## Ramban on Deuteronomy Chapter 22

###### Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:1:1
[Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/22:1:1)

**לֹא תִרְאֶה אֶת שׁוֹר אָחִיךָ אוֹ אֶת שֵׂיוֹ נִדָּחִים**, זוֹ מִצְוָה מְבֹאֶרֶת, שֶׁאָמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (שמות כג ד) כִּי תִפְגַּע שׁוֹר אֹיִבְךָ אוֹ חֲמֹרוֹ תֹּעֶה הָשֵׁב תְּשִׁיבֶנּוּ לוֹ, וְהוֹסִיף בְּכָאן לֵאמֹר **נִדָּחִים**, כִּי **תּוֹעֶה**, שֶׁתָּעָה מִדַּרְכּוֹ וְיָכוֹל לְהַטּוֹתוֹ הַדֶּרֶךְ בְּלֹא עָמָל גָּדוֹל, וְעַתָּה הִזְכִּיר **נִדָּחִים**, שֶׁבָּרְחוּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְהִרְחִיקוּ. וְהִזְכִּיר שֶׂה שֶׁהוּא כְּאָבֵד, וּלְכָךְ בֵּאֵר בְּכָאן וְאִם לֹא קָרוֹב אָחִיךָ אֵלֶיךָ וְלֹא יְדַעְתּוֹ וַאֲסַפְתּוֹ אֶל תּוֹךְ בֵּיתֶךָ, וְאָמַר וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה לַחֲמֹרוֹ, שֶׁהוּא בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְשִׂמְלָתוֹ, אע"פ שֶׁאֵין הַשִּׂמְלָה חֲבִיבָה עַל בְּעָלֶיהָ כְּבַעֲלֵי הַחַיִּים וְאֵין הַהֶפְסֵד בָּהּ מָצוּי כְּבָהֶם שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ, וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְכָל אֲבֵדַת אָחִיךָ, מִכָּל כְּלֵי בֵּיתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן חֲבִיבִין כְּשִׂמְלָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר יְכַסֶּה בָּהּ. וְעַל מִדְרַשׁ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (ספרי מה ב"מ ל) הוֹסִיף עוֹד בְּכָאן דְּבָרִים רַבִּים, כְּגוֹן וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ, פְּעָמִים שֶׁאַתָּה מִתְעַלֵּם; הָשֵׁב, אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים (ב"מ לא); תְּשִׁיבֵם, אֲפִלּוּ לְגִנָּתוֹ וּלְחֻרְבָּתוֹ (שם); וְהַחְזִירָהּ בְּסִימָנִים, וּדְבָרִים אֲחֵרִים נִדְרָשִׁים בַּפָּרָשָׁה:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
THOU SHALT NOT SEE THY BROTHER’S OX OR HIS SHEEP RUNNING AWAY. This is a commandment explanatory of what He stated in the Torah, *If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again*.¹²² Here he added [that the commandment to return lost property refers also to an animal that was] *running away*, for *going astray*¹²² implies that it merely strayed from its path and he can turn it [back] into the path without great effort; and now he mentioned *running away*, meaning that it escaped from him and is distant from the owner. He mentioned the term *sheep* for that is liable to be lost,¹²³. and therefore he explained here, *And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, and thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it home to thy house*.¹²⁴ He stated, *And so shalt thou do with his ass*,¹²⁵ which is an unclean animal; *and so shalt thou do with his garment*,¹²⁵ even though a garment is not as dear to its owner as are living creatures, and [total] loss is not as common in a garment as it is in animals which may die. *And so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brother’s which he hath lost*,¹²⁵ meaning any of his household vessels even though they are not as dear to him as his garment with which he covers himself. And according to the interpretation of our Rabbis he added here many things, such as *and thou hide thyself from them*,¹²⁶ which the Rabbis interpreted to mean:¹²⁷ “Sometimes you are permitted to hide yourself from them [and ignore the lost article such as where the finder is an elder and it would be degrading for him to attend thereto, as for example to drive an ass back to its owner]. *‘Hasheiv’* (*returning*),¹²⁸ you are to do it even a hundred times; *‘teshiveim’* (*thou art to return them*),¹²⁸ even to his garden or deserted house” [i.e., the finder is not obligated to notify the owner that the article has been returned. The requirement that] return be made by [identification of the lost item and description of] its distinctive marks, and other matters are also derived from this section.

footnotes:
¹²² Exodus 23:4.
¹²² Exodus 23:4.
¹²³ Psalms 119:176: I have gone astray like a lost sheep
¹²⁴ Verse 2.
¹²⁵ Verse 3. Ramban attempts to show why each particular loss is specified by Scripture. He explains that in each case we may have reason to think that its return is not required either because it would be too inconvenient for the finder or not important enough for the loser.
¹²⁵ Verse 3. Ramban attempts to show why each particular loss is specified by Scripture. He explains that in each case we may have reason to think that its return is not required either because it would be too inconvenient for the finder or not important enough for the loser.
¹²⁵ Verse 3. Ramban attempts to show why each particular loss is specified by Scripture. He explains that in each case we may have reason to think that its return is not required either because it would be too inconvenient for the finder or not important enough for the loser.
¹²⁶ Verse 4.
¹²⁷ Baba Metzia 30a.
¹²⁸ In Verse 1 before us.
¹²⁸ In Verse 1 before us.


###### Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:2:1
[Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/22:2:1)

**וְאִם לֹא קָרוֹב אָחִיךָ אֵלֶיךָ**, שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָרוֹב אֶצְלְךָ, כִּי אֵינְךָ מִתְחַיֵּב לָלֶכֶת אֶל אֶרֶץ אַחֶרֶת עִם הָאֲבֵדָה לַהֲשִׁיבָהּ אֵלָיו, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יָדַעְתָּ אוֹתוֹ כְּלָל. וּבְסִפְרֵי (תצא מז), אֵין לִי אֶלָּא קָרוֹב, רָחוֹק מִנַּיִן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְלֹא יְדַעְתּוֹ, וא"כ יֹאמַר וְאִם לֹא קָרוֹב אָחִיךָ אֵלֶיךָ בְּעִירְךָ שֶׁתִּשְׁאַל עָלָיו וְתֵדָעֶנּוּ, יִהְיֶה עִמְּךָ עַד דְּרֹשׁ אָחִיךָ אֹתוֹ:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND IF THY BROTHER BE NOT NIGH UNTO THEE — meaning that he does not reside near you, for it is not your duty to go to another land with the lost article in order to restore it to him, or that you do not know him at all. In the Sifre we find:¹²⁹ 223. “I know only that one is obligated to restore lost property if the loser lives nearby. Whence do I know that he must also do so if he lives far away? From what Scripture states, *and thou know him not*.”¹³⁰ And if so, the phrase *and if thy brother be not nigh unto thee* means that he is “not near you” in your city that you may inquire about him and identify him [as the rightful claimant], then *it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it*.

footnotes:
¹²⁹ Sifre, Ki Theitzei
¹³⁰ In Verse 2 before us. This indicates that if you do know the rightful owner, you are bound to restore it to him even though he lives far away.


###### Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:4:1
[Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/22:4:1)

וְהוֹסִיף בְּמִצְוַת הַטְּעִינָה לְהַזְהִיר עָלֶיהָ בְּמִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, כִּי בַּתּוֹרָה אָמַר (שמות כג ה) עָזֹב תַּעֲזֹב עִמּוֹ, מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה. וְעוֹד הוֹסִיף **נוֹפְלִים בַּדֶּרֶךְ**, כִּי שָׁם אָמַר **רוֹבֵץ תַּחַת מַשָּׂאוֹ**, וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר שָׁם רַק הַחֲמוֹר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִטְעוֹן מַשּׂוֹי גָּדוֹל וְיִרְבַּץ תַּחְתָּיו. וְאָמַר בְּכָאן **אָחִיךָ** וְשָׁם **אוֹיִבְךָ** וְ**שׂוֹנַאֲךָ**, לֵאמֹר תַּעֲשֶׂה עִמּוֹ כֵן, וּזְכֹר הָאַחְוָה וְתִשְׁכַּח הַשִּׂנְאָה:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
In the commandment on assisting someone to lift up his burden, he added a warning thereon constituting a negative commandment [*Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ass or his ox fallen down by the way* etc.],¹²⁶ for in the Torah He stated *Thou shalt surely release it with him*¹³¹ [i.e., by helping to unload the burden] which is a positive commandment [and thus we learn that in failing to render assistance one violates both a positive and a negative commandment].¹³² He also adds [here the expression] *fallen down by the way*,¹²⁶ for there He stated, *lying under its burden*,¹³¹ and He mentioned there only *the ass*¹³¹ because it commonly carries a great burden and, therefore, is liable to crouch under it. Also, here it says *thy brother’s*¹²⁶ and there it states *thy enemy’s*,¹³³ and *of him that hateth thee*,¹³¹ meaning [here] to say, “Do thus to him [in assisting him], and remember the brotherhood between you and forget the hatred.”

footnotes:
¹²⁶ Verse 4.
¹³¹ Exodus 23:5.
¹³² See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 254-255.
¹²⁶ Verse 4.
¹³¹ Exodus 23:5.
¹³¹ Exodus 23:5.
¹²⁶ Verse 4.
¹³³ Exodus 23:4.
¹³¹ Exodus 23:5.


###### Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:6:1
[Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/22:6:1)

**כִּי יִקָּרֵא קַן צִפּוֹר לְפָנֶיךָ**, גַּם זוֹ מִצְוָה מְבֹאֶרֶת, מִן אֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד (ויקרא כב כח), כִּי הַטַּעַם בִּשְׁנֵיהֶם לְבִלְתִּי הֱיוֹת לָנוּ לֵב אַכְזָרִי וְלֹא נְרַחֵם, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַתִּיר הַכָּתוּב לַעֲשׂוֹת הַשְׁחָתָה לַעֲקֹר הַמִּין אע"פ שֶׁהִתִּיר הַשְּׁחִיטָה בַּמִּין הַהוּא, וְהִנֵּה הַהוֹרֵג הָאֵם וְהַבָּנִים בְּיוֹם אֶחָד, אוֹ לוֹקֵחַ אוֹתָם בִּהְיוֹת לָהֶם דְּרוֹר לָעוֹף, כְּאִלּוּ יַכְרִית הַמִּין הַהוּא. וְכָתַב הָרַב בְּמוֹרֶה הַנְּבֻכִים (ג מח) כִּי טַעַם שִׁלּוּחַ הַקֵּן וְטַעַם אֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד כְּדֵי לְהַזְהִיר שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁחֹט הַבֵּן בְּעֵינֵי הָאֵם, כִּי יֵשׁ לַבְּהֵמוֹת דְּאָגָה גְּדוֹלָה בָּזֶה, וְאֵין הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין דַּאֲגַת הָאָדָם לְדַאֲגַת הַבְּהֵמוֹת עַל בְּנֵיהֶם, כִּי אַהֲבַת הָאֵם וְחַנּוֹתָהּ לִבְנֵי בִּטְנָהּ אֵינֶנּוּ נִמְשָׁךְ אַחֲרֵי הַשֵּׂכֶל וְהַדִּבּוּר אֲבָל הוּא מִפְּעֻלַּת כֹּחַ הַמַּחְשָׁבָה הַמְּצוּיָה בַּבְּהֵמוֹת כַּאֲשֶׁר הִיא מְצוּיָה בָּאָדָם. וְאִם כֵּן אֵין עִקַּר הָאִסּוּר בְּאוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ רַק בִּבְנוֹ וְאוֹתוֹ, אֲבָל הַכֹּל הַרְחָקָה. וְיוֹתֵר נָכוֹן בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁלֹּא נִתְאַכְזֵר. וְאָמַר הָרַב, וְאַל תָּשִׁיב עָלַי מִמַּאֲמָר הַחֲכָמִים (ברכות לג) הָאוֹמֵר עַל קַן צִפּוֹר יַגִּיעוּ רַחֲמֶיךָ, כִּי זוֹ אַחַת מִשְׁתֵּי סְבָרוֹת, סְבָרַת מִי שֶׁיִּרְאֶה כִּי אֵין טַעַם לַמִּצְוֹת אֶלָּא חֵפֶץ הַבּוֹרֵא, וַאֲנַחְנוּ מַחְזִיקִים בַּסְּבָרָא הַשְּׁנִיָּה, שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בְּכָל הַמִּצְוֹת טַעַם. וְהֻקְשָׁה עָלָיו עוֹד מָה שֶׁמָּצָא בב"ר (מד א), וְכִי מָה אִכְפַּת לוֹ להקב"ה בֵּין שׁוֹחֵט מִן הַצַּוָּאר לְשׁוֹחֵט מִן הָעֹרֶף, הָא לֹא נִתְּנוּ הַמִּצְוֹת אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף בָּהֶם אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ל ה) כָּל אִמְרַת אֱלוֹהַּ צְרוּפָה. וְזֶה הָעִנְיָן שֶׁגָּזַר הָרַב בַּמִּצְוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם טַעַם, מְבֹאָר הוּא מְאֹד, כִּי בְּכָל אֶחָד טַעַם וְתוֹעֶלֶת וְתִקּוּן לָאָדָם מִלְּבַד שְׂכָרָן מֵאֵת הַמְצַוֶּה בָּהֶן יִתְבָּרַךְ. וּכְבָר ארז"ל (סנהדרין כא), מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נִתְגַּלּוּ טַעֲמֵי תּוֹרָה וְכוּ', וְדָרְשׁוּ (פסחים קיט) וְלִמְכַסֶּה עָתִיק, זֶה הַמְגַלֶּה דְּבָרִים שֶׁכִּסָּה עַתִּיק יוֹמִין, וּמַאי נִיהוּ טַעְמֵי תּוֹרָה. וּכְבָר דָּרְשׁוּ בְּפָרָה אֲדֻמָּה (במדב"ר יט ג ד), שֶׁאָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה, עַל הַכֹּל עָמַדְתִּי, וּפָרָשָׁה שֶׁל פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה חָקַרְתִּי וְשָׁאַלְתִּי וּפִשְׁפַּשְׁתִּי, אָמַרְתִּי אֶחְכָּמָה וְהִיא רְחוֹקָה מִמֶּנִּי (קהלת ז כג). וְאָמַר ר' יוֹסֵי בר' חֲנִינָא, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּבָּ"ה לְמֹשֶׁה, לְךָ אֲנִי מְגַלֶּה טַעַם פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה אֲבָל לַאֲחֵרִים חֻקָּה, דִּכְתִיב (זכריה יד ו) וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֹא יִהְיֶה אוֹר יְקָרוֹת וְקִפָּאוֹן, יקפאון כְּתִיב, דְּבָרִים הַמְכֻסִּים מִכֶּם בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה עֲתִידִין לִהְיוֹת צְפוּיִים לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, כְּהָדֵין סַמְיָא דְּצָפֵי, דִּכְתִיב (ישעיהו מב טז) וְהוֹלַכְתִּי עִוְרִים בְּדֶרֶךְ לֹא יָדָעוּ, וּכְתִיב (שם) אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים עֲשִׂיתִם וְלֹא עֲזַבְתִּים, שֶׁכְּבָר עֲשִׂיתִים לְר' עֲקִיבָא. הִנֵּה בֵּאֲרוּ שֶׁאֵין מְנִיעוּת טַעְמֵי תּוֹרָה מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא עִוָּרוֹן בְּשִׂכְלֵנוּ, וְשֶׁכְּבָר נִתְגַּלָּה טַעַם הַחֲמוּרָה שֶׁבָּהֶם לְחַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְכָאֵלֶּה רַבּוֹת בְּדִבְרֵיהֶם, וּבַתּוֹרָה וּבַמִּקְרָא דְּבָרִים רַבִּים מוֹדִיעִין כֵּן, וְהָרַב הִזְכִּיר מֵהֶן. אֲבָל אֵלּוּ הַהַגָּדוֹת אֲשֶׁר נִתְקַשּׁוּ עַל הָרַב כְּפִי דַּעְתִּי עִנְיָן אַחֵר לָהֶם, שֶׁרָצוּ לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין הַתּוֹעֶלֶת בַּמִּצְוֹת להקב"ה בְּעַצְמוֹ יִתְעַלֶּה, אֲבָל הַתּוֹעֶלֶת בָּאָדָם עַצְמוֹ, לִמְנֹעַ מִמֶּנּוּ נֶזֶק אוֹ אֱמוּנָה רָעָה אוֹ מִדָּה מְגֻנָּה, אוֹ לִזְכֹּר הַנִּסִּים וְנִפְלְאוֹת הַבּוֹרֵא יִתְבָּרַךְ וְלָדַעַת אֶת הַשֵּׁם. וְזֶהוּ **לְצָרֵף בָּהֶן**, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כְּכֶסֶף צָרוּף, כִּי הַצּוֹרֵף הַכֶּסֶף אֵין מַעֲשֵׂהוּ בְּלֹא טַעַם, אֲבָל לְהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנּוּ כָּל סִיג, וְכֵן הַמִּצְוֹת לְהוֹצִיא מִלִּבֵּנוּ כָּל אֱמוּנָה רָעָה וּלְהוֹדִיעֵנוּ הָאֱמֶת וּלְזָכְרוֹ תָּמִיד. וּלְשׁוֹן זוֹ הָאַגָּדָה עַצְמָהּ הֻזְכְּרָה בִּילַמְּדֵנוּ (תנחומא שמיני ח) בְּפָרָשַׁת זֹאת הַחַיָּה, וְכִי מָה אִכְפַּת לוֹ להקב"ה בֵּין שׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה וְאוֹכֵל אוֹ נוֹחֵר וְאוֹכֵל, כְּלוּם אַתָּה מוֹעִילוֹ אוֹ כְּלוּם אַתָּה מַזִּיקוֹ, אוֹ מַה אִכְפַּת לוֹ בֵּין אוֹכֵל טְהוֹרוֹת אוֹ אוֹכֵל טְמֵאוֹת, אִם חָכַמְתָּ חָכַמְתָּ לָּךְ (משלי ט יב), הָא לֹא נִתְּנוּ הַמִּצְוֹת אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים יב ז) אִמֲרוֹת ה' אֲמָרוֹת טְהֹרוֹת, וְנֶאֱמַר כָּל אִמְרַת אֱלוֹהַּ צְרוּפָה. לָמָּה, שֶׁיְּהֵא מֵגֵן עָלֶיךָ. הִנֵּה מְפֹרָשׁ בְּכָאן שֶׁלֹּא בָּאוּ לוֹמַר אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין הַתּוֹעֶלֶת אֵלָיו יִתְעַלֶּה שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵךְ לְאוֹרָהּ כַּמְּחֻשָּׁב מִן הַמְּנוֹרָה, וְשֶׁיִּצְטָרֵךְ לְמַאֲכַל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת וְרֵיחַ הַקְּטֹרֶת כַּנִּרְאֶה מִפְּשׁוּטֵיהֶם, וַאֲפִלּוּ הַזֵּכֶר לְנִפְלְאוֹתָיו שֶׁעָשָׂה שֶׁצִּוָּה לַעֲשׂוֹת לְזֵכֶר לִיצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם וּמַעֲשֵׂה בְּרֵאשִׁית אֵין הַתּוֹעֶלֶת לוֹ, רַק שֶׁנֵּדַע אֲנַחְנוּ הָאֱמֶת וְנִזְכֶּה בּוֹ עַד שֶׁנִּהְיֶה רְאוּיִים לִהְיוֹת מָגֵן עָלֵינוּ, כִּי דִּבּוּרֵנוּ וְזָכְרֵנוּ בְּנִפְלְאוֹתָיו מֵאֶפֶס וָתֹהוּ נֶחְשְׁבוּ לוֹ. וְהֵבִיא רְאָיָה מִן הַשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הַצַּוָּאר וְהָעֹרֶף, לוֹמַר שֶׁכֻּלָּם לָנוּ וְלֹא להקב"ה, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא יִתָּכֵן לוֹמַר בַּשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּהּ תּוֹעֶלֶת וְכָבוֹד לַבּוֹרֵא יִתְבָּרַךְ בַּצַּוָּאר יוֹתֵר מֵהָעֹרֶף אוֹ הַנִּחוּר, אֶלָּא לָנוּ הֵם לְהַדְרִיכֵנוּ בִּנְתִיבוֹת הָרַחֲמִים גַּם בְּעֵת הַשְּׁחִיטָה. וְהֵבִיאוּ רְאָיָה אַחֶרֶת, אוֹ מַה אִכְפַּת לוֹ בֵּין אוֹכֵל טְהוֹרוֹת, וְהֵם הַמַּאֲכָלִים הַמֻּתָּרִים, לְאוֹכֵל טְמֵאוֹת, וְהֵם הַמַּאֲכָלִים הָאֲסוּרִים שֶׁאָמְרָה בָּהֶם הַתּוֹרָה (ויקרא יא כח) טְמֵאִים הֵמָּה לָכֶם, וְרָמַז שֶׁהוּא לִהְיוֹתֵנוּ נְקִיֵּי הַנֶּפֶשׁ, חֲכָמִים, מַשְׂכִּילֵי הָאֱמֶת. וְאָמְרָם אִם חָכַמְתָּ חָכַמְתָּ לָּךְ, הִזְכִּירוּ כִּי הַמִּצְוֹת הַמַּעֲשִׂיּוֹת כְּגוֹן שְׁחִיטַת הַצַּוָּאר לְלַמְּדֵנוּ הַמִּדּוֹת הַטּוֹבוֹת, וְהַמִּצְוֹת הַגְּזֵרוֹת הַגְּדוּרוֹת בְּמִינִין לְזַקֵּק אֶת נַפְשׁוֹתֵינוּ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרָה תּוֹרָה (שם כ כה), וְלֹא תְשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבָעוֹף וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּרְמֹשׂ הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר הִבְדַּלְתִּי לָכֶם לְטַמֵּא. א"כ כֻּלָּם לְתוֹעַלְתֵּנוּ בִּלְבַד. וְזֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר אֱלִיהוּא (איוב לה ו), אִם חָטָאתָ מַה תִּפְעָל בּוֹ וְרַבּוּ פְשָׁעֶיךָ מַה תַּעֲשֶׂה לּוֹ, וְאָמַר (שם פסוק ז) אוֹ מַה מִיָּדְךָ יִקָּח. וְזֶה דָּבָר מֻסְכָּם בְּכָל דִּבְרֵי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ. וְשָׁאֲלוּ בַּיְּרוּשַׁלְמִי בִּנְדָרִים (פ"ט ה"א), אִם פּוֹתְחִין לָאָדָם בִּכְבוֹד הַמָּקוֹם בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הַמָּקוֹם, וְהֵשִׁיבוּ עַל הַשְּׁאֵלָה הַזֹּאת, אֵי זֶהוּ כְּבוֹד הַמָּקוֹם, כְּגוֹן סֻכָּה שֶׁאֵינִי עוֹשֶׂה, לוּלָב שֶׁאֵינִי נוֹטֵל, תְּפִלִּין שֶׁאֵינִי מַנִּיחַ, וְהַיְנוּ כְּבוֹד הַמָּקוֹם, מַשְׁמַע דִּלְנַפְשֵׁהּ הוּא דִּמְהַנֵּי, כַּהֲדָא, אִם צָדַקְתָּ מַה תִּתֶּן לוֹ אוֹ מַה מִיָּדְךָ יִקָּח, אִם חָטָאתָ מַה תִּפְעָל בּוֹ וְרַבּוּ פְשָׁעֶיךָ מַה תַּעֲשֶׂה לּוֹ. הִנֵּה בֵּאֲרוּ שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הַלּוּלָב וְהַסֻּכָּה וְהַתְּפִלִּין שֶׁצִּוָּה בָּהֶן שֶׁיְּהוּ לְאוֹת עַל יָדְךָ וּלְזִכָּרוֹן בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ כִּי בְּיָד חֲזָקָה הוֹצִאֲךָ ה' מִמִּצְרָיִם, אֵינָן לִכְבוֹד ה' יִתְבָּרַךְ אֲבָל לְרַחֵם עַל נַפְשׁוֹתֵינוּ. וּכְבָר סִדְּרוּ לָנוּ בִּתְפִלַּת יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, אַתָּה הִבְדַּלְתָּ אֱנוֹשׁ מֵרֹאשׁ וַתַּכִּירֵהוּ לַעֲמֹד לְפָנֶיךָ, כִּי מִי יֹאמַר לְךָ מַה תַּעֲשֶׂה וְאִם יִצְדַּק מַה יִתֶּן לָךְ. וְכֵן אָמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (דברים י':י"ג), לְטוֹב לָךְ, כַּאֲשֶׁר פֵּרַשְׁתִּי (שם פסוק יב). וְכֵן וַיְצַוֵּנוּ ה' לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת כָּל הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה לְיִרְאָה אֶת ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ לְטוֹב לָנוּ כָּל הַיָּמִים (דברים ו':כ"ד), וְהַכַּוָּנָה בְּכֻלָּם לְטוֹב לָנוּ וְלֹא לוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ וְיִתְעַלֶּה. אֲבָל כָּל מָה שֶׁנִּצְטַוִּינוּ שֶׁיִּהְיוּ בְּרִיּוֹתָיו צְרוּפוֹת וּמְזֻקָּקוֹת בְּלֹא סִיגֵי מַחֲשָׁבוֹת רָעוֹת וּמִדּוֹת מְגֻנּוֹת. וְכֵן מָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ (ברכות לג) לְפִי שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה מִדּוֹתָיו שֶׁל הקב"ה רַחֲמִים וְאֵינָן אֶלָּא גְּזֵרוֹת, לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא חָס הָאֵל עַל קַן צִפּוֹר וְלֹא הִגִּיעוּ רַחֲמָיו עַל אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, שֶׁאֵין רַחֲמָיו מַגִּיעִין בְּבַעֲלֵי הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַבַּהֲמִית לִמְנֹעַ אוֹתָנוּ מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת בָּהֶם צָרְכֵּנוּ, שֶׁאִם כֵּן הָיָה אוֹסֵר הַשְּׁחִיטָה, אֲבָל טַעַם הַמְּנִיעָה לְלַמֵּד אוֹתָנוּ מִדַּת הָרַחְמָנוּת וְשֶׁלֹּא נִתְאַכְזֵר, כִּי הָאַכְזָרִיּוּת תִּתְפַּשֵּׁט בְּנֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם, כַּיָּדוּעַ בַּטַּבָּחִים שׁוֹחֲטֵי הַשְּׁוָרִים הַגְּדוֹלִים וְהַחֲמוֹרִים, שֶׁהֵם אַנְשֵׁי דָּמִים זוֹבְחֵי אָדָם, אַכְזָרִים מְאֹד. וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה אָמְרוּ (קידושין פב) טוֹב שֶׁבַּטַּבָּחִים שֻׁתָּפוֹ שֶׁל עֲמָלֵק. וְהִנֵּה הַמִּצְוֹת הָאֵלֶּה בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבָעוֹף אֵינָן רַחֲמָנוּת עֲלֵיהֶם אֶלָּא גְּזֵרוֹת בָּנוּ, לְהַדְרִיכֵנוּ וּלְלַמֵּד אוֹתָנוּ הַמִּדּוֹת הַטּוֹבוֹת. וְכֵן יִקְרְאוּ הֵם כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, גְּזֵרוֹת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ (מכילתא בחדש ו) בִּמְשַׁל הַמֶּלֶךְ שֶׁנִּכְנַס לַמְּדִינָה, אָמְרוּ לוֹ עֲבָדָיו גְּזֹר עֲלֵיהֶם גְּזֵרוֹת, אָמַר לָהֶם כְּשֶׁיְּקַבְּלוּ מַלְכוּתִי אֶגְזֹר עֲלֵיהֶם גְּזֵרוֹת. כָּךְ אָמַר הקב"ה, קִבַּלְתֶּם מַלְכוּתִי, אָנֹכִי ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ (שמות כ ב), קַבְּלוּ גְּזֵרוֹתַי, לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ וְכוּ' (שם פסוק ג). אֲבָל בְּמִדְרָשׁוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה בְּשִׁלּוּחַ הַקֵּן מִדְרָשׁ, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּמִּצְוָה סוֹד, אָמַר רַבִּי רָחֲמַאי, מַאי דִכְתִיב שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם וְלֹא אָמַר אֶת הָאָב, אֶלָּא שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם, בִּכְבוֹד אוֹתָהּ בִּינָה שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת אֵם הָעוֹלָם, דִּכְתִיב (משלי ב ג) כִּי אִם לַבִּינָה תִקְרָא. מַאי וְאֶת הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח לָךְ, אָמַר רַבִּי רָחֲמַאי, אוֹתָם בָּנִים שֶׁגִּדְּלָה, וּמַאי נִיהוּ שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַסֻּכָּה, וְדִינֵי שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַשָּׁבוּעַ וְכוּ'. וְהִנֵּה הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת רוֹמֶזֶת לְעִנְיָן גָּדוֹל, וּלְכָךְ שְׂכָרָהּ מְרֻבֶּה, לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ וְהַאֲרַכְתָּ יָמִים:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
IF A BIRD’S NEST CHANCE TO BE BEFORE THEE. This also is an explanatory commandment, of the prohibition *ye shall not kill it* [the dam] *and its young both in one day*,¹³⁴ because the reason for both [commandments] is that we should not have a cruel heart and be discompassionate, or it may be that Scripture does not permit us to destroy a species altogether, although it permits slaughter [for food] within that group. Now, he who kills the dam and the young in one day or takes them when they are free to fly [it is regarded] as though he cut off that species.
Now, he [Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim¹³⁵ that the reason for the commandment to release the mother bird when taking its nest and the prohibition against killing the dam with its young on one day is in order to admonish us against killing the young within the mother’s sight, for animals feel great distress under such circumstances. There is no difference between the distress of man and the distress of animals for their young, since the love of the mother and her tenderness to the children of her womb are not the result of reasoning or [the faculty of intelligent] speech, but are produced by the faculty of mental images¹³⁶ So in Al Charizi’s translation which was used by Ramban. In Ibn Tibbon’s translation the term is *ham’dameh* — “imagination.” which exists among animals even as it is present in man. But if so¹³⁷ the main prohibition in killing the dam and its young applies only when killing [first] the young and [then] the dam [but not vice versa, whereas the Torah forbids it to be done either way]! But it is all an extraordinary precaution,¹³⁸ and it is more correct [to explain them as prohibitions] to prevent *us* from acting cruelly.
