Halakhah sobre Deuteronômio 7:27

And thus the utensil, the knife, with which food is cut into pieces is called a ma’akhelet because it annihilates and destroys, as in the expression, “you shall consume (ve-‘akhalta) all the peoples.”³Dt. 7:16: “You shall destroy all the peoples” (NJSB). Ma’akhelet is the term for the knife with which Abraham prepares to slaughter Isaac in Gen 22:10. And the verse which uses va-yokhlu (“they ate”) to refer to what the ministering angels were doing teaches this,⁴Gen 18:8, in the story of the angels visiting Abraham at Mamre. as our sages z”l taught in a midrash about the three calves that Abraham brought to them. “One after another each one went up and disappeared (kalah) off the table, and Abraham when he realized this, brought some more meat almost continually time after time, like a person who kept increasing the number of whole burnt offerings he sacrificed on the altar.”⁵Gen. R. 48:16. And likewise about Adam it is written, “She also gave some to her husband, and he ate (va-yokhal).”⁶Gen 3:6The word va-yokhal (“and he ate”) proclaims his sin both by his deed and by his thought. By his deed: that is that he caused the tree to lose its fruit, and ate it despite his being warned not to: “for as soon as you eat of it, you will die.”⁷Gen 2:17. His thought: that is that he destroyed, cut off, and made like the branch of the tree was a thing in and of itself, and if so, everything suffers destruction and annihilation, in both physical and intellectual things.⁸R. Bahya alludes here to the kabbalistic idea that the sin of Adam also involved “the cutting of the shoots,” the intellectual error of mistaking the part for the whole of creation. This had profound cosmic implications, since by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, Adam not only physically separated the fruit from the tree, he intellectually “separated” it from its heavenly image above, its source of power and energy. This intellectual separation cuts the divine “pipeline” connecting the lower and upper worlds, effectively blocking the empowering flow of divine energy between the two worlds. It is precisely this state of affairs, the consequence of Adam’s sin, that the table blessings R. Bahya discusses in the First Gate is intended to repair. And so when you are found saying the word va-yokhal, it includes the destruction (hashhatah) of both something below and the destruction of something above, as it is written, “your people have gone bad (shihet),”⁹Ex 32:7. This is from the story of the Golden Calf. God is speaking to Moses, and instead of referring to the Israelites as “My people” as He usually does, God calls them “your – i.e., Moses’ – people,” much as parents often pass the buck to one another when their children have misbehaved (as does Moses, too, replying to God in Ex 32:11). I think R. Bahya’s point is that there is both a lower and upper “people “(“your [Moses’] people” vs. “My [God’s] people” that have “gone bad.” and likewise Jeroboam was called a mashhit – “destroyer” – because he destroyed and cut short the shoots.¹⁰See note 8 above. R. Bahya alludes to the midrash in b. Berakhot 35b: “‘He is a companion to vandals (ish mashhit) (Prov. 28:24).’ This refers to Jeroboam the son of Nebat who ruined (she-hishhit) Israel for their Father in Heaven,” by building two golden calves and ordering the Israelites to worship them (I Kings 12:28-32).

The Sefer Hachinuch (425) writes that if someone has the opportunity to kill a member of the seven Canaanite nations without endangering himself, failing to do so violates the mitzvah to destroy them (Devarim 7:10). The Minchat Chinuch (a commentary on the Sefer Hachinuch) finds the Sefer Hachinuch's ruling puzzling. Why should this mitzvah only apply when there is no danger involved? Although most mitzvot do not require that we sacrifice our lives to fulfill them, here the Torah requires us to do battle with the seven nations. It is understood, the Minchat Chinuch points out, that the Torah's laws do not assume that a miracle will occur (as explained by the Ramban's comments to Bemidbar 5:20 and 13:2). Since the normal course of the world is that people die in battle, we see that the Torah commands us to fight with the seven nations even at risk to ourselves.²Although the Minchat Chinuch concludes with an expression of some doubt, a number of Acharonim do embrace his argument, including Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin (Meromei Sadeh, Eruvin 45a and Kiddushin 43a) and Rav Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik (Parshat Beshalach, p. 32; cited by Rav J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Probems 3:296-297).

The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 19b) prohibits the sale of Israeli real estate to non-Jews, providing another possible reason to prohibit ceding land. This is based on the Torah's words, "Lo techaneim" (Devarim 7:2). The Gemara (Avodah Zarah 20a) interprets these words as "lo titein lahem chanayah bakarka" ("Do not give them permanent dwelling in the Land"). Some prohibit giving land to non-Jews even to save lives (see Teshuvot Dvar Yehoshua 2:48), while others argue that this prohibition may be ignored if lives would thereby be saved (see Rav Ovadia Yosef, Techumin 10:34-47). Rav Ovadia also points to the minority of authorities, such as the Bach (Choshen Mishpat 249:2), who claim that lo techaneim does not apply to non-Jews who do not worship idols, such as Muslims.

You should accustom yourself to move your bowels in the evening and in the morning because this habit is conducive to vitality and cleanliness. If you are unable to do so you should walk four amohs and sit and stand and sit [repeating this procedure] until you move your bowels; or you should divert your thoughts from other matters. If you delay going to the lavatory you transgress the prohibition of bal teshaketzu.¹“Do not make yourself detestable.” See Leviticus 11:43. However if you delay until you find a suitable or decent lavatory, it is not considered a transgression. And if you delay urinating when you feel the urge you also transgress the prohibition against bringing about sterility.²See Deuteronomy 7:14.

Another explanation (based on Rav Elchanan Samet Iyunim B’farshee’ot Hashavua 2:311-313) is that Hashem sought to limit the challenge we faced upon entering Eretz Yisrael. We were faced with the enormous difficulty of eliminating the avodah zarah (idolatry) which was at times quite valuable (see Devarim 7:25 which states that some of the Canaaim’s idols were made of gold and silver). Eretz Yisrael when controlled by the seven nations was awash with avodah zarah as Devarim 12:1-3 demonstrates. It was an enormous challenge for our ancestors (and can be today as well if valuable avodah zarah falls into our hands from sources such as the estate of a non-observant relative or a gift from a business partner) to destroy avodah zarah that sometimes can be worth a fortune.

The most obvious source of this ban is Deuteronomy 7:3: "Neither shalt thou enter into marriage with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For he will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods." However, the source which appears to be the most evident is not necessarily the most correct. The exegetical problem attendant upon this apparently explicit reference is whether the prohibition encompasses only the "Seven Nations" who at that time inhabited Erez Yisra'el, or whether it includes all gentile nations as well. This verse is immediately preceded by an introductory sentence in which the Torah states, "When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out many nations before thee … seven nations greater and mightier than thou." The prohibition occurs within a specific historic context, viz., entry into the promised land and conquest of the seven indigenous nations who inhabited Erez Yisra'el. These seven nations are specifically enumerated in this verse. It is in this context that the Torah admonishes, "Neither shalt thou enter into marriage with them."

