר נדרת, “as you have vowed, voluntarily.” No one forced you to make such a vow, so that not honouring it, or delay in honouring it is entirely your fault.

אשר דברת בפיך, "as you have said with your mouth." We may understand this in light of Zohar volume three page 294 commenting on Kohelet 10,20: "for a bird of the sky may carry the sound, etc." When a man merely entertains some thoughts, his lips already move without his being aware of this. This is what the Torah alludes to with the words: "which you uttered with your mouth." If the meaning were not what the Zohar suggested what point is there in the Torah adding the word: "with your mouth?" Who does not know that one speaks with one's mouth? Our sages in Rosh Hashanah 6 interpret our verse in a different manner. After all, there are 70 legitimate ways of interpreting the written Torah.

כי תבא בכרם רעך WHEN THOU COMEST INTO THE VINEYARD OF THY FELLOW MAN, [THEN THOU MAYEST EAT GRAPES AT THY FILL] — Scripture is speaking of a laborer (who is engaged in gathering in the grapes, but not of one who is doing other work in the vineyard, nor of one who enters the vineyard with no intention to do work; cf. Rashi in the next passage) (Bava Metzia 87b).

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

כי תבא בכרם רעך, “when you enter the vineyard of your fellow,” The Torah speaks of a worker hired to help with the harvesting of the grapes (Baba Metzia 87). Our sages there continue to understand the word כי תבא עליו השמש (24,15) which clearly speaks of a worker, as proof that here too (only) a worker is meant. Otherwise, everyone could help himself to the grapes in any vineyard any time. This is also the way Onkelos translates our verse, i.e. ארי תתגר, “when a trader,” i.e. someone who has legitimate business in that vineyard.

Scripture refers to a laborer. Rashi goes on and explains: You should not ask from where one knows this, for it is written [afterwards], “But do not place it in your container.” From here [we derive] that the Torah refers only, etc. However, if he hired him to till or to hoe he may not eat. This indicates that Scripture is talking about a laborer during the harvest season.

VV. 25 u. 26. Es schließt der Abschnitt mit zwei Sätzen, die ebenso wie das vorhergehende Zinsverbot in dem unbeschränkten Verfügungsrecht wurzeln, welches Gott sich bei Gründung unseres Volksvereins über all unser Eigentum vorbehalten und dem Aufbau eines Volkslebens auf dem aus Liebe und Recht gewobenen Pflichtgefühl zu Grunde gelegt. Er erteilt hier dem jüdischen Ackerbesitzer die Pflicht, dem Arbeiter freien Genuss von der auf seinem Felde gereiften Frucht, an deren Schnitt und Lese er beschäftigt ist, zu gewähren, und erteilt dem Arbeiter die Pflicht, sich in der genau umschriebenen Grenze dieser Befugnis zu halten und sich vor jedem Missbrauch zu hüten.

כי תבא בכרם רעך, “when you came into your neighbour’s vineyard, etc.” The reason why this subject is discussed here is to contrast it with your having vowed something. When you make a vow it can only be concerning something that you own; when you enter your neighbour’s private property anything you remove comes under the heading of “taking.” (Ibn Ezra) [Ibn Ezra assumes that you have business in your neighbour’s vineyard, seeing you have been hired to help harvest the grapes. Ed.]

כנפשך means as much as you like.

ואל כליך לא תתן, “but you must not put any of it into your vessel.” This would be considered robbery. The Torah made a concession only concerning the desire of a person to eat on the job when he is tempted greatly to immediately gratify his appetite. Had the Torah not given its blessing to the laborer to eat ad hoc, he would have done so as a thief, something far worse. This is why the Torah adds the significant restriction כנפשך שבעך, “until you have satisfied your immediate craving.” The expression שבעך is reminiscent of Proverbs 13,25: “the righteous eats to his heart’s content;” Solomon means that he does not eat as a glutton, only to still his hunger. The same considerations apply to the laborer working in a grain field as outlined in verse 26. He must use his hands and not a tool (sickle) in order to cut down grain for personal consumption.

However, etc., or to hoe. Meaning, to remove the bad grapes from the good.

כי תבא, bezeichnet nämlich nicht ein regelwidriges, zufälliges Hingeraten, sondern das regelmäßige berechtigte Hineinkommen des Arbeiters, בפועל הכתוב מדבר (B. M. 87 b. Es wird dort auf das den regelmäßigen Sonnenuntergang bezeichnende לא תבא עליו שמש hingewiesen, mit welchem im nächsten Kapitel, Vers 15, die Fristgrenze für den am Tage fällig gewordenen Lohn eines Arbeiters bestimmt wird). Er ist auch mit כלי und חרמש dort, mit zum Einsammeln der Früchte bestimmten Gefäßen und mit zum Schneiden des Korns zu gebrauchender Sichel.