And the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said further:¹³⁵ “Do not contradict me by quoting the saying of the Sages,¹³⁹ ‘He who says in his prayer: Even to a bird’s nest do Thy mercies extend [etc., they silence him,’ which would seem to imply that there is no reason other than the Will of G-d for the commandment to release a dam when taking its nest], for that is one of two opinions, namely, the opinion of the Sage who holds that the commandments [of the Torah] have no other reason but the Will of the Creator. We follow the second opinion that there is a reason for all commandments.” And the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] raised a difficulty from a text in Bereshith Rabbah [which contradicts his theory that there is a reason for every commandment]. The text reads:¹⁴⁰ “And what difference does it make to the Holy One, blessed be He, whether an animal is slaughtered from the front of the neck or the back? Surely you must say the commandments have been given only for the purpose of refining [disciplining] men through them, as it is said, *Every word of G-d is refined*.”¹⁴¹ commandments. Rambam proceeds (“Guide of the Perplexed,” III, 26) to explain this text, in harmony with his theory. In the lengthy discussion to follow, Ramban will strongly agree with Rambam’s main theory that there is a reason for every commandment. As for the difficulty posed by the text of Bereshith Rabbah, he will offer his own solution.
Now, this theory, categorically stated by the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] concerning the commandments that there is a reason for them, is indeed very clear. There is a reason, benefit, and improvement for man in each of them, aside from the reward by Him Who commanded it, blessed be He! Our Sages have already stated:¹⁴² “Why were the reasons for the commandments not revealed? etc.”¹⁴³ And they further interpreted:¹⁴⁴ “*And for stately clothing*¹⁴⁵, which the Rabbis interpret to mean: “and to the things concealed by the Ancient of days (G-d)” — there will be a special reward for him that reveals these secrets that lie hidden in the commandments of the Torah. — this refers to one who uncovers matters that were concealed by *the Ancient of days*.¹⁴⁶ And what are these matters? They are the reasons for [the commandments of] the Torah.” The Rabbis have further expressed themselves on the subject of the Red Heifer¹⁴⁷ concerning which Solomon said, “I achieved [a knowledge of the reasons for] everything, but the section of the Red Heifer I examined, inquired into, and searched; *All this have I tried by wisdom; I said, ‘I will get wisdom,’ but it was far from me*.¹⁴⁸ And Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, ‘To you I reveal the reason of the Red Heifer, but for others it is a statute [a commandment for which we know no reason].’ For it is written, *And it shall come to pass in that day, that there shall not be light, but heavy clouds ‘v’kipaon’* (*and thick*).¹⁴⁹ The word is spelled *yekipaon*,¹⁵⁰, although in the Masoretic text it is written *yekipaon*, in the future tense, as explained in the text. intimating that matters concealed from you in this world are destined ‘to be revealed’ in the World to Come, like a blind man who suddenly sees, as it is written, *And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not*,¹⁵¹ and it is further written, *These things have I done and I did not leave them undone*,¹⁵¹ for I have done them already to Rabbi Akiba” [meaning that the explanations were revealed to Rabbi Akiba].
Thus the Rabbis explained that our lack of knowledge of the reasons of [the commandments of] the Torah is but a barrier in our minds, and that the reason for the most difficult of the commandments [i.e., the Red Heifer] has already been revealed to the Sages of Israel [such as Rabbi Akiba, as mentioned in the above Midrash]. There are many such texts among the words of the Rabbis, and Torah and Scripture, which teach to that effect; and the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] mentioned some of them. But those Agadic [homiletic] statements, presenting difficulty to the Rabbi, are in my opinion, intended to express another thought as follows:
The benefit from the commandments is not derived by the Holy One Himself, exalted be He. Rather, the advantage is to man himself, to withhold from him physical harm or some evil belief, or unseemly trait of character, or to recall the miracles and wonders of the Creator, blessed be He, in order to know the Eternal. It is this [which the Rabbis intended in saying]¹⁴⁰ that the commandments were given “for the purpose of refining men,” that they may become like “refined silver,” for he who refines silver does not act without purpose, but to remove therefrom any impurity. So, also, the commandments eliminate from our hearts all evil belief, and [are given] in order to inform us of the truth and to recall it always. Now this very same Agadah [homily] is mentioned in the Yelamdeinu¹⁵² in the section of *These are the living things:*¹⁵³ 12. *”*And what difference does it make to the Holy One, blessed be He, whether one eats of an animal which is ritually slaughtered or if he just stabs it? Do you benefit Him or harm Him at all? Or what does it matter to Him if one eats clean animals or unclean? *If thou art wise, thou art wise for thyself*.¹⁵⁴ Surely the commandments have been given only to refine men, as it is said, *The words of the Eternal are pure words*,¹⁵⁵. and it is further said, *Every word of G-d is refined*.¹⁴¹ commandments. Rambam proceeds (“Guide of the Perplexed,” III, 26) to explain this text, in harmony with his theory. In the lengthy discussion to follow, Ramban will strongly agree with Rambam’s main theory that there is a reason for every commandment. As for the difficulty posed by the text of Bereshith Rabbah, he will offer his own solution. Why? So that [the word of G-d] should protect you.” Thus it is clearly stated here that the Rabbis [in this Midrash], meant to say merely that the benefit [accruing from observance of the commandments] is not for His sake exalted be He, [nor] that He is in need of the light of the candelabrum as one might think, or that He needs the food of the offerings and the odor of the incense as might appear from their simple meanings. Even regarding *the memorial He hath made for His wonderful works*,¹⁵⁶ that He commanded us to perform in memory of the Exodus and Creation, the benefit is not for Him, but so, that we should know the truth and be meritorious enough to be worthy that He protects us, for our utterances and remembrances of His wonders *are accounted by Him as things of nought, and vanity*.¹⁵⁷ And the Midrash brought proof from [the law specifying] slaughter by cutting the neck in front or in the back, meaning to state that all the benefits are to us and not to the Holy One, blessed be He, because it is impossible to say concerning slaughter that there is more benefit and glory to the Creator, blessed be He, by cutting the neck in front than by cutting it in the back or by stabbing the animal. Rather, all these advantages are to us — to lead us in paths of compassion even during [the process of] slaughtering. And then the Rabbis brought another proof: “Or what does it matter to Him if one eats clean things,” — that is, foods permissible to the eater — “or eats unclean things,” that is, forbidden food concerning which the Torah declared *they are unclean unto you*.¹⁵⁸ However, He implied that [these laws were given to us] so that we might develop a fine soul and be wise men perceptive to the truth. By quoting the verse, *If thou art wise, thou art wise for thyself*¹⁵⁴ the Rabbis [in the above Midrash] mentioned the principle that the commandments pertaining to rites such as slaughter by [cutting of] the neck are to teach us traits of good character. The Divinely ordained commandments which define the species [of animals and birds which are permissible to us] are to refine our souls, just as the Torah has said, *and ye shall not make your souls detestable by beast, or by fowl, or by any thing wherewith the ground teemeth, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean*.¹⁵⁹, 20:25. If so, all the commandments are solely to our advantage. This is as Elihu said, *If thou hast sinned, what doest thou against Him? And if thy transgression be multiplied, what doest thou unto Him?*¹⁶⁰ And again he states, *If thou be righteous, what givest thou Him? Or what receiveth He of thy hands?*¹⁶¹, Verse 7. This is a consensus in all the words of our Rabbis. Thus they asked in Yerushalmi Nedarim¹⁶² whether they may open the way [to release one from a vow or oath] by reason of the honor due to G-d¹⁶³ in matters between man and G-d. On this question the Rabbis answered [there]: “What is an example of [a vow being released because of] the honor due to G-d? [If you say that it is a case where he swore] ‘I shall not make a Booth, I shall not take the palm-branch, I shall not put on phylacteries’ — but do you call this ‘by reason of the honor due to G-d?’ It is for oneself that [the observance of the commandments] helps, just as it is said, *If thou be righteous, what givest thou Him? Or what receiveth He of thy hands*?¹⁶¹, Verse 7. *If thou hast sinned, what doest thou against Him? And if thy transgression be multiplied, what doest thou unto Him?*”¹⁶⁰ Thus the Rabbis have explained that even the palm-branch, the Booth, and the phylacteries concerning which He commanded that they *shall be for a sign upon thy hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes; for by strength of hand the Eternal brought us forth out of Egypt*¹⁶⁴ — are not ordained to honor G-d, blessed be He, but to have compassion on our souls. And the Sages have already arranged it for us in the [Closing] Prayer on the Day of Atonement, stating: “Thou hast distinguished man from the beginning, and hast recognized him [to be privileged] to stand before Thee, for who shall say unto Thee, ‘What doest Thou?’ and if he be righteous what can he give Thee?” Similarly, it states in the Torah, *which I command thee this day for thy good*,¹⁶⁵ as I have explained.¹⁶⁶, Verse 12. So also, *And the Eternal commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Eternal our G-d, for our good always*.¹⁶⁷, 6:24. And the intent in all these expressions is “for our good,” and not for His, blessed and exalted be He! Rather, everything we have been commanded is so that His creatures be refined and purified, free from the dross of evil thoughts and blameworthy traits of character.
So, too, what the Rabbis have stated,¹⁶⁸ “Because he treats the ordinances of G-d like expressions of mercy, whereas they are decrees”¹⁶⁹). Now, this text of the Mishnah and Gemara was explained above by Rambam as exemplifying the opinion that there is no reason for fulfillment of the commandments of the Torah other than the Will of the Creator, while we follow the second opinion that there is a reason for every commandment. Ramban will now proceed to explain this text, in accordance with the accepted opinion that there *is* a reason for every commandment, thus making this text to be the consensus of all Sages. means to say — that it was not a matter of G-d’s mercy extending to the bird’s nest or the dam and its young, since His mercies did not extend so far into animal life as to prevent us from accomplishing our needs with them, for, if so, He would have forbidden slaughter altogether. But the reason for the prohibition [against taking the dam with its nest, or against killing the dam with its young in one day] is to teach *us* the trait of compassion and that we should not be cruel, for cruelty proliferates in man’s soul as it is known that butchers, those who slaughter large oxen and asses are *men of blood;*¹⁷⁰ *they that slaughter men*,¹⁷¹ are extremely cruel. It is on account of this [cruelty] that the Rabbis have said:¹⁷² “The most seemly among butchers is a partner of Amalek.” Thus these commandments with respect to cattle and fowl are not [a result of] compassion upon them, but they are decrees upon us to guide us and to teach us traits of good character. So, too, the Rabbis refer to all commandments of the Torah — positive and negative — as “decrees,” as they said¹⁷³ 6. See Vol. II, p. 286, where Ramban quotes the same text with some minor changes. in the parable of “the king who entered a country, and his attendants said to him, ‘Promulgate decrees upon them.’ He, however, refused, saying, ‘When they will have accepted my sovereignty, I will promulgate decrees upon them.’ Similarly did the Holy One, blessed be He, [say to Israel], ‘You have accepted My sovereignty: *I am the Eternal thy G-d*,¹⁷⁴ accept My decrees: *Thou shalt have no other gods* etc.’”¹⁷⁵, Verse 3.
However, in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah¹⁷⁶ there is an interpretation with respect to releasing a mother bird when taking its nest, which states that there is a secret in this commandment. “Rabbi Rechimaie said, What is the meaning of that which is written, *Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go*,¹⁷⁷ and it did not say ‘the father?’ [This implies that the verse commands] only *Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go* with the honor of that ‘understanding’¹⁷⁸ which is termed ‘the mother of the world,’ as it is written, *Yea ‘im’* (*if*) *thou call for understanding*.¹⁷⁹ (mother), thus suggesting: “the mother [of the world] is called ‘understanding.’” And what is the meaning of the phrase, *and the young, take thou to thee?*¹⁷⁷ Said Rabbi Rechimaie, It means those young that she raised. And what are they? They are the seven days of [the Festival of] Tabernacles, and the laws of the seven days of the week etc.” Thus this commandment alludes to a great matter, and therefore the reward for the observance thereof is abundant, [as it is said], *that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days*.¹⁷⁷