It may, of course, be objected that these considerations apply only to the initiation of armed conflict for the purpose of capturing or liberating sanctified territory. The stipulations requiring a king, Sanhedrin and urim ve-tumim certainly do not pertain to defensive war undertaken for the purpose of preserving Jewish lives.¹⁰This point is amplified in Chapter XI of this book. See pp. above, 274f. Neither, it may be argued, do they apply to military activity undertaken for the purpose of retaining territory already reconquered, particularly if the territory in question has been liberated by means that are consistent with the provisions of Jewish law. It should also be noted that it can—and has—been argued that surrender of territories is an infraction of the prohibition "lo teḥanem" (Deuteronomy 7:2), which, in talmudic exegesis, is rendered as "lo titen lahem ḥaniyahn be-karka—you shall not grant them permanent encampment."¹¹See Avodah Zarah 19b. This talmudic dictum is formulated in association with a prohibition against conveying real property within the boundaries of the Land of Israel to a non-Jew. Yet a literal application of the terminology in which that prohibition is formulated would render it applicable to any action that would tend permanently to confirm non-Jewish residence in the Land of Israel. Sale of real estate would thus be but one example of activity having that effect; obviously, transfer of political sovereignty would be even more instrumental in engendering permanence of non-Jewish residence.¹²See Contemporary Halakhic Problems, I, 27-32, and II, 212-220.

If a Jew engages in sexual relations with a female idolater, derech ishut (that is, for the purpose of marriage), or a Jewess engages in sexual relations with a male idolater, that Jew or Jewess is given lashes on a Biblical level. As it is written (Deuteronomy 7:3): "You shall not marry them." (There are those who disagree with this ruling). However, if he engages in sexual relations derech zenut (that is, for licentiousness), casually, he is culpable only on a Rabbinic level for idolatry and for engaging in relations with a prostitute and he is given makat mardut (that is, lashes on a Rabbinic level). And, if he sets her aside for licentious activity, he is culpable on a Rabbinic level for having sexual relations with a nida (that is, menstruant), having sexual relations with a shifcha, (that is, slavewoman), idolatry, and having sexual relations with a prostitute. And, if he is a Kohen (that is, a priest), even if he engages in sexual relations casually, he receives lashes on a Biblical level, as it is written (Leviticus 21:7) ["(A kohen) may not marry a prostitute..."]

The king may first wage only a milḥemet mizvah. What is a milḥemet mizvah? It is the war against the Seven Nations,¹⁰The obligation to annihilate the Seven Nations assumes two distinct forms. A communal obligation to engage in war against those nations is here posited by Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 5:1, and by Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 425. A personal obligation to eliminate the members of those nations is formulated by Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 5:4, and by Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 425.
Various aspects of the commandment may be explained on the basis of this two-fold formulation. Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh declares that the obligation to annihilate the Seven Nations is incumbent upon both males and females equally and also expresses the view that the obligation is suspended when fulfillment would entail self-endangerment. Minḥat Ḥinnukh notes two apparent contradictions: (1) Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 525 and no. 603, in contradistinction to Rambam, Sefer ha-Miẓvot, introduction, shoresh 14, rules that women are exempt from participation in all wars including milḥamot miẓvah. (2) The waging of war, almost by definition, entails self-endangerment. Hence a commandment to wage war must be understood as explicitly requiring the placing of one’s life at risk in fulfilling that obligation.
These problems are resolved if it is understood that the obligation is two-fold in nature: a communal obligation to wage war against the Seven Nations and a personal obligation to eliminate the members of those nations. Although women are exempt from conscription for purposes of engaging in communal warfare, they are required to eliminate members of the Seven Nations by virtue of their personal obligation. Conversely, in the absence of a state of war declared by the sovereign, no individual is obligated to endanger his life in an attempt to discharge his personal obligations with regard to eradication of the Seven Nations. See R. Moshe Sternbuch, Mo’adim u-Zemanim, II, no. 164; R. Judah Gershuni, Mishpat ha-Melukhah, Hilkhot Melakhim 5:2; and R. Shlomoh Goren, Torat ha-Mo‘adim, (Tel Aviv, 5714), pp. 180f.
One significant difficulty remains. The biblical source of the commandment to annihilate the Seven Nations is the injunction “you shall utterly destroy them” (Deuteronomy 7:2 and Deuteronomy 20:7). This biblical passage might well be interpreted as establishing either a communal or a personal obligation; it is difficult to deduce a two-fold obligation from a single phrase.
In order to resolve this difficulty, it should first be noted that in delineating a milḥemet miẓvah the Gemara, Sotah 44b, speaks of the “wars of Joshua to conquer,” i.e., war for the conquest of the land of Canaan. Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 5:1, speaks, not of conquest of the land of Canaan, but of war against the Seven Nations. Of course, conquest of the land of Canaan involved war against the indigenous inhabitants, viz., the Seven Nations. However, Rambam’s substitution of his own terminology for that of the Gemara is significant in that it places negative emphasis upon such war as serving to destroy the Seven Nations rather than upon its positive aspect as a war for the conquest of the Land of Israel.
Conquest of the land of Canaan as an end in itself, as well as settlement in the Land of Israel, is deemed by Ramban to be mandated by the verse “And you shall drive out the inhabitants of the land and dwell therein” (Numbers 33:53). See Ramban, Commentary on the Bible, ad loc., and idem, Sefer ha-Miẓvot, Miẓvot aseh, addenda, no. 4. Rambam, as is well known, fails to record any positive commandment predicated upon that verse. Hence it may be assumed that, for Rambam, neither settlement in the land of Israel nor conquest of the territory so designated constitutes a miẓvah. (See, however, Megillat Esther, Sefer ha-Miẓvot, Miẓvot aseh, addenda, no. 4, who asserts that Rambam understands this passage as establishing a commandment to conquer the land, but that this commandment was binding only upon the generation of the original conquest rather than for posterity.) Indeed, Rashi understands the verse as constituting only prudent counsel, viz., in order to assure permanence of settlement it is necessary first to drive out the inhabitants. See Contemporary Halakhic Problems, II, 193-99. It may be suggested that Rambam views the first clause of this passage as a commandment or, more precisely, as an amplification of the commandment recorded elsewhere, viz., “you shall utterly destroy them.” The latter passage establishes a personal obligation with regard to annihilation of the Seven Nations. That obligation is quite independent of considerations of settlement. Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh explains that eradication of paganism is the rationale underlying the commandment “you shall utterly destroy them.” Indeed, the commandment is presented in precisely that context both in Deuteronomy 7 and in Deuteronomy 20. “You shall drive out the inhabitants of the land and dwell therein” may well have been understood by Rambam as a reiteration of the commandment recorded in Deuteronomy 7:2 and Deuteronomy 20:7 and hence this injuction is not enumerated by Rambam as a new commandment. However, in Numbers 33:53 an entirely different telos is presented, viz., “and dwell therein:” Annihilation of the Seven Nations makes permanence of settlement a greater likelihood. Since, according to Rambam, residence in the Land of Israel is not a personal obligation, establishment of a permanent settlement must be a matter of communal concern. Hence “You shall drive out the inhabitants of the land” (in contradistinction to “you shall utterly destroy them”) must also be addressed to the community in general rather than to individuals qua individuals. Thus the communal obligation to wage war against the Seven Nations is derived from Numbers 33:53 but is not deemed by Rambam to be a distinct miẓvah. Rather, he regards it as merely supplementary to the general commandment formulated in Deuteronomy 7:2 and Deuteronomy 20:7 that serves to establish a personal obligation. the war against Amalek and [a war] to deliver Israel from an enemy who has attacked them (she-ba aleihem). Thereafter he may wage a milḥemet reshut, which is a war against other people in order to enlarge the borders of Israel and to enhance his greatness and prestige.¹¹Rashi, Sotah 44b, describes the “wars of the House of David” as wars “which he fought in Aram Zoba in order to annex it to the Land of Israel and against others of his neighbors in order that they bring him tribute and servants to do taskwork.” A literal reading of a narrative reported in Berakhot 3b and Sanhedrin 16a would yield the inference that a milḥemet reshut may be undertaken for economic reasons; see, however, below, notes 42 and 51.

