## Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy Chapter 21

###### Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 21:2:1
[Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 21:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Da%27at%20Zekenim%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/21:2:1)

**ומדדו אל הערים.** אמר הרב בכור שור דכל זה צוה הקב"ה לעשות כדי שיצא קול לנרצח ומתוך כך יבואו עדים ויעידו שהוא מת ולא תשב אשתו עגונה ומאי דאמרו רבותינו אין מעידין אלא על פרצוף פנים עם החוטם כגון שבא ואמר מעיד אני על חוטמו ופרצופו שהוא כך וכך ואין העדים מכירין אותו אלא מתוך דבריהם יבינו המכירים אותו שהוא זה אבל אם באים עדים שאומרים מכירין אנו בודאי שזהו ובטביעות עין גמור כאלו ראיתיו חי ודאי תנשא אשתו בעדות זו אפילו לאחר כמה שבועות ולפי' אפי' ממקום רחוק יכול לבא ולהתבונן בו וההוא דטבע בדגמ' ואסקוה אגשרא וכו' ואנסבה רבא לדביתהו אפילו לאחר חמשה יומי עדות סתם היה ודמיון ולא אמר מוחזקני בו:

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


###### Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 21:7:1
[Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 21:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Da%27at%20Zekenim%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/21:7:1)

**ידינו לא שפכה.** כתוב בה"א לומר שחייב בעל הבית לעשות לאורח חמשה דברים אכילה שתיה לינה לויה מזון לדרך וגם מתנה ובמסכת סוטה פרק עגלה ערופה מסיק ידינו לא שפכה. וכי תעלה על דעתך שב"ד שופכי דמים הן אלא שלא בא לידינו ופטרנוהו בלא מזונות לא בא לידינו ופטרנוהו בלא לויה דמשמע אבל אם ראינוהו היינו עושין לו לויה ולא היה ניזוק דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל המלוה את חבירו אפילו ארבע אמות בעיר אינו נזוק רבינא אלווייהו לרב נחמן בר יצחק מטיא לידי הזיקא ואתציל. ות"ר הרב לתלמיד עד עיבורה של עיר חבר לחבר עד תחום שבת תלמיד לרב אין לו שיעור וכמה אמר רב ששת פרסה ורבו מובהק שלש פרסאות ותניא ר' מאיר אומר כופין ללויה ולויה אין לה שיעור שנאמר ויראו איש יוצא מן העיר ויאמרו אליו הראנו את מבוא העיר ועשינו עמך חסד וכתיב ויראם את מבוא העיר ומה חסד עשו עמו שהרגו כל העיר לפי חרב ואותו האיש ומשפחתו הצילו וכתיב וילך האיש ארץ החתים ויבן העיר ויקרא שמה לוז. וכשבא סנחריב לא בלבל' ונבוכדנצר לא החריבה ואף מלאך המות אין לו רשות לעמוד בה אלא זקנים שבתוכה שדעתן קצה בחייהן מוציאין אותם חוץ לחומה ומתים והלא דברים קל וחומר ומה כנעני זה שלא דבר בפיו ולא הלך ברגליו גרם הצלה לו ולזרעו עד סוף כל הדורות מי שעשה לויה בפיו וברגליו על אחת כמה וכמה ואמר ר' יהושע בשביל ארבע אמות שלווהו מצרים לאברהם אבינו נשתעבדו בבניו ארבע מאות שנה. ויש אומרים דלויה הוי שיעור מיל וסמך לדבר כי מלאכיו יצוה לך לשמרך בכל דרכיך וגו' מ"ם דמלאכיו יו"ד של יצוה למ"ד של לך הרי מיל ואז הוא בטוח להיות נשמר בכל דרכיו וכשהאורח יוצא לדרך אע"פ שנותן לו בעל הבית מעות צריך ליתן לו לחם שנא' ועל פת לחם יפשע גבר כי שמא יאחזנו בולמוס בדרך וימות ונמצא בעל הבית פושע על שהניחו לצאת בלא לחם. וא"ר יוחנן כל מי שאינו מלוה כאלו שופך דמים שאלו לווהו אנשי יריחו לאלישע לא גזר דובים בתינוקות שנא' ויעל משם בית אל והוא עולה בדרך ונערים קטנים יוצאים ויתקלסו בו ויאמרו עלה קרח עלה קרח אמרו הקרחת עלינו את המקום מאי נערים קטנים אמר ר' אלעזר בני אדם שמנוערין מן המצות קטנים שהיו מקטני אמנה וכתיב ויפן אחריו ויראם ויקללם בשם ה' מה ראה שמכולם נתעברה אמם ביום הכפורים ור' יוחנן אמר ראה שלא היה בהם שום לחלוחית של מצות לא בם ולא בזרעם ועוד גדולה לויה ממתנה דאלו מתנה בממונו ולויה בגופו ועוד שאחד המלוה ואחד הנילוה אינו ניזוק שנא' שלום שלום לרחוק דהיינו המתרחק מן העיר דהיינו המתלוה ולקרוב המתקרב מן העיר דהיינו המלוה שחוזר לעיר. ועוד איתא בירושלמי אפריון נמטייה למאן דמלוה פי' חן יגיע לאותן המלוין את המטין בדרך דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי המהלך בדרך ואין לו לויה יעסוק בתורה שנאמר כי לוית חן הם לראשך:

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


###### Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 21:9:1
[Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 21:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Da%27at%20Zekenim%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/21:9:1)

**ואתה תבער הדם הנקי.** פרש"י שאם נמצא הרוצח לאחר עריפת העגלה שאין פוטרין אותו ותמה דבכתובות פ"י אמר ר' לוי מסיק ואתה תבער הדם הנקי הוקשו שופכי דמים לעגלה ערופה לומר לך מה עגלה ערופה מן הצואר פי' ללמד דרוצח נדון בסייף. ופי' הרב רבינו משה ז"ל דההיא סוגיא אתיא כמ"ד חנק חמור וכן משמע בפרק ארבע מיתות דמפיק דרוצח בסייף מדכתיב והבאתי עליכם חרב נוקמת נקם ברית ומסיק אשכחן עבד בן חורין מנא לן ק"ו הוא קטל עבדא בסייף בן חורין לא כל שכן הניחא למ"ד חנק קל אלא למ"ד חנק חמור מאי איכא למימר כלומר מהיכא תפוק דהורג בן חורין בסייף דהשתא ליכא ק"ו ומשני נפקא ליה מדתניא ואתה תבער הדם הנקי הקשו שופכי דמים לעגלה ערופה מה להלן מן הצואר אף כאן מן הצואר מכלל דלמ"ד חנק חמור איצטריך ואתה תבער להקיש רוצח לעגלה ערופה ואם נמצא הרוצח לאחר עריפת העגלה דקי"ל חנק קל מסייף דהשתא נפקא לן רוצח בסייף מק"ו דעבד ואי קשיא לדידיה ולארץ לא יכופר וגו' למאי אתא י"ל דאצטריך שמא נמצא הרוצח לאחר יום הכפורים אין פוטרין אותו אע"ג דאיכא תרתי עריפת העגלה ויום הכפורים ואידך שמא לית ליה האי:

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


###### Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 21:10:1
[Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 21:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Da%27at%20Zekenim%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/21:10:1)

**ושבית שביו.** פרש"י לרבות כנענים שבתורה ואע"פ שהם משבעה עממין ומקשי' העולם היכי משתמע לי' ושבית שביו וי"ל דה"ק ושבית שביו של אויביך כלומר אפי' הכנענים ששבו אויביך להם ושבת אותו:

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


###### Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 21:12:1
[Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 21:12:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Da%27at%20Zekenim%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/21:12:1)

**והבאתה אל תוך ביתך.** כלומר שלא ילחצנה במלחמה לבא עליה יותר מביאה ראשונה ולא אסרה תורה אלא ביאה שנייה ואני או' לא ביאה שנייה ולא ביאה ראשונה אלא לאחר כל המעשים הללו. וי"מ שלא ילחצנה במלחמ' שלא יטול חליצ' הבגדים שעליה במלחמ' והכי משמע דקרא דבתריה והבאתה אל תוך ביתך והדר והסירה את שמלת שביה מעליה ודרכן להתקשט במלחמה בבגדים נאים:

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


###### Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 21:15:1
[Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 21:15:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Da%27at%20Zekenim%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/21:15:1)

**כי תהיין לאיש**. לכך נסמכו פרשיות הללו לכאן לו' לך עבירה גוררת עבירה דלפי שיקח יפת תאר תהיין לו שתי נשים ומריבה בתוך ביתו ולא עוד אלא שתשנא האחת ומה כתיב אחריו כי יהיה לאיש בן סורר ומורה שכן מצינו בדוד שלפי שלקח בת תלמי מלך גשור בצאתו למלחמה יצא ממנו אבשלום שבקש להרגו ושכב עם נשיו ועל ידו נהרגו כמה רבבות מישראל. ומה כתיב אחריו וכי יהיה באיש חטא משפט מות אם ינצל מזה לא ינצל מזה הרי עבירה גוררת עבירה:

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


###### Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 21:16:1
[Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 21:16:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Da%27at%20Zekenim%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/21:16:1)

**לא יוכל לבכר.** ואם תאמר הרי יעקב בכר יוסף בן האהובה על פני ראובן בן השנואה כדכתיב וירא ה' כי שנואה לאה בפשיעתו של ראובן היה ונתנה ליוסף שפרנס אביו וא"ה לא יוכל לבכר ואם פשע באביו יביאנו לבית דין כדמפרש ואזיל:

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


###### Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 21:18:1
[Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 21:18:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Da%27at%20Zekenim%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/21:18:1)

**כי יהיה לאיש בן סורר ומורה**. על שם סופו הוא נהרג כדפרש"י ואי קשיא כיון שנהרג מפני שעתיד ללסטם את הבריות אין לחייבו במיתה חמורה מלסטים דאלו רוצח בסייף וזה בסקילה ונראה לומר מדכתיב איננו שומע בקול אביו ובקול אמו והוי כמו מקלל אביו ואמו שהוא בסקילה שנא' אביו ואמו קלל דמיו בו:

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


###### Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 21:23:1
[Da'at Zekenim on Deuteronomy 21:23:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Da%27at%20Zekenim%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/21:23:1)

**כי קללת אלהים תלוי.** ע"י הוא נתקלל ונתלה ואם אין קוברין אותו לא יהיה כבוד של מעלה שלא יאמרו הרואים זה מחרף היה ופשט ידו במלך:

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