footnotes:
¹³⁴ Leviticus 22:28.
¹³⁵ Guide of the Perplexed III, 48.
¹³⁶ “Machshavah.”
¹³⁷ This is Ramban’s reason for disagreeing with Rambam’s explanation.
¹³⁸ For — in defense of Rambam’s explanation — we would be forced to add that the primary prohibition is against killing first the young and then the dam; the prohibition against first killing the dam and then the young is but a precautionary measure lest one may accidentally reverse the order. While we might contend this in defense of Rambam’s theory, Ramban concludes, “and it is more correct etc.” This explanation would seem to be more logical because it does not differentiate between the order of taking or slaughtering the dam and its young. Hence Ramban’s language. The full significance of this theory of Ramban will be made clearer further on in the text.
¹³⁵ Guide of the Perplexed III, 48.
¹³⁹ Berachoth 33b. See Note 168 further on.
¹⁴⁰ Bereshith Rabbah 44:1. Rambam’s discussion of the text is found in “Guide of the Perplexed,” III, 26.
¹⁴¹ Proverbs 30:5. This text of Bereshith Rabbah implies that some commandments have no other reason than the fact that they were so willed by G-d, which contradicts Rambam’s main thesis that there are reasons for all
¹⁴² Sanhedrin 21b.
¹⁴³ See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 330-331.
¹⁴⁴ Pesachim 119a.
¹⁴⁵ Isaiah 23:18. The Hebrew reads: v’limchaseh athik
¹⁴⁶ Daniel 7:13.
¹⁴⁷ Bamidbar Rabbah 19:3-4.
¹⁴⁸ Ecclesiastes 7:23.
¹⁴⁹ Zechariah 14:6.
¹⁵⁰ In other words, by tradition we are to read the word v’kipaon
¹⁵¹ Isaiah 42:16.
¹⁵¹ Isaiah 42:16.
¹⁴⁰ Bereshith Rabbah 44:1. Rambam’s discussion of the text is found in “Guide of the Perplexed,” III, 26.
¹⁵² See Vol. II, p. 131, Note 196, for explanation of the term.
¹⁵³ Leviticus 11:2. — The text quoted is found in Tanchuma (Buber), Shemini
¹⁵⁴ Proverbs 9:12.
¹⁵⁵ Psalms 12:7. As silver refined in a crucible on the earth, purified seven times
¹⁴¹ Proverbs 30:5. This text of Bereshith Rabbah implies that some commandments have no other reason than the fact that they were so willed by G-d, which contradicts Rambam’s main thesis that there are reasons for all
¹⁵⁶ Psalms 111:4.
¹⁵⁷ Isaiah 40:17.
¹⁵⁸ Leviticus 11:28.
¹⁵⁴ Proverbs 9:12.
¹⁵⁹ Ibid.
¹⁶⁰ Job 35:6.
¹⁶¹ Ibid.
¹⁶² Yerushalmi Nedarim IX, 1.
¹⁶³ Before releasing a person from a vow or oath, the Sage must ascertain that, had the supplicant known of a particular fact, he would not have made the vow or oath. The question arose whether the Sage may say to him, “If you had known that he who vows is evil in the eyes of G-d, would you still have vowed?” See also, Ramban in Numbers 30:2 (Vol. IV, pp. 345-346).
¹⁶¹ Ibid.
¹⁶⁰ Job 35:6.
¹⁶⁴ Exodus 13:16.
¹⁶⁵ Above, 10:13.
¹⁶⁶ Ibid.
¹⁶⁷ Ibid.
¹⁶⁸ The Rabbis of the Gemara made the following remark with reference to the Mishnah quoted above (see text at Note 139): “He who says in his prayer: ‘Even to a bird’s nest do Thy mercies extend’ etc., they silence him.” The reason for this law as stated in the Mishnah is now explained by the Rabbis of the Gemara: “Because he [the supplicant] treats etc.” (see text). — Berachoth 33b.
¹⁶⁹ “To inform them that they are His servants, and that they keep His commandments, decrees and statutes, even such matters concerning which Satan and the nations of the world taunt Israel saying, ‘What need is there for this commandment?’” (Rashi ibid
¹⁷⁰ Psalms 55:24.
¹⁷¹ Hosea 13:2.
¹⁷² Kiddushin 82a. Amalek is the symbol of cruelty, as he attacked the enfeebled, faint and weary, (further 25:18).
¹⁷³ Mechilta, Bachodesh
¹⁷⁴ Exodus 20:2.
¹⁷⁵ Ibid.
¹⁷⁶ Sefer Habahir, 104-105. See Vol. I, p. 24, Note 42.
¹⁷⁷ Verse 7.
¹⁷⁸ Here used in a Cabalistic sense. See my Hebrew commentary p. 451.
¹⁷⁹ Proverbs 2:3. The Sefer Habahir obviously intimates that the word be read eim
¹⁷⁷ Verse 7.
¹⁷⁷ Verse 7.


###### Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:8:1
[Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/22:8:1)

**וְעָשִׂיתָ מַעֲקֶה**, מִצְוַת הַמַּעֲקֶה מְחֻדֶּשֶׁת, אוֹ מְבֹאֶרֶת מְלֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל דַּם רֵעֶךָ (ויקרא יט טז). אֲבָל מִצְוַת הַכִּלְאַיִם מְבֹאֶרֶת, שֶׁכְּבָר אָמַר (שם פסוק יט) שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאָיִם. וְהִנֵּה בַּמַּשְׁמָע הַהוּא כָּל מָקוֹם הַנִּזְרָע, וְהוֹסִיף בְּכָאן כִּי אִם יִזְרַע הַכֶּרֶם כִּלְאַיִם יִקְדַּשׁ הַזֶּרַע אֲשֶׁר יִזְרַע וּתְבוּאַת הַכֶּרֶם, לוֹמַר שֶׁיֵּאָסֵר בַּהֲנָאָה כְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְטַעַם פֶּן, כְּמוֹ כִּי תִּקְדַּשׁ, וְכֵן וּמִפֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא תֵצְאוּ פֶּן תָּמֻתוּ (שם י ז), וְכֵן וְלֹא תִגְּעוּ בּוֹ פֶּן תְּמֻתוּן (בראשית ג ג). וְיִתָּכֵן שֶׁפֵּרוּשׁוֹ כְּמוֹ פֶּן יְנַכְּרוּ צָרֵימוֹ פֶּן יֹאמְרוּ יָדֵינוּ רָמָה (דברים ל"ב:כ"ז), כְּעִנְיַן שֶׁמָּא, לוֹמַר לֹא תִּזְרַע אוֹתוֹ כִּלְאַיִם פֶּן יִצְמַח וְיֶאֱסֹר עָלֶיךָ הַכֹּל, כִּי אֵינָן נֶאֱסָרִין אֶלָּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ (כלאים פ"ז ה"ז) תְּבוּאָה מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת מִשֶּׁתַּשְׁרִישׁ וַעֲנָבִים מִשֶּׁיֵּעָשׂוּ כְּפוֹל הַלָּבָן:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
THEN THOU SHALT MAKE A PARAPET FOR THY ROOF. The commandment of the parapet is newly-declared, or it may be explanatory of the prohibition, *Neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor*.¹⁸⁰ But the commandment concerning mixed seeds¹⁸¹ is explanatory, for He has already stated, *Thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed*.¹⁸² Now, this [prohibition] implied any place where they are sown; here he added that if a vineyard be sown with mixed seeds *that which has been sown ‘tikdash’* (*will be forfeited*) *together with the increase of the vineyard*,¹⁸¹ meaning to say that any benefit is forbidden just like *hekdeish* [“holy things” belonging to the Sanctuary from which we are prohibited to derive any benefit]. The meaning of *‘pen tikdash’* (*‘lest’ thou forfeit*) is like *ki tikdash* (“for” you shall forfeit). So also, *And ye shall not go out from the door of the Tent of Meeting ‘pen tamuthu’* (*‘lest’ ye die*)¹⁸³, 10:7. [is like *ki tamuthu* — “for” you shall die]. Likewise, *Neither shall ye touch it ‘pen t’muthun’* (*‘lest’ ye die*)¹⁸⁴ [is like *ki t’muthun* — “for” you shall die]. It is possible that the meaning of *pen tikdash* is similar to *‘pen’ their adversaries should misdeem, ‘pen’ they should say, Our hand is exalted*¹⁸⁵ which is like “perhaps.” The verse thus states: Do not sow the vineyard with mixed seeds, for perhaps they will sprout and the whole vineyard will be forbidden to you, for they do not become forfeit [unless they sprout] as we have been taught,¹⁸⁶ “A grain crop [sown near a vine] is rendered forfeit after it has struck root, and grapes, after they have grown to the size of a white bean.”

footnotes:
¹⁸⁰ Leviticus 19:16.
¹⁸¹ Verse 9.
¹⁸² Leviticus 19:19.
¹⁸¹ Verse 9.
¹⁸³ Ibid.
¹⁸⁴ Genesis 3:3.
¹⁸⁵ Further, 32:27.
¹⁸⁶ Shevi’ith 7:7.


###### Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:10:1
[Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/22:10:1)

וְאָמַר **לֹא תַחֲרֹשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וּבַחֲמֹר**, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל מִינֵי הַכִּלְאַיִם, וְהִיא מִצְוָה מְבֹאֶרֶת מִן בְּהֶמְתְּךָ לֹא תַרְבִּיעַ כִּלְאַיִם (ויקרא יט יט), שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ כָּל עוֹבֵד אַדְמָתוֹ לְהָבִיא צִמְדּוֹ בְּרֶפֶת אַחַת וְיַרְכִּיב אוֹתָן. וּבֵאֵר בַּשַּׁעַטְנֵז שֶׁאֵינֶנּוּ רַק בְּצֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים, וְהִזְכִּיר לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ, לְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין הָעֲלִיָּה אֲסוּרָה אֶלָּא בְּעִנְיַן לְבִישָׁה:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
He states, *Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together*.¹⁸⁷ The same law applies to all diverse species of animals. It is an explanatory commandment of the prohibitions, *Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind*,¹⁸² for it is the custom of tillers of their soil to bring their working animals into the same stall and gender them.¹⁸⁸ And in the matter of *sha’atneiz* [a garment of mingled stuff] he explained here that it applies only to [a combination of] wool and linen. He mentioned *Thou shalt not wear*¹⁸⁹ in order to teach that *coming upon thee* [*Neither shall there ‘come upon thee’ a garment of two kinds of stuff*]¹⁸² is forbidden only if it is worn as a garment [indicated by the term “wear” used in the verse before us].¹⁹⁰

footnotes:
¹⁸⁷ Verse 10.
¹⁸² Leviticus 19:19.
¹⁸⁸ See Ramban to Leviticus 19:19 (first part) where the same thought is expressed, but there the ending reads: “and there they might come to gender with a diverse kind.” See also Vol. III, p. 296, Note 101.
¹⁸⁹ Verse 11.
¹⁸² Leviticus 19:19.
¹⁹⁰ Hence clothiers may display garments of diverse kinds in the usual fashion provided they do not intend to use them as protection from the sun or as protection from the rain (Yebamoth 4b).


###### Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:13:1
[Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:13:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/22:13:1)

**כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבָא אֵלֶיהָ וּשְׂנֵאָהּ**, טַעְמוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר יִקַּח הָאִישׁ אִשָּׁה בְּלִקּוּחֵי הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁהֵם הַקִּדּוּשִׁין בְּכֶסֶף, וְהִיא הַמְאֹרָסָה אֲשֶׁר יַזְכִּיר (דברים כ"ב:כ"ג), וְאַחֲרֵי יָמִים בָּא אֵלֶיהָ וּשְׂנֵאָהּ, שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה עֲרֵבָה אֵלָיו בְּבִיאָתָהּ, וְהִשְׁכִּים בַּבֹּקֶר וּבָא לְבֵית דִּין וְטָעַן שֶׁלֹּא מְצָאָהּ בְּתוּלָה. וְהִנֵּה זֶה מִתְכַּוֵּן לְהוֹצִיאָהּ בְּלֹא מֹהַר הַבְּתוּלוֹת, שֶׁהִיא הַכְּתֻבָּה שֶׁכָּתַב לָהּ, וּמִפְּנֵי כִּי בְּחֶזְקַת בְּתוּלָה נִתְקַדְּשָׁה אֵלָיו הוּא טוֹעֵן עָלֶיהָ שֶׁזִּנְּתָה תַּחְתָּיו. וּלְפִיכָךְ אָמַר הַכָּתוּב (דברים כב כ), **וְאִם אֱמֶת הָיָה הַדָּבָר** כְּדִבְרֵי הַבַּעַל, **וּסְקָלוּהָ**. וְהָאֱמֶת לֹא יִוָּדַע רַק עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים. וּלְפִי שֶׁהַכָּתוּב יְפָרֵשׁ בִּזְנוּנֵי הַבְּתוּלוֹת כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר תִּהְיֶה מְאֹרָסָה תִּסָּקֵל וְכַאֲשֶׁר לֹא אֹרָסָה הִיא פְּטוּרָה, לֹא הֻצְרַךְ לְפָרֵשׁ כָּאן וְאִם אֱמֶת הָיָה שֶׁזִּנְּתָה בְּאֵרוּסֶיהָ וְשֶׁזִּנְּתָה בִּרְצוֹנָהּ, וּסְקָלוּהָ, וְאָמַר בְּרֶמֶז (דברים כב יא), כִּי עָשְׂתָה נְבָלָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לִזְנוֹת בֵּית אָבִיהָ. וְהַנְּבָלָה הִיא בַּעֲשׂוֹתָהּ כֵן לִרְצוֹנָהּ.

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
IF ANY MAN ‘YIKACH’ (TAKE) A WIFE, AND COME UNTO HER. The meaning thereof is as follows: When a man will take a wife through the means sanctioned by the Torah which is betrothal with money — this being “the betrothed” he [Moses] mentions [further in Verse 23] — and after some time *he came unto her, and hate her* because she was not pleasant to him in conjugal relation, and so he arose early in the morning and came before the court claiming that he did not find her to be a virgin. Now this person intends to divorce her without *the dowry of virgins*,¹⁹¹ which is the *kethubah* (marriage contract) that he wrote her. And because she became betrothed to him under the presumption of virginity, he accuses her of having committed adultery after her betrothal to him. Therefore Scripture states, *But if this thing be true*¹⁹² as the husband said, *they shall stone her*.¹⁹³, Verse 21. The truth cannot be known except by the testimony of two witnesses. And because, concerning the illicit relations of virgins, Scripture will clarify¹⁹⁴, Verses 23-24; 28-29. that if she were betrothed she is stoned, and if she were not betrothed she is absolved from punishment, it was unnecessary to explain here “*But if this thing be true* that she was unchaste while betrothed, and [what is more] she so acted willingly [with anyone other than her lawful spouse] *they shall stone her*.” And instead it says by allusion *because she has done a base deed in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house*,¹⁹³, Verse 21. the *base deed* being that she did so voluntarily.

footnotes:
¹⁹¹ Exodus 22:16.
¹⁹² Further, Verse 20.
¹⁹³ Ibid.
¹⁹⁴ Ibid.
¹⁹³ Ibid.


###### Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:13:2
[Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:13:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/22:13:2)

וְ**לִזְנוֹת**, הוּא כַּאֲשֶׁר תִּשְׂטֶה אִשָּׁה תַּחַת אִישָׁהּ, כִּי הַנַּעֲרָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֹרָשָׂה לֹא תִקָּרֵא **זוֹנָה** בְּשָׁכְבָהּ עִם אַחַד הָעָם, אֲבָל הִיא מְיֹעֶדֶת לוֹ (שמות כב טו).

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
The expression *to play the harlot* signifies *when a wife being under husband, goeth aside*,¹⁹⁵ for an unbetrothed maiden is not termed “a harlot” if she lies with one of the people, but the betrothed one is espoused to him [her future husband and therefore she is termed “a harlot” if she commits adultery with another man].

footnotes:
¹⁹⁵ Numbers 5:29.


###### Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:17:1
[Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:17:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/22:17:1)