To not covet: To not bring up to our thoughts to do a machination to take for ourselves that which is someone else's of our brothers, as it is stated (Exodus 20:14), "You shall not covet the house of your neighbor, etc." And they, may their memory be blessed, have already proven (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:14:3) from a different verse [in which] it is written (Deuteronomy 7:25), "do not covet, etc. and you shall take for yourself," that the negative commandment of "you shall not covet" is not completed until he acts upon it. And even if he gives money to his fellow for the object [that he coveted], he [still] transgresses the negative commandment of "you shall not covet." As the negative commandment of "you shall not covet" is not rectified by the giving of money, so long as he took it from him coercively. Such is the true explanation of our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed.

Another authority, Avnei Milu'im, Even ha-Ezer 16:1, adduces yet another proof in establishing a biblical commandment prohibiting a Jewess from cohabiting with a non-Jew. According to Avnei Milu'im, the primary reference of the verse "For he will turn away thy son from following Me" (Deuteronomy 7:3) is to a Jewess who consorts with a non-Jew and applies only secondarily to a Jew who cohabits with a gentile woman. In the latter case, argues this authority, a child born of the liaison is a gentile and cannot properly be spoken of as "thy son," since Jewish law recognizes no relationship between a Jewish father and his non-Jewish progeny. However, since the child of a Jewish mother is a Jew even if the father is a non-Jew, a filial relationship does exist in Jewish law between the child and the mother. Accordingly, concludes Avnei Milu'im, in speaking of intermarriage as being forbidden "For he will turn away thy son from following Me" the verse must be addressed primarily to Jewish women. Hence, this verse serves to establish the existence of a biblical prohibition against cohabitation between a Jewess and a gentile.

He prohibited us from making a covenant with the heretics - meaning, with the seven nations (of Canaan) - and to allow them to be secure. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "and you shall not make a covenant with them" (Deuteronomy 7:2). And we have already explained in Positive Commandment 187 that war with the seven nations, and everything that comes with them, is appropriate to list [as a commandment]; and that it is not in the way of the commandments that are not practiced for [all] generations. (See Parashat Vaetchanan; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10.)

However, return of liberated territories for considerations other than preservation of life raises an entirely different set of halakhic considerations. On the basis of Avodah Zarah 20b, Rambam, Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim 10:3-4, rules that it is forbidden for a Jew to sell houses or fields in Erez Yisra'el to a non-Jew.³⁶It is generally accepted that the prohibitions flowing from lo teḥanem apply to all non-Jews and not only to the Seven Nations. This is stated explicitly by Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 20a; Sefer ha-Eshkol, III, 123; Maharam Schick al Taryag Miẓvot, no. 426; and Ḥazon Ish, Shevi‘it 24:1 and Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim 65:1. In this instance, Rambam departs from his usual practice of not supplying the underlying rationale upon which the halakhah is predicated. Rambam poses the question, "And why may one not sell [houses and fields] to them? For it is written, 'lo teḥanem'—Do not give them permanent encampment in real property, for if they will not possess real property, their residence is transient." If non-Jews are not given an opportunity to acquire real estate their presence in the Holy Land will be temporary and transient in nature. A person who does not own land, who does not own a home and who possesses neither fields nor orchards, is a person who has no roots. Such a person's domicile is inherently transitory. An individual acquires permanence and stability within a given geographic locale only when he requires property. Hence, the Torah forbids the sale of real estate in Erez Yisra'el to non-Jews lest through acquisition of land their domicile become permanent in nature.³⁷Ḥazon Ish, Shevi‘it 24:1 and Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim 65:1, opines that the ultimate rationale underlying the prohibition against sale of real property in Ereẓ Yisra’el to a non-Jew is identical with the reason for the prohibition against permitting idolaters to dwell in Ereẓ Yisra’el. In the latter case, the reason is explicitly stated in Scripture: “They shall not dwell in your land lest they cause you to sin against me” (Exodus 23:33). Both commandments, according to Ḥazon Ish, are akin to the commandment concerning eradication of paganism in the Land of Israel recorded in Deut. 7:5 and Deut. 12:2-3. This analysis was earlier advanced by Sefer Miẓvot Gadol, no. 48. Although Ḥazon Ish’s inference is from the terminology employed by Rambam in Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim 10:3, it would seem that this thesis is more readily substantiated by Rambam’s comments in 10:4 in which he describes sale of real estate as leading to permanent residence and then, in the very same halakhah, proceeds to state, “Similarly it is forbidden to praise them … for this causes [Jews] to cleave to them and to learn from [their] evil deeds” (italics mine). Rambam appears to predicate both proscriptions upon the identical rationale. It is the divine plan that ultimately Erez Yisra'el in its entirety become the exclusive inheritance of the community of Israel.

That He prohibited us from being afraid of the enemies during the time of war, and that we not run away from them. Rather, it is an obligation upon us to be resilient and to stand firm and be strong against the other people. And anyone who retreats and runs away has already transgressed this negative commandment. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "You shalt not be terrified by them" (Deuteronomy 7:21). And this prohibition was repeated when He said, "Do not fear them" (Deuteronomy 3:22). And this command was repeated frequently - not to run away and not to retreat during the time of war - since it is possible to confirm the true faith with this matter. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the eighth [chapter] of Sotah. (See Parashat Ekev; Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 7.)