ואכלת ענבים כנפשך, “you may eat as many grapes as you desire;” provided the owner has not specifically forbidden you to do so. (Meiri ) The sages disagree about the significance of the sequence in which the Torah’s laws have been written, i.e. if the order implies a legal linkage to what preceded it. According to Rabbi Joseph in the Talmud tractate Yevamot folio 4, this portion is an exception in that even the scholars who hold that elsewhere such a linkage does not exist, concerning such sequences in the Book of Deuteronomy they agree that the order in which these laws have been written are of some legal significance. He quotes as examples all the laws written here including even the order to wipe out the memory of what Amalek did to the Israelites when they had come out of Egypt. (Deut.25,19)

שבעך AT THY FILL — but not excessive eating (Bava Metzia 87b).

Ebenso wie dem Arbeiter hier eine Genussbefugnis an der im Feld und Acker stehenden Frucht, במחובר, an der er beschäftigt ist, so wird ihm auch, ähnlich dem שור בדישו (Kap. 25, 4), ein solches Recht an bereits geschnittener und gelesener Frucht, בתלוש, eingeräumt, bei welcher er beschäftigt ist. Allein diese Befugnis ist genau auf die durch den Wortlaut des Gesetzes gegebene Grenze beschränkt. Sie ist überhaupt nur auf Bodenerzeugnisse, דבר שגידולו מן הארץ, wie דיש ,כרם ,קמה beschränkt und beginnt bei מחובר nur in dem Momente, in welchem die Natur bereits das ihrige getan hat, בשעת גמר מלאכה, und der Mensch mit "Korb und Sichel" bereit steht, das von der Natur Vollendete "sich" zu nehmen, und sie dauert bei תלוש nur so lange, als die dem Boden entnommene Frucht noch wie דיש, die durch Eintritt der מעשר oder חלה-Pflicht bezeichnete Vollendung für den Menschengebrauch nicht erreicht hat, בתלוש מן הקרקע עד שלא נגמרה מלאכתו (siehe Kap. 14, 22), zusammengenommen also, במחובר ובתלוש erst dann und so lange der Arbeiter beschäftigt ist, die von der Natur vollendete Frucht für den Menschengebrauch fertig zu stellen. Nicht früher und nicht später, somit auf der Schwelle des das egoistische "Mein" erzeugenden Gedankens der Menschenherrlichkeit, streut Gottes Gesetz die Saaten des aus Liebe und Recht nach beiden Seiten hin wirkenden Gedankens der "Pflicht" (siehe B. M. 87 a f.)

ואל כליך לא תתן BUT THOU SHALT NOT PUT ANY IN THY VESSEL — From here we may derive that Scripture is referring only to the period of the vintage, to the time when thou puttest grapes into the owner’s vessel, — then thou mayest eat but not put any into thy vessel; but if he comes to hoe or to weed (i.e. to do other work than harvesting) he must not eat of the grapes (Bava Metzia 89b).

ואכלת ולא מוצץ ענבים ולא ענבים ודבר אחר וכו׳ שבעך ולא אכילה גסה, er darf die Frucht nur essen, nicht aber nur den Saft davon genießen und den Rest wegwerfen, darf sie auch nur allein genießen, nicht aber mit irgend einer Zukost, durch welche man mehr davon essen kann, darf nur, so weit hinreicht, seinen Appetit zu stillen, nicht aber unmäßig davon essen (daselbst).

מלילות, aus Beza 12 b מוללין מלילות ומפרכין קטניות וגו׳ ist ersichtlich, dass מלל das Aushülsen der Körner aus den Ähren bedeutet, daher sind wohl מלילות die ausgehülsten Körner. Oder es heißen die frischen abgepflückten Ähren so, aus welchen man die Körner mit der Hand herausnimmt.

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

With this, as well, Scripture refers to the laborer. Because it is written, “But do not lift a sickle.” This indicates that Scripture is referring only to the time of harvest, [a time] when you reap and place into the owner’s receptacle. But, if he is hired to plow or for some other activity, he may not eat. This indicates that Scripture refers to the laborer.

That is that we were commanded to fulfill everything that we we take upon ourselves in speech, whether in an oath, a vow, charity, a sacrifice or anything else besides them. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "What issues from your lips shall you observe" (Deuteronomy 23:24). And even though they have already separated the words of this verse and arranged each word of it for various content, the intention that nevertheless comes out of all that [they] said to you is that it is a positive commandment for a person to fulfill everything that he accepts upon himself, whatever it may be. And one who violates it, [also] violates a negative commandment; and behold I will explain this in my mention of the negative commandments (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 157). And in the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 265:2): "'What issues from your lips' is a positive commandment." And you know that there is no content to the statement, "what issues," alone. However the intention is that which I mentioned to you - to understand the simple meaning of the verse, that He commanded to do what one puts out with his mouth. And behold that this commandment is repeated; and that is His saying, "according to all that issues from his mouth shall he do" (Numbers 30:3). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in many places - in Shevuot, in the end of Menachot and in Tractate Kinnim as well. That is to say that the specifics of concerning oneself to do the thing that one has obligated oneself; and how one exempts oneself when he has a doubt about what he said, is found there. (See Parashat Ki Tetzeh; Mishneh Torah, Sefer Haflaah.)