**וּפָרְשׂוּ הַשִּׂמְלָה**, הֲרֵי זֶה מָשָׁל, מְחֻוָּרִין הַדְּבָרִים כְּשִׂמְלָה, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על דברים כ"ב:י"ז), וְהוּא מִדְרָשׁוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּסִפְרֵי (תצא רלז) וּבַמְּכִילְתָּא (משפטים יג). וְאֵין צֹרֶךְ, כִּי זֹאת לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מַכְנִיסִין הֶחָתָן וְהַכַּלָּה לַחֻפָּה וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתָן, וְהָעֵדִים מְשַׁמְּרִים לָהֶם מִבַּחוּץ, וְהֵם שֶׁהַחֲכָמִים קוֹרִין לָהֶם שׁוֹשְׁבִינִין, וְכַאֲשֶׁר יִפָּרְדוּ נִכְנָסִין הָעֵדִים שָׁם וְלוֹקְחִין הַשִּׂמְלָה אֲשֶׁר שָׁכַב אוֹתָהּ עָלֶיהָ וְיִרְאוּ הַדָּמִים, וְזֶה יָדוּעַ בַּתַּלְמוּד (כתובות מו ירושלמי שם פ"א ה"א) וּבְסִפְרֵי אַגָּדָה, וְקוֹרִין הַשִּׂמְלָה הַהִיא סוּדָר. וּלְכָךְ יֹאמַר הַכָּתוּב שֶׁיִּפְרְשׂוּ אָבִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ הַשִּׂמְלָה אֲשֶׁר לָקְחוּ מִיַּד הָעֵדִים, וְיֹאמְרוּ אֵלֶּה בְּתוּלֵי בִּתִּי. וּבְוַדַּאי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְחַוֵּר הַדְּבָרִים בְּעִנְיָנִים הַרְבֵּה שֶׁהַכָּתוּב יְקַצֵּר בָּהֶם, אֲבָל לֹא אָמַר הֲרֵי זֶה מָשָׁל אֶלָּא הַמְּחַיֵּב מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע אע"פ שֶׁלֹּא בָּעַל, וּפְשׁוּטוֹ שֶׁל מִקְרָא כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁבָּעַל. וְכָךְ אָמְרוּ בַּגְּמָרָא (שם מו) רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, שִׂמְלָה מַמָּשׁ, וַהֲלָכָה כִּדְבָרָיו. וְכֵן טַעַם הַפָּרָשָׁה, כִּי אָמַר הַכָּתוּב תְּחִלָּה וְלָקַח אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה וְאִמָּהּ וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת בְּתוּלֵי הַנַּעֲרָה, יְדַבֵּר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶם, וְאַחַר כֵּן שָׁב לָאָב לְבַדּוֹ, וְאָמַר אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה וְגוֹ', וְחָזַר וְאָמַר, וּפָרְשׁוּ הַשִּׂמְלָה, בִּשְׁנֵיהֶם. וְהַטַּעַם כִּי הַתְּבִיעָה הַזֹּאת לָאָב לְבַדּוֹ, הוּא שֶׁהַקְּנָס שֶׁלּוֹ, אֲבָל שִׁתֵּף הָאֵם בַּמַּעֲשֶׂה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעִנְיַן הַשִּׂמְלָה הַנָּשִׁים יִתְעַסְּקוּ בָּהּ, וְהֵן הַיּוֹדְעוֹת וְהַבְּקִיאוֹת בְּדָמִים, וְלָאֵם רָאוּי שֶׁתִּתְפֹּשׂ וְתָבִיא אוֹתָהּ לב"ד. אֲבָל טַעֲנַת **אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה**, לָאָב בִּלְבַד הִיא, וְהָאֵם לָאו בַּעֲלַת דְּבָרִים דִּידֵהּ הִיא, אוֹ אַחַר שֶׁיְּסַדֵּר הָאָב טַעֲנוֹתָיו בב"ד יִתְפֹּשׂ בַּשִּׂמְלָה אֲשֶׁר הֵבִיאָה אִשְׁתּוֹ תַּחַת כַּנְפוֹת כְּסוּתָהּ וְיִפְרְשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בב"ד. וְהִנֵּה לֹא הֻזְכְּרָה הָאֵם בַּפָּרָשָׁה וְלֹא בָּאָה לב"ד כְּלָל אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי עִנְיַן הַשִּׂמְלָה, שֶׁהוּא מַמָּשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר פֵּרַשְׁתִּי:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND THEY SHALL SPREAD THE CLOTH. “This is a figurative expression meaning, the matter is as white [i.e., as clear] as a sheet.” This is Rashi’s language, which is the interpretation of Rabbi Yishmael found in the Sifre¹⁹⁶ 237**. and Mechilta.¹⁹⁷ 13. But there is no need for it. For *this was the custom in former time in Israel:*¹⁹⁸ they would bring the groom and bride into the bridal chamber and examine them, and the witnesses would guard them outside — these being termed *shoshbinin* (friends)¹⁹⁹ (friends) as guards, one appointed by the groom’s family, and one by the bride’s.” by the Sages. When they separated, the witnesses would enter and take the cloth on which he laid with her and see the proof of her virginity. This [procedure] is known in the Talmud and in books of Agadah [homily], and they would call this cloth *sudor*.²⁰⁰ (cloth).” Therefore, Scripture states that her father and mother should spread the cloth which they took from the hands of the witnesses and say, *These are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity*. Now surely there is still a need to clarify matters with respect to many items about which Scripture spoke briefly.²⁰¹ But the intent of [the Sifre and Mechilta in] stating “This is a figurative expression,” is only in accordance with the opinion which holds that the law concerning a man who defames his wife applies even if he has had no sexual relations with her. [It is according to this opinion that the phrase *and they shall spread the cloth* cannot be literal, for if no cohabitation took place, there can be no evidence in the sheet. Hence, the phrase is figurative, meaning that they are to prove their complaint “as clear as a sheet.”] But the plain meaning of Scripture is in accordance with the Sage²⁰² that this law applies only after he has had conjugal relations with her [and in that case the phrase *and they shall spread the cloth* is to be understood literally]. And thus the Rabbis said in the Gemara:²⁰² “Rabbi Eleazar²⁰³): “Eliezer.” ben Yaakov says, The term *cloth* is literal, and the law is in accordance with his words.” And such indeed is the sense of the section [of the Torah]. For Scripture stated first, *Then the father of the maiden, and her mother, shall take and bring forth the tokens of the maiden’s virginity*.²⁰⁴ Thus the verse is speaking of both [the father and mother]. Afterwards it reverts to the father alone: *And the maiden’s father shall say* etc.²⁰⁵ It then reverts and states, *and ‘they’ shall spread the cloth* — the two of them. Now, the reason [for these changes] is that [basically] the claim concerns only the father for [if the husband’s accusation is proven false,] the fine [of a hundred silver shekels, imposed upon the husband] belongs to the father.²⁰⁶ Scripture, however, made the mother a partner in this affair because women occupy themselves with the subject of the sheet, for it is they who are knowledgeable and expert in blood, and it is proper for the mother to take hold and bring it [the cloth] to court. But the claim, *I gave my daughter unto this man to wife*²⁰⁵ is that of the father, for the mother is not the adversary of her daughter’s husband. Or it may be that after the father presents his arguments in court, he takes hold of the cloth which his wife had brought under the corners of her garment and they both spread it before the court. Thus the mother is not mentioned in the section and did not appear in court at all except for the matter of “the cloth,” which is to be understood in its literal sense, as I have explained.

footnotes:
¹⁹⁶ Sifre, Ki Theitzei
¹⁹⁷ Mechilta, Nezikin
¹⁹⁸ Ruth 4:7.
¹⁹⁹ Tosephta Kethuboth 1:4: “In Judea they used to appoint two shoshbinin
²⁰⁰ Kethuboth 10a: “Bring me the sudor
²⁰¹ Thus, e.g., the husband who accuses his wife committing adultery must first bring witnesses to corroborate his accusation. These witnesses are subject to searching inquiries by the court, and, in the case of a certain specified type of refutation, they are liable to the same punishment as they had planned to have perpetrated against her. Such matters are not mentioned here in Scripture as it discusses the subject briefly.
²⁰² Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov (Kethuboth 46a).
²⁰² Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov (Kethuboth 46a).
²⁰³ In our Gemara (ibid.
²⁰⁴ Verse 15.
²⁰⁵ Verse 16.
²⁰⁶ Verse 19.
²⁰⁵ Verse 16.


###### Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:19:1
[Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:19:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/22:19:1)

וְטַעַם **וְעָנְשׁוּ אֹתוֹ מֵאָה כֶסֶף**, אַחֲרֵי הַמַּלְקוּת הַנִּדְרָשׁ מִ**וְיִסְּרוּ אוֹתוֹ** (כתובות מו), כִּי הַמִּנְהָג לִכְתֹּב לִבְתוּלָה מֹהַר חֲמִשִּׁים כֶּסֶף, וְהִנֵּה זֶה הוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם רַע בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁשְּׂנֵאָהּ וְרָצָה לְהוֹצִיאָהּ בְּלֹא כְלוּם, וְלָכֵן עֲנָשׁוֹ הַכָּתוּב בְּמֵאָה כֶסֶף כִּי הַתּוֹרָה תַּעֲנִישׁ בְּכֶפֶל, כְּעִנְיָן שְׁנַיִם יְשַׁלֵּם (שמות כב ג), אע"פ שֶׁהַכְּתֻבָּה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם לְמִי שֶׁיַּתְנֶה עִמָּהּ אוֹ יִשָּׂאֶנָּה סְתָם, אֲבָל הַמִּנְהָג הָיָה לִכְתֹּב מֹהַר לַבְּתוּלוֹת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם שם טז) כְּמֹהַר הַבְּתוּלוֹת, וְהָרֹב יַעֲשׂוּ כֵן, וְאִם לֹא הָיְתָה כְּתֻבָּה לָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת לָמָּה יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ עֲלִילוֹת דְּבָרִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּא עָלֶיהָ וּשְׂנֵאָהּ, יִכְתֹּב לָהּ גֵּט וְיִפָּטֵר מִמֶּנָּה, דִּכְתִיב (מלאכי ב טז) כִּי שָׂנֵא שַׁלַּח:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND THEY SHALL FINE HIM A HUNDRED SHEKELS OF SILVER. The meaning thereof is that after the husband was administered stripes — a punishment deduced from the expression *and they shall chastise him*²⁰⁷ — [he is to be fined a hundred shekels of silver]. For it was customary to write over a dowry of fifty shekels of silver to a virgin, but this person defamed her because he hated her and he wanted to send her away empty-handed. Therefore Scripture punished him with [a fine of] a hundred silver shekels, for the Torah punishes with a twofold measure, as in the case of the verse, *he shall pay double*.²⁰⁸ Although a *kethubah* (marriage contract) is only a matter of Rabbinic ordinance²⁰⁹, 22:15 — Vol. II, p. 387. for whoever made such a condition with her, or who married her without qualification, yet it was customary to write a dowry for virgins, just as it is said, *according to the dowry of virgins*,²¹⁰, Verse 16. and the majority did so. And if this woman had no *kethubah*, why should he have put forth *wanton charges against her*²¹¹ because he came to her and he hated her — he should have written her a bill of divorce and be freed of her, as it is written, *if you hate* [her] *send* [her] *away*.²¹² [Instead he brought wanton charges against her, therefore he is fined double the normal amount of the dowry of virgins even if he had not given her a *kethubah*.]

footnotes:
²⁰⁷ Verse 18. Kethuboth 46a.
²⁰⁸ Exodus 22:3.
²⁰⁹ See ibid.
²¹⁰ Ibid.
²¹¹ Verse 14.
²¹² Malachi 2:16. So interpreted by Rabbi Yehudah (Gittin 90b).


###### Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:22:1
[Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:22:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/22:22:1)

**וּמֵתוּ גַּם שְׁנֵיהֶם**, לְהוֹצִיא לָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה חִדּוּדִים שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נֶהֱנֵית מֵהֶם. גַּם, לְרַבּוֹת הַבָּאִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם, לְשׁוֹן רַבֵּינוּ שְׁלֹמֹה. וְלֹא הֲבִינוֹתִי מַהוּ, וְכִי בְּתוּלָה הִיא זוֹ שֶׁנְּמַעֵט אוֹ נִצְטָרֵךְ לְרַבּוֹת הַבָּאִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם, מָה לִי רִאשׁוֹן מָה לִי שֵׁנִי וּשְׁלִישִׁי, וְעוֹד הָיָה לוֹ לוֹמַר הַבָּאִים אַחֲרָיו. וּבַנֻּסְחָאוֹת שֶׁלָּנוּ בְּסִפְרֵי (תצא קב), שְׁנֵיהֶם, וְלֹא הָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה חִדּוּדִין, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר גַּם שְׁנֵיהֶם, לְרַבּוֹת הַבָּאִים מֵאֲחוֹרֵיהֶם, וְהִיא בִּיאָה שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ וְרִבָּה אוֹתָהּ הַכָּתוּב בְּכָאן, וְכָל הָעֲרָיוֹת לְמֵדוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ הַפְּשָׁט גַּם שְׁנֵיהֶם, הָאִישׁ הַפּוֹשֵׁעַ בַּחֵטְא יוֹתֵר, שֶׁהוּא הַתּוֹבֵעַ וְהַמְּפַתֶּה וְהָעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה, וְגַם הָאִשָּׁה. וְהִזְכִּיר זֶה הַכָּתוּב וּפֵרֵשׁ גַּם שְׁנֵיהֶם, הָאִישׁ הַשּׁוֹכֵב וְגַם הָאִשָּׁה, וְכֵן דֶּרֶךְ הַכְּתוּבִים לִתְלוֹת הַחֵטְא בָּאִישׁ, כַּאֲשֶׁר פֵּרַשְׁתִּי (ויקרא כ יז) בְּעֶרְוַת אָחִיו גִּלָּה עֲרִירִים יִהְיוּ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים כִּי טַעַם הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִם הָאִשָּׁה וְהָאִשָּׁה תּוֹסֶפֶת בֵּאוּר, כְּמוֹ יְבִיאֶהָ אֵת תְּרוּמַת ה' (שמות לה ה), אוֹתוֹ אֶת נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר (ירמיהו כז ח). וּבְסִפְרֵי (שם) הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִם הָאִשָּׁה, אע"פ שֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה, וְהָאִשָּׁה, אע"פ שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לְקָטָן. אִם כֵּן טַעְמוֹ גַּם שְׁנֵיהֶם, גַּם כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶם, הָאִישׁ אוֹ הָאִשָּׁה, הַמַּגִּיעַ מֵהֶם לְחִיּוּב:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
THEN THEY SHALL ‘GAM’ (ALSO) ‘SHNEIHEM’ (BOTH OF THEM) DIE. “This excludes unnatural gratification from which the woman derives no satisfaction. *Gam* (also) — this is intended to include in the death-penalty those who come after them” [as explained further on]. This is the language of Rabbeinu Shlomo [Rashi]. But I do not understand what this means. Is this the case of a virgin that we must exclude or include those who come after them [to commit adultery with her? The verse here speaks of a married woman, therefore] what difference is there between the first [adulterer] and the second and third? Moreover, the text should have read “those who come after ‘him’” [instead of “after ‘them’ “]! And in our versions of the Sifre it is stated:²¹³ 241. However, the text there is as Rashi has it. See Horovitz’s edition of Sifre, and his note there. “*Both of them* — this excludes unnatural gratification. Since the verse states *‘gam’ both of them* it includes those who come from their backs,” meaning unnatural sexual intercourse [sodomy]. Scripture included it here, but all cases of adultery are deduced from this one.
In line with the simple meaning of Scripture the phrase *‘gam shneihem’* (*also both of them*) means “[not only] the man who is the more responsible for the sin because he demands it, he seduces her, and commits the act — but *‘gam’* (also) the woman.” Scripture itself mentions this, explaining the phrase *also both of them — the man that lay with the woman, and the woman*. Such is the customary manner of Scripture to ascribe the sin to the man, as I have explained in connection with the verse, *he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless*.²¹⁴, the text here should read: *he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness* (*ibid.*, Verse 17), the thought here alluded to by Ramban is developed there.
And some scholars²¹⁵ say that the phrase *the man that lay with the woman, and the woman* is but an additional explanation [of the pronoun — *both of them*], like *let him bring it, the Eternal’s offering;*²¹⁶ [*the kingdom which will not serve*] *him, Nebuchadnezzar*.²¹⁷ And in the Sifre it is stated:²¹⁸ 241. “*The man that lay with the woman* — even if she was a minor; *and the woman* — even if she had intercourse with a minor.” If so, the meaning of *also both of them* is “also either one of them, the man or the woman who has reached the age to be culpable of punishment.”

footnotes:
²¹³ Sifre, Ki Theitzei
²¹⁴ Leviticus 20:21. However in Ramban there it is not found. According to the Techeileth Mordechai
²¹⁵ Ibn Ezra on Exodus 35:5.
²¹⁶ Exodus 35:5 (Vol. II, p. 598).
²¹⁷ Jeremiah 27:8.
²¹⁸ Sifre, Ki Theitzei


###### Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:23:1
[Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:23:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/22:23:1)

עִנְיַן נַעֲרָה הַמְאֹרָסָה, כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר יִרְאוּ עֵדִים מֵרָחוֹק אִישׁ תּוֹפֵס בְּנַעֲרָה וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ בָּעִיר, וְהֵרִימוּ הָעֵדִים קוֹלָם וְהִתְרוּ בָּהֶם, עַל דַּעַת רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (מכות ו ב) יִתְחַיְּבוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם סְקִילָה. שֶׁגַּם הָאִשָּׁה בְּחֶזְקַת מְזַנָּה לְדַעַת, כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא צָעֲקָה כְּלָל, כִּי דֶּרֶךְ כָּל אֲנוּסָה לִצְעֹק בָּעִיר לְהוֹשִׁיעָהּ וּלְהַצִּילָהּ. וְאִם יִרְאוּ אוֹתָהּ בַּשָּׂדֶה שֶׁיַּחֲזִיק בָּהּ וְיִשְׁכָּבֶנָּה, הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת אֲנוּסָה וּפְטוּרָה. וְטַעַם **צָעֲקָה**, יִתָּכֵן שֶׁצָּעֲקָה. אוֹ טַעְמוֹ אִם צָעֲקָה אֵין מוֹשִׁיעַ לָהּ, כִּי אֲפִלּוּ שָׁמְעוּ שֶׁלֹּא צָעֲקָה פְּטוּרָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין שָׁם מוֹשִׁיעִים לָהּ. וְהַכְּלָל אִם יֵשׁ לָהּ מוֹשִׁיעִים בֵּין בָּעִיר בֵּין בַּשָּׂדֶה חַיֶּבֶת, אֵין לָהּ מוֹשִׁיעִים בֵּין בָּעִיר בֵּין בַּשָּׂדֶה פְּטוּרָה, שֶׁלֹּא דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא בַּהוֹוֶה:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
The subject of the betrothed maiden²¹⁹ concerns a case of witnesses seeing from afar a man taking hold of a maiden and lying with her in the city, whereupon the witnesses shouted and warned them [of the sin thereof and its death-penalty]. In the opinion of our Rabbis, both of them are liable to stoning, for the woman also is under presumption of voluntary adultery since she did not cry out at all, for, it is normal for any woman who is raped in the city to scream for help and to be saved. If, however, the witnesses saw in the field that the man grabbed her and lay with her, she is under presumption of having been raped and is therefore free of punishment. The meaning of the phrase [*For he found her in the field;*] *she cried*²²⁰ is thus “that she probably screamed” [for even though the witnesses did not hear her cry it is presumed that she cried for help; or it may mean even if she had cried — there was none to save her,” for even if they heard that she did not cry she is free of punishment since there was none to save her. In general, if there are people to save her [and she did not cry] whether it be in the city or the field she is guilty; where there is none to save her whether it be in the city or the field she is free. Scripture speaks of the common case [i.e., that in the city there are people to save her, and in the field there are none — but the law as explained is the same in all cases].

footnotes:
²¹⁹ Verses 23-27.
²²⁰ Verse 27.


###### Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:23:2
[Ramban on Deuteronomy 22:23:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Deuteronomy/r/22:23:2)

וְאָמַר **עַל דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר עִנָּה אֶת אֵשֶׁת רֵעֵהוּ**, וְלֹא יִקָּרֵא עִנּוּי רַק הַשּׁוֹכֵב בְּאֹנֶס, וְזוֹ כְּבָר חִיֵּב אוֹתָהּ כִּמְזַנָּה לְרָצוֹן. אֲבָל עִנְיַן הַכָּתוּב כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר נִרְאֶה שֶׁהָאִישׁ אוֹחֵז בָּהּ וְשׁוֹכֵב עִמָּהּ, נָדוּן הָאִשָּׁה כְּמִתְרַצָּה, בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁהָיְתָה יְכוֹלָה לְהִוָּשֵׁעַ מִמֶּנּוּ, וְנֶחְשָׁב הָאִישׁ כִּמְעַנֶּה אוֹתָהּ, כִּי לֹא פִּתָּהּ וְלֹא דִּבֵּר עַל לִבָּהּ לְהִשָּׁמַע אֵלָיו. וְלֹא יָדַעְתִּי בְּדִין הַצְּעָקָה אִם רָאִינוּ נַעֲרָה שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ הָאִישׁ וְהִיא נִלְחֶמֶת בּוֹ בְּכָל כֹּחָהּ וּבוֹכָה וְאוֹחֶזֶת בִּבְגָדָיו אוֹ בְּשַׂעֲרוֹתָיו לְהִמָּלֵט מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא יָדְעָה לִצְעֹק, לָמָּה תִּסָּקֵל, אֶלָּא גַּם הַצְּעָקָה בַּהוֹוֶה, לָדוּן בָּהּ מִן הַסְּתָם בָּעִיר מְפֻתָּה וּבַשָּׂדֶה אֲנוּסָה:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
Scripture states, *and the man, because he afflicted the wife of his fellow*.²²¹ Now the term “affliction” applies only to forcible cohabitation, and yet the same verse already declared her guilty as if she committed adultery voluntarily!²²². Ramban asks: Since the term “affliction” applies only to forcible rape, how could she be condemned as if she had submitted voluntarily? The answer follows in the text. But the purport thereof is as follows: When we see a man take hold of a woman and lie with her we adjudge the woman to be consenting because she could have been saved from him, and we consider the man as if he is afflicting her for he did not entice her nor appeal to her to submit to him.
Now, I know not the precise meaning of this law of “crying out.” If we see a maiden being overpowered by a man and she fights him with all her strength, weeps and takes hold of his clothes or his hair to save herself from him, and she did not realize [enough] to cry out, why should she be stoned? Rather, the “crying out” of which Scripture speaks is also the common case to deduce that ordinarily [if she did not cry for help] in the city it was a seduction [for had she cried out, people would have come to her rescue] and in the field [we presume] she was forced.

footnotes:
²²¹ Verse 24.
²²² Verse 24 reads: Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them … the maiden, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he afflicted the wife of his fellow