A view similar to that of Maharsha is formulated in greater detail by Rit Algazi in his commentary on Bekhorot 47a. Rit Algazi explains that a child born of a union between a Jewish mother and a gentile father bears genealogical elements of both Jewishness and non-Jewishness. For this reason, the Gemara, according to the analysis of Tosafot, Bekhorot 47a, speaks of such a child as being "tainted," even though the child is legitimate. He is "tainted," states Rit Algazi, because of the presence of a non-Jewish element which, under certain circumstances, may become dominant. The talmudic statement attesting to the Jewish status of the progeny of a "gentile who consorts with a Jewish daughter" is understood by Rit Algazi as referring to a child born of a casual act of fornication. In such circumstances, it is to be anticipated that a child born of the liaison will remain in the custody of the mother and be raised by her as a Jew. If, however, the father rears the child as a gentile, as is to be anticipated when the parents have established a permanent relationship, the child is retroactively accorded the status of a non-Jew. The verse, "Your daughter you shall not give to his son…. For he will turn away your son from Me and they will serve other gods" (Deuteronomy 7:3-4), which serves as the basis of the talmudic dictum, "Your [grand] son born of an Israelite woman is your son" (Kiddushin 68b) is explained by Rit Algazi as meaning that the child is considered to be a grandson in terms of identity as a Jew only if he is not "turned away" by his gentile father. Scripture, according to this interpretation, admonishes that if the child is reared by a non-Jewish father he will not be accorded the status of a Jew and, hence, will not be deemed to be a grandson.

The Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 19b, expressly forbids the sale of real estate in Israel to non-Jews. The Gemara explains that this prohibition is derived from the biblical injunction "lo teḥanem," (Deut. 7:2), which, according to rabbinic exegesis, is to be understood as meaning "You shall not grant them permanent encampment (ḥaniyah)." Rambam, Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 10:4, amplifies this statement with the explanation, "For if they will not own land, their inhabitance will be temporary." Ramban, in his commentary on the Bible, Leviticus 25:23, finds that conveyance of land to a non-Jew involves yet another transgression. Scripture provides that all fields revert to their original owners in the jubilee year, and explicitly commands, "and the land shall not be sold in perpetuity." Ramban understands this verse as banning the sale of land to a non-Jew since the latter would retain permanent possession and not return the land to its original owner in the jubilee year. The verse concludes with the explanation "for the land is Mine," indicating that in actuality the land is the possession of God and that it is only by virtue of His largesse that man is permitted to dwell in, and derive enjoyment from, his terrestrial habitat. Accordingly, this passage gives expression to the divine will that Israel be the homeland of the Jewish people and that they not be displaced by foreign land-owners. According to Ramban, the purchase of land in Israel from a non-Jew constitutes a fulfillment of the commandment "You shall give a redemption unto the land" (Lev. 25:24). Rabbi Bakshi-Duran argues that, according to Ramban, there is yet another source militating against the sale of dwellings or fields in Israel to a non-Jew. According to Ramban, the verse "And you shall inherit the land and dwell therein" (Deut. 11:31) is not simply a prophetic prognostication or a divine promise but constitutes a positive commandment. Ramban comments, "We have been commanded to inhabit the land which God gave to our forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that we not allow it to remain in the possession of any other nation or allow it to be desolate." Rabbi Bakshi-Duran understands the second clause in Ramban's comment as referring not to the establishment of political sovereignty but to actual ownership of territory. Thus any act which results in a non-Jew acquiring title to any portion of the land of Israel constitutes a violation of the commandment concerning settlement of Erez Yisra'el.

It is from the roots of this commandment to destroy idolatry and all of those who serve it from the world. And these seven nations were the center of idolatry and its first foundation; and because of this, they were uprooted from their land. And we were commanded to uproot them and to destroy their memory forever. And it is as it is written about them in the Torah (Deuteronomy 7:2), "and you shall surely annihilate them" - and that is a positive commandment in the Order of Ve'etchanan. And there I will write at length about this commandment, with God's help, and tell the reason for why these bad nations are in the world and that this commandment is included in the commandments that are practiced. And from the warning about them, we understand a warning not to make a covenant with any worshipers of idolatry. But there is a distinction between the seven nations and the other peoples that are worshipers of idolatry (Gittin 45a); as there is no commandment to kill the other peoples if they do not fight with us, but these seven nations, we are commanded to kill in any place that we are able to - unless they abandon their idolatry. And the matter is because they were the center of idolatry and its first foundation, as I have written. And anyone who has one of them come to his hand and he can kill him without danger, but does not [do so], has transgressed a negative commandment. And that which we said that we do not kill worshipers of idolatry when they are not fighting with us, is specifically [regarding] worshipers of idolatry from the [other] peoples. However it is a commandment upon us to kill an Israelite that worships idolatry - such as the sectarians, the apostates and the heretics - because they oppose Israel. And it is better that a thousand like these be destroyed than one proper Israelite.

In this prevention of wine libations, both Rambam (in Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 194), may his memory be blessed, and Ramban (in his gloss to the Sefer HaMitzvot), may his memory be blessed, conceded that there is a negative commandment in this and that it is counted in the tally of the negative commandments. However they did disagree about it in the [following] matter: that Rambam extracts the prohibition of wine libations from the verse that is written in Parshat Haazinu (Deuteronomy 32:38), "drank the wine of their libations"; and the prohibition of other gifts to idolatry from, "Nothing is to cling to your hand from the anathema"(Deuteronomy 13:18) and from "You shall not bring an abomination" (Deuteronomy 7:26); [whereas] Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote that we learn the prohibition of all of the gifts of idolatry from this verse of "Guard yourself," and wine libations are included. And I have written this verse, like his opinion - not like my custom in all of the book, as I have written all [of the other verses] according to the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed. But in this [case] I saw that this verse is very fit to expound the matter from it; and also that there is a warning in it. And [it is] as they, may their memory be blessed, said (Eruvin 96a), [that] every place where it states, "guard yourself," or "lest" or "do not," it is nothing but a negative commandment. However in the verse, "drank the wine of their libations," there is no warning. And I also saw great ones from the enumerators of the commandment that wrote like this.

There is a pious individual whose heart eagerly pursues the will of his Creator. He does not increase his good deeds as does the wise pious man who is instructed by his teacher and is therefore (also) wise. The reason why the good deeds of the other are not many is because he is not instructed by a teacher. However, if he did know (receive instruction) he would fulfill (his share of good deeds), because they have said, “A man should always be deliberate (schooled) in the fear of the Lord.”¹Berakoth 17a. Behold, one who has not learned, his heart is not like a sponge to absorb learning, and even if he has a teacher, behold, his heart is closed and at time disarrayed, he is unable to understand and know. And we find in the Torah that any one who is able to understand (what is proper to do) even though he was not commanded, is punished if he did not take the matter to heart.²Moses Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, trans. M. Friedlander (reprint of 1st ed., 1881-1885; New York: Hebrew Publishing Co.), Part 3, Chapter XVII, p. 73. For it is written, “And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, the captains of thousand, and the captains of hundreds, who came from the service of the war. And Moses said unto them: ‘Have ye saved all the women alive?’” (Num. 31:14). Why did they not answer him, “Why then did you not command us? You did not tell us to put the women to death.” But Moses knew that there were wise men and experts able to argue a conclusion a minori ad majus.³Yalkut Reuveni (Warsaw: Levin and Epstein Publishers), Numbers, Chapter II, pp. 118-119. If with the Caananites where it is written “Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth,” “That they teach you not to do etc.…” (Deut. 20:16-18), and it is written, “For he will turn away thy son from following Me” (Deut. 7:4), lest he cause you to sin in the future, (they are to be put to death) these who have already sinned and caused others to sin is it not a matter of course that you should have argued a conclusion a minori ad majus⁴Sanhedrin 68a. (that they be put to death). Similarly, when the angels said to Balaam, “Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass” (Num. 22:32), why did he not reply “What transgression is it that I hit my ass.” Even the prohibition not to cause pain to a live thing does not apply. She did not buckle because of the load (but because of an angel that blocked the road). Also when she squeezed his leg why should he not hit her? Because he should have reflected, “Perhaps it is without the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, that I curse them. He permitted (me) only to reveal to them the future, for it is said, ‘If the men are come to call thee’ (Num. 22:20), you should tell them of the future.” The Holy One, blessed be He, saw that he (Balaam) would rejoice if he were allowed to curse Israel, and this is what is said, “I have sinned for I know not that thou (angel) stoodest in the way against me” (Num. 22:34). (And yet) on the contrary the reverse stands to reason, because he did not know that he (the angel) stood opposite him he did not sin. However, he said thus, “I sinned because I did not take the pains to know, I did not examine and search into the roots of the (my) transgression.” From this we learn that a man should be deliberate in the fear of the Lord since he is punished because of his ignorance. He must know and investigate, for in the presence of the Ruler you will not be able to plead inadvertence, as Shimei was unable to say to Solomon, “ I forgot that I went out to the river Kidron.”⁵I Kings 2:40. It is for this reason that I said I will write a book for those that fear God lest they think that they are being punished without cause. Heaven forfend, attributing evil to God “For Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness” (Ps. 5:5), and it is written “Warn them from Me. When I say unto the wicked: O’ wicked man thou shalt surely die, and thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way; that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at thy hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn … the righteous he shall surely live… but thou hast delivered thy soul” (Ezek. 33:7-9). The seven warnings correspond to the (seven) abominations of the heart: “There are six things that the Lord hateth, Yea seven which are an abomination unto Him” (Prov. 6:16); and to, “Seven times more for your sins” (Lev. 26:18). “But thou hast delivered thy soul” (Ezek. 33:9), mark that he does not say “thou hast ‘merited’” or “vindicated” but rather, “thy soul hast thou ‘delivered.’” From this we learn that anyone who has a friend that is being punished and he does not warn him and say to his friend “do not do so,” all the punishment visited upon his friend is attributed to him as if he personally killed his friend, because he should have warned him but he did not.⁶Shabbath 55a. Moreover, we exact from him the blood of his friend, concerning him it is said, “His blood will I require at thy hand” (Ezek. 33:8). For this reason have I prepared this Book of Reverence so that those who fear the word of God be circumspect. And furthermore my son be admonished,⁷Ecclesiastes 12:12. (beforewarned) if I have been mistaken let the wise man set it aright and understand in order to fear God all of the days in truth.

We have established that sight damage (hezek re'iyah) is a real form of damage. For most people are particular about others watching their actions, their use [of the courtyard] and their work, because the evil eye results from the gaze of others - and the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 107a) that it is prohibited for a person to stand by another’s field when [its ripe grain] is standing; and they also expounded about the verse (Deuteronomy 7:15), "The Lord will ward off from you all sickness," this is the evil eye - and furthermore, there are many kinds of work and use that require privacy, such that when someone else is watching, one is prevented from doing them. But we have also established that there is established use (chazakah) with sight damage (showing the damaged party's consent to the situation). However there is a disagreement about the measure of established use, as I have written in the beginning of Arukh HaShulchan, Choshen Mishpat 153. For there are some that say that immediately when his fellow does [an action that impinges on his privacy] and it becomes known to him and [yet] he is quiet, it is immediately [considered] acquiescence. But there are others that say that it requires three years and a justification [of the action]. And we have already explained there in paragraph 3, regarding the established use of sight damage, that since there is a doubt about the law, the burden of proof is upon the one who wants to extract what his fellow [possesses]; and the one damaged is called the possessor. Hence there is no established use here without a justification and with less than three years. However there is established use with sight damage. And even though there are some great rabbis that hold that there is no established use at all with sight damage, our rabbis who are the authors of the Shulchan Arukh have determined that there is established use. And likewise should one instruct once a person has established his use for three years with a justification.

That is that He commanded us to destroy idolatry and all of its houses with all types of destruction, annihilation, breaking, burning, demolishing and cutting - every type according to what will be most enhanced and quickest in the destruction. And the intention is that we should not leave a trace of them. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "You must surely destroy all the sites at which they worshiped, etc. And tear down their altars" (Deuteronomy 12:2-3); and His also saying, "you shall tear down their altars" (Deuteronomy 7:5). And because in the Gemara, Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 89b), it mentions their saying, "the positive commandment of idolatry," they said by way of wonder, "What positive commandment is there in idolatry? Rabbi Hisda explained, 'And tear down.'" And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 60:1) is, "From where [do we know] that if he cut down [idolatry] even ten times and it grew again, he must cut it down? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You must surely destroy.'" And they say there (Sifrei Devarim 60:10), "'And you shall destroy their name [from that place]' - In the Land of Israel, you are commanded to pursue it (its complete destruction); but you are not commanded to pursue it outside of the Land." (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 7.)

And let it not be difficult to you [that], if so that we do not say like the words of the translator (Onkelos) - from which verse do we learn the negative commandment of marrying a maidservant? And lest you say, from that which it is written (Deuteronomy 7:3), "Do not get married with them" - that is not [correct], as behold, it is explained in the Gemara that this is coming [specifically] for the seven [Canaanite] nations, and about them is it written. And [it is speaking about] specifically in their conversion; as in their gentileness, the expression, "marriage," is not applicable - and as we will write with God's help in its place, in the Order of Ve'etchanan (Sefer HaChinukh 427). But it is possible to say that we learn the prohibition of a maidservant as included in the prohibition of all the nations that are not Israelites, that it is prohibited to cling to them. And [it is] like the Sages expounded (Kiddushin 68b) from that which is written (Deuteronomy 7:4), "For they will remove your son from after Me" - to include all who remove. And likewise, a Canaanite maidservant is included in those who remove, since she is not a full Israelite; as behold, there are some commandments about which she is not obligated. And those are the ones in the section of the Torah in which it is explicitly written, "Speak to the Children of Israel" (e. g. Leviticus 18:2), to exclude anyone who is not from the Children of Israel, as it is explained in the Gemara in a few places. And with this, they are included in those that remove.

And let it not be difficult to you [that], if so that we do not say like the words of the translator (Onkelos) - from which verse do we learn the negative commandment of marrying a maidservant? And lest you say, from that which it is written (Deuteronomy 7:3), "Do not get married with them" - that is not [correct], as behold, it is explained in the Gemara that this is coming [specifically] for the seven [Canaanite] nations, and about them is it written. And [it is speaking about] specifically in their conversion; as in their gentileness, the expression, "marriage," is not applicable - and as we will write with God's help in its place, in the Order of Ve'etchanan (Sefer HaChinukh 427). But it is possible to say that we learn the prohibition of a maidservant as included in the prohibition of all the nations that are not Israelites, that it is prohibited to cling to them. And [it is] like the Sages expounded (Kiddushin 68b) from that which is written (Deuteronomy 7:4), "For they will remove your son from after Me" - to include all who remove. And likewise, a Canaanite maidservant is included in those who remove, since she is not a full Israelite; as behold, there are some commandments about which she is not obligated. And those are the ones in the section of the Torah in which it is explicitly written, "Speak to the Children of Israel" (e. g. Leviticus 18:2), to exclude anyone who is not from the Children of Israel, as it is explained in the Gemara in a few places. And with this, they are included in those that remove.

Its laws are, for example, that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 7:4; Avodah Zarah 51b), "What is [the difference] between [an idol] of an Israelite and [the idol] of a gentile? The [idol] of a gentile is immediately forbidden to benefit from, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 7:25), 'The statues of their gods shall you burn with fire, etc.' - from when they became statues, it becomes a god for him. But for the Israelite, it does not become forbidden to benefit from until it is worshiped, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 27:15), 'and places [it] secretly' - until he does things to it secretly, which are its worship. But the auxiliaries of idolatry - whether of a gentile or whether of an Israelite are not forbidden until they use them for idolatry. And the wage of the one who makes [the idol] is permissible, even though he is lashed - and even if he makes it for a gentile, such that it is forbidden when it is finished even before it is worshiped. Nonetheless, it is not forbidden until it is finished, and the last hammer-blow is not worth the value of a small coin (such that all the tangible value was invested before it was forbidden)." [These] and the rest of its many details are in Tractate Avodah Zarah (see Tur, Yoreh Deah 141).

He prohibited us from putting our thoughts to fabricating machinations in order to acquire that which is in the possession of our other brothers (fellow Jews). And that is His saying, "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house" (Exodus 20:14). And the language of the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:14:3) is, "'You shall not covet' - perhaps even if one covets with speech? [Hence] we learn to say, 'You shall not covet the silver and gold' (Deuteronomy 7:25). Just as there, [he is not liable] until he performs an act, so [too], here [he is not liable] until he performs an act." Behold it has been made clear to you that this negative commandment prohibits us from tricks that [enable] us to take our brother's property, that we have been coveting, for ourselves - even when we buy it and give him money. Whoever does any of this is surely transgressing, "You shall not covet." (See Parashat Yitro; Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property 1.)

And likewise included in this commandment is not to do the commandments of God, blessed be He, by way of testing, such that a person do a commandment to test whether God, may He be blessed, will reward him in His righteousness; and not from his love of God and his fear of Him. And let it not be difficult to you that which they, may their memory be blessed, said in the first chapter of Tractate Taanit 9a, "'A tithe shall you tithe (te'aser)' (Deuteronomy 14:22)? Take a tithe (asser) so that you will become wealthy (titasher)." As they have already answered it there and said that in all the commandments is it stated, "Do not test," except in this [one] of tithes, as it is stated (Malachi 3:10), "Bring the whole tithe into the storeroom,[...] and test Me now by this, etc." And the reason for this is like the matter that is written (Proverbs 19:17), "He is lending to God, he who is gracious to the poor" - meaning to say that God, may He be blessed, has informed us that it is through our financing the servants of His house with tithes that purpose and blessing is found in our money, no matter what, and [that] no matter of sin or iniquity will impinge on it. And the reason for the prohibition of testing about the commandments is because the reward for the commandments is not in this world; and as they expounded in Tractate Avodah Zarah 3a, "Today is the day to do them, but tomorrow" - meaning the world to come - "is [the day] to take their reward." And [about] that which they, may their memory be blessed said (Bava Batra 10b), "One who says, 'This coin is for charity in order that my son should live,' behold, he is completely righteous" - the wise commentators have answered [that it is when he decides in his heart to give it whether [his son] lives or does not live, as this is not testing God.

The commandment of killing the seven nations: To kill the seven nations that held our land before we conquered it from them - and they are the Canaanites, the Amorites, etc. - and to destroy them in any place we find them, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 7:2), "you shall totally destroy them." And this commandment is repeated in the Order of Shoftim, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 20:17), "But you shall totally destroy them, the Hittite, the Amorite, etc."

To not grace and to have mercy on an idolater: That we should not forgive towards idolaters and that nothing of theirs should be straight in our eyes. [That is] to say that we should distance from our thoughts and not bring up to our mouths that there should be anything of benefit from one who worships idolatry, and that he not bring up grace in our eyes in any matter; to the point that our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Avodah Zarah 7a) that it is forbidden to say, "How beautiful is that gentile," or "How fine and pleasant is he." And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 7:2), "and you shall not grace them." And the explanation of this comes about this, [that it is to say,] do not give them grace, like the matter that we have said. And there are some of our Rabbis that learned from, "you shall not grace them," you shall not give them free presents - and it is all one root. And in Talmud Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah 1:9, they said, "'You shall not grace them' - you shall not give them grace [is] a negative commandment."

To not marry with idolaters: That we should not marry with the nations - and Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 12:1), "Not with the seven nations and with the other nations" - as it is stated (Deuteronomy 7:3), "You shall not marry with them." And the matter of marriages is that he give his daughter to [the idolater's] son or his son to his daughter, and as the verse elucidates, "you shall not give your daughter to his son, and his daughter you shall not take for your son." And all the more so one who mates with them [himself], as he himself is included in this prohibition. And we say in Tractate Avodah Zarah 36b [that it is] by way of marriages that the Torah forbade. But even though this verse of "You shall not marry them" is written specifically about the seven nations and in their being converts - and so is it understood by our Rabbis, who said in the Gemara (Yevamot 76a), "In their being converts, they have marriages, in their being gentiles, they do not have marriages" - in that which the Scripture restates [that which is already understood], "you shall not give your daughter to his son, and his daughter you shall not take for your son," it [comes to] include the seven nations and all of the other nations even in their being gentiles. But the seven nations are forbidden even in their being converts because they were the main [source] of idolatry and its first foundation, whereas the other nations are permitted by conversion. But one who has sexual relations on occasion, such as a man who has sexual relations privately with his harlot - this is only a rabbinic prohibition, and it is the prohibition of nashgaz (the Hebrew initials of the four types of women included: menstruant, maidservant, gentile, harlot) mentioned in Avodah Zarah 76a.

To not derive benefit from the coverings of idolatry and from its auxiliaries: That we were prevented not to benefit from the coverings of idolatry. And even when it is not forbidden to benefit from the idolatry itself - such as if one bowed to something that is not in the holding of a man's grasp (not created by him), like a mountain, an animal or a tree, as it is not prohibited to benefit from them - nonetheless, the covering that is upon them is forbidden to benefit from nonetheless; since they are included in the auxiliaries of idolatry that are forbidden. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 7:25), "you shall not covet silver and gold that is upon it and take it for yourself." And even though it is stated in another place more generally (Deuteronomy 13:18), "And nothing shall cling to your hand, etc.," a negative commandment was specified about the covering - as the fools will place their eyes upon them.

To not benefit from an offering to idolatry: That we not have anything of idolatry cling with our money, to benefit from it. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 7:26), "And you shall not bring an abhorrent thing into your house, etc."

And it is in the category of this prohibition whether it is the idolatry itself or whether it is its auxiliaries or whether it is its offering, and whether it is the idolatry of an Israelite or of a gentile. And what is [the difference] between this and that? That of a gentile is forbidden immediately from when it is made, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 7:25), "The sculptures of their gods" - from the time that they are sculpted. And that of an Israelite is not forbidden until it is worshiped, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 27:15), "and places it in hiding" - until he does to it things that are in hiding (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 7:4).

And [also] included in this commandment is that a person should not have cling to his money that God has graced him with justly, other money that is from theft, extortion, interest or from any ugly thing; since all of this is included in the auxiliaries of idolatry. As the evil impulse of a man's heart desires it and brings it to his house - and the evil impulse is called by the name, idolatry; and like they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Batra 10a) that about it is it stated (Deuteronomy 15:9), "lest there be a wanton thing with your heart," and it is written about the matter of idolatry (Deuteronomy 13:14), "Wanton men have gone out from you and have induced, etc." And about monies like this that we mentioned and about the auxiliaries of idolatry - about all of them - is it stated (Deuteronomy 7:26), "and you will be an anathema like it"; meaning to say that all that clings to it is anathema. As the blessing of God is not found in it, and [so] it disappears and is lost; like the matter that they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 71a) that a small coin of interest makes several treasuries of money disappear. As this comes and destroys that.

To not be terrified or to be afraid in war: That we have been prevented to not be terrified and be afraid from the enemies at the time of war and not to run away from them. Rather the obligation upon us is to strengthen ourselves against them and to stand in front of them. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 7:21), "You shall not be terrified in front of them." And the prevention was repeated in another place, in its stating (Deuteronomy 3:22), "You shall not dread them."

Early rabbinic authorities decreed, coupled with “חרם²⁹Ḥerem, חרם, is the status of that which is separated from common use or contact, either because it is proscribed as an abomination to God or because it is consecrated to Him.
There are different categories of ḥerem. The Torah considers the following to be ḥerem: Israelites who worship other gods and idols. People who commit this idolatry were to be put to the sword and the objects burned. These people and objects contaminated those they came in contact with; The seven nations inhabiting the land promised to Israel - the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Deuteronomy 7:1-2; cf. 20:17). These people were to be totally destroyed; Whatever one privately devoted to the Lord as ḥerem is the most sacred, Kodesh Kodashim, and these objects were never to be sold nor was their status revokable (Leviticus 27:28). Cases of ḥerem in the rest of the Bible follow from these Torah laws. The term later came to mean total destruction.
The term ḥerem began to take on different meanings from the Biblical ones as time passed. Even the term ḥerem in the Bible changed its meaning. In Deuteronomy declaring an enemy as ḥerem was done to gain God’s favor by totally devoting to Him, one’s own nation and the total nation of the enemy.
After Saul the rise of the enemy ḥerem seems to have disappeared. Ḥerem came to mean, when referred to a nation that the other nation’s religion practiced evil ways that would badly influence the Israelites and therefore these people were to be separated from Israel to preserve their true belief in God (Exodus 34:11ff; Numbers 33:51ff; Deuteronomy 7:1-5; 20:16ff).
In later Jewish law the concept of ḥerem changed radically. The ḥerem of Ezra is the first indication that meant banishment and persecution. The term niddui was used in tannaitic literature to mean the punishment of an offender by his isolation from and his being held in contempt by the community at large. The term niddui was used in the Bible (Numbers 12:14) as an isolation punishment. The Pharisees employed niddui if a person did not follow their prescribed standards. A scholar was isolated for his non-compliance with the majority and no one was permitted to contact him lest they too became defiled. Niddui was a Punishment employed by the courts on the heads of the academies.
Later in the talmudic laws the term ḥerem was used again as an aggravated form of niddui. A niddui could last for two 30 day periods. After 60 days passed and the person did not satisfy the courts or the academies by changing his ways, a ḥerem was declared which was a total banishment and isolation. Another type of punishment was also established. That was a nezifah, a “reprimand”, which lasted for seven days. It was intended for shame and remorse and automatically expired while a niddui and a ḥerem had to be lifted by the courts.
A niddui differed from a ḥerem in that one who was declared niddui could have social intercourse for purposes of study or business, but one placed in ḥerem had to study alone and earn money from the small shop he was permitted to maintain. One punished by niddui or ḥerem was considered in a state of mourning and was therefore not permitted to cut his hair, do laundry, or wear shoes, except for out-of-town walks. He was forbidden to wash himself except for his face, hands, and feet but he did not have to rend his clothes. He had to live in confinement with his family only, no outsider was permitted to come near him, eat or drink with him, greet him, or give him any enjoyment (Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 334:2). He could not be counted as part of the three for grace after the meals nor as one of the ten for a prayer minyan. After his death, his coffin would be stoned, (one stone could be symbolically placed on the coffin). The niddui was actually considered a rather light penalty for minor offenses since it could be so easily lifted. Niddui was during talmudic times put on people by laymen and individual scholars for various reasons, not only by the courts, for reasons such as debt. Only a court designated niddui would necessitate the whole community from disassociating with the isolated person. A non-judicial niddui did not require this. A person had to be warned about a possible niddui for a non-religious offense, but for a religious one no warning was necessary. The niddui had to be publically announced but no evidence was required. The court was considered fair. A niddui by a court could be lifted by any court. A personal niddui had to be lifted by the person who imposed it and, if he was unavailable, by the nasi or leader of the community. The courts tended not to pronounce a niddui against a judge or a scholar. Flogging (see footnote 31) was considered a more appropriate punishment.
In post-talmudic times the threat of a niddui or a ḥerem was considered a way of future law enforcement. As time went on the conditions put on one who was excommunicated in the Talmud became the minimum. They became more and more severe. One who was banned could not have his sons circumcised or their children married, their children and wives were expelled from the synagogue, and they were not to be buried with any honor. He was considered as a non-Jew; his ẓiẓit fringes, were cut off, his mezuzah removed from his door, his food proclaimed unfit for Jews, and his books considered trash. The ḥerem became actually, a civil death. The man was dead to the community.
Ḥerem became more and more frequent as the punishment of excommunication by the Church increased. Jewish courts were influenced by civil courts of the land to impose ḥerem on Jews for monetary reasons, but the Jewish courts remained independent in religious matters. Rabbis became more and more reluctant to impose a ḥerem on an individual especially without the consent of the entire congregation due to the extreme hardship it imposed on the family of the isolated man. This caused the development of partial ḥerem which was less severe and only isolated the person in synagogue worship but not in daily life, for example. Niddui was then imposed for major offenses such as a man refusing to divorce his wife when it was felt that he should, a bridegroom refusing to marry his bride, or offenses such as theft or fraud.
Minor forms of ḥerem, niddui or nezifah were pronounced by the head of the rabbinical court, but a severe ḥerem was pronounced in the synagogue either before the open ark or while holding the Torah scroll. The proclaimation was made with the sounding of the shofar, the ram’s horn (see footnote 221). The people held candles and put them out symbolically when the excommunication was declared. Several Biblical verses were recited against the one excommunicated and people were warned against associating with the person put in ḥerem. The ceremony concluded with a prayer for the faithful of the congregation.
In later times the niddui and ḥerem became so frequent and common that it lost almost all of its significance and force. It became the standard rabbinic reaction to all forms of deviation from the norm of Orthodoxy. Although still pronounced they are no longer binding on the person involved or the community, nor do they carry the terror they once did.
Haim Hermann Cohn, E. J., v. 8, pp. 344-55.”, ban, that the living should not slander the dead.

Early rabbinic authorities decreed, coupled with “חרם²⁹Ḥerem, חרם, is the status of that which is separated from common use or contact, either because it is proscribed as an abomination to God or because it is consecrated to Him.
There are different categories of ḥerem. The Torah considers the following to be ḥerem: Israelites who worship other gods and idols. People who commit this idolatry were to be put to the sword and the objects burned. These people and objects contaminated those they came in contact with; The seven nations inhabiting the land promised to Israel - the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Deuteronomy 7:1-2; cf. 20:17). These people were to be totally destroyed; Whatever one privately devoted to the Lord as ḥerem is the most sacred, Kodesh Kodashim, and these objects were never to be sold nor was their status revokable (Leviticus 27:28). Cases of ḥerem in the rest of the Bible follow from these Torah laws. The term later came to mean total destruction.
The term ḥerem began to take on different meanings from the Biblical ones as time passed. Even the term ḥerem in the Bible changed its meaning. In Deuteronomy declaring an enemy as ḥerem was done to gain God’s favor by totally devoting to Him, one’s own nation and the total nation of the enemy.
After Saul the rise of the enemy ḥerem seems to have disappeared. Ḥerem came to mean, when referred to a nation that the other nation’s religion practiced evil ways that would badly influence the Israelites and therefore these people were to be separated from Israel to preserve their true belief in God (Exodus 34:11ff; Numbers 33:51ff; Deuteronomy 7:1-5; 20:16ff).
In later Jewish law the concept of ḥerem changed radically. The ḥerem of Ezra is the first indication that meant banishment and persecution. The term niddui was used in tannaitic literature to mean the punishment of an offender by his isolation from and his being held in contempt by the community at large. The term niddui was used in the Bible (Numbers 12:14) as an isolation punishment. The Pharisees employed niddui if a person did not follow their prescribed standards. A scholar was isolated for his non-compliance with the majority and no one was permitted to contact him lest they too became defiled. Niddui was a Punishment employed by the courts on the heads of the academies.
Later in the talmudic laws the term ḥerem was used again as an aggravated form of niddui. A niddui could last for two 30 day periods. After 60 days passed and the person did not satisfy the courts or the academies by changing his ways, a ḥerem was declared which was a total banishment and isolation. Another type of punishment was also established. That was a nezifah, a “reprimand”, which lasted for seven days. It was intended for shame and remorse and automatically expired while a niddui and a ḥerem had to be lifted by the courts.
A niddui differed from a ḥerem in that one who was declared niddui could have social intercourse for purposes of study or business, but one placed in ḥerem had to study alone and earn money from the small shop he was permitted to maintain. One punished by niddui or ḥerem was considered in a state of mourning and was therefore not permitted to cut his hair, do laundry, or wear shoes, except for out-of-town walks. He was forbidden to wash himself except for his face, hands, and feet but he did not have to rend his clothes. He had to live in confinement with his family only, no outsider was permitted to come near him, eat or drink with him, greet him, or give him any enjoyment (Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 334:2). He could not be counted as part of the three for grace after the meals nor as one of the ten for a prayer minyan. After his death, his coffin would be stoned, (one stone could be symbolically placed on the coffin). The niddui was actually considered a rather light penalty for minor offenses since it could be so easily lifted. Niddui was during talmudic times put on people by laymen and individual scholars for various reasons, not only by the courts, for reasons such as debt. Only a court designated niddui would necessitate the whole community from disassociating with the isolated person. A non-judicial niddui did not require this. A person had to be warned about a possible niddui for a non-religious offense, but for a religious one no warning was necessary. The niddui had to be publically announced but no evidence was required. The court was considered fair. A niddui by a court could be lifted by any court. A personal niddui had to be lifted by the person who imposed it and, if he was unavailable, by the nasi or leader of the community. The courts tended not to pronounce a niddui against a judge or a scholar. Flogging (see footnote 31) was considered a more appropriate punishment.
In post-talmudic times the threat of a niddui or a ḥerem was considered a way of future law enforcement. As time went on the conditions put on one who was excommunicated in the Talmud became the minimum. They became more and more severe. One who was banned could not have his sons circumcised or their children married, their children and wives were expelled from the synagogue, and they were not to be buried with any honor. He was considered as a non-Jew; his ẓiẓit fringes, were cut off, his mezuzah removed from his door, his food proclaimed unfit for Jews, and his books considered trash. The ḥerem became actually, a civil death. The man was dead to the community.
Ḥerem became more and more frequent as the punishment of excommunication by the Church increased. Jewish courts were influenced by civil courts of the land to impose ḥerem on Jews for monetary reasons, but the Jewish courts remained independent in religious matters. Rabbis became more and more reluctant to impose a ḥerem on an individual especially without the consent of the entire congregation due to the extreme hardship it imposed on the family of the isolated man. This caused the development of partial ḥerem which was less severe and only isolated the person in synagogue worship but not in daily life, for example. Niddui was then imposed for major offenses such as a man refusing to divorce his wife when it was felt that he should, a bridegroom refusing to marry his bride, or offenses such as theft or fraud.
Minor forms of ḥerem, niddui or nezifah were pronounced by the head of the rabbinical court, but a severe ḥerem was pronounced in the synagogue either before the open ark or while holding the Torah scroll. The proclaimation was made with the sounding of the shofar, the ram’s horn (see footnote 221). The people held candles and put them out symbolically when the excommunication was declared. Several Biblical verses were recited against the one excommunicated and people were warned against associating with the person put in ḥerem. The ceremony concluded with a prayer for the faithful of the congregation.
In later times the niddui and ḥerem became so frequent and common that it lost almost all of its significance and force. It became the standard rabbinic reaction to all forms of deviation from the norm of Orthodoxy. Although still pronounced they are no longer binding on the person involved or the community, nor do they carry the terror they once did.
Haim Hermann Cohn, E. J., v. 8, pp. 344-55.”, ban, that the living should not slander the dead.