לא תראה את אחיך או את שיו נדחים, “do not inactively watch the ox or sheep of your brother which has gone astray” (voluntarily or against its will); this law applies even in war time when you are on the way to the front; what applies to ox or sheep applies to all categories of domestic beasts.

והתעלמתם מהם, “and you blithely ignore them or hide from them;” you must not ignore their plight. The examples chosen by the Torah are animals that are too big for you to be able claim that you overlooked them as their owners hid them.

השב תשיבם לאחיך, “you must make every effort to restore these animals to your brother.” The Torah is so serious about this demand that it repeats it with slightly different wording in another place (Exodus 23:4).

או שורו נופלים בדרך, “or his donkey or ox collapsing on the way,” [due to having been overloaded, Ed.] even though the owner is someone who hates you, you must not ignore this, but assist them in helping the animal to get up.

לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה, “a woman must not wear men’s clothing;” it is an act of disgrace and sexual provocation;”Having taken note of this law, Yael, the Kenite woman who killed Sisera, the general who had commanded the army of the Canaanite King Jabin of Chatzor, did not use weapons used by male soldiers, such as arrows or a sword when doing so, but took a tent pin. (Judges, 4,21) This paragraph has been written immediately after those dealing with women and warfare, in order to remind us that warfare is something reserved for men, not women. When men go out to war they are likely to encounter situations making promiscuity a great temptation. They are therefore warned not to add to such temptation by dressing up as women. (Ibn Ezra)

כי יקרא קן צפור, “if a bird’s nest happens” (to be along the way you are walking,) the reason why this paragraph has been written here is because it also deals with chance encounters on the way, i.e. בדרך, “on the way,”

קן צפור, “a bird’s nest;” whenever the word צפור instead of עוף occurs in the Torah meaning bird, it refers to a ritually pure bird, one that Israelites are allowed to eat if slaughtered in the prescribed fashion. Therefore the legislation following next applies only to this category of birds. (Compare Rabbi Yitzchok in the Talmud, tractate Chulin folio 139)

לא תקח האם על הבנים, “you must not take the mother bird together with its young ones;” it would be an act of cruel insensitivity, comparable to cooking the kid in the milk of its mother, something the Torah has repeatedly forbidden. (Deut.14,21) as well as the prohibition to slaughter, even as a sacrifice, a mother cow together with its calf on the same day. (Leviticus 22,28) Our author considers the requirement that the fruit of one’s vineyard even after four years may be consumed by the owner only in Jerusalem, as also in a category intended to teach us how not to give in to the urge to indulge in drinking wine, etc.

על הבנים, “with the young.” Other examples of the word על being used as meaning “with,” are found in Leviticus25,31, על שדה הארץ יחשב, “it will be considered as belonging with the fields of the land.” Compare also Numbers 28,10, על עולת התמיד, with the daily burnt offering, or Numbers 19,5: על פרשה ישרוף, “he is to burn it together with its excrement.”

ואת הבנים תקח לך, “and the young ones you may take for yourself,” in order to eat them. We learn from here that the eggs may be eaten even, though they have been taken from a living bird. (Talmud, tractate Chulin, folio 64, and Tossaphot there)

והארכת ימים, And you will enjoy long life.” The reward will be far greater than if you had ignored G-d’s law and taken mother bird and its young for yourself.

והארכת ימים, the reward matches the fulfillment of the commandment. By not killing both mother bird and all its young, thus not making that family extinct, you will yourself be rewarded with additional years of healthy life.

כי תבנה בית חדש, “When you build a new house;” This command appears to only include one who builds a house. From where do we derive also one who purchases a house or receives it as a gift? The verse states, “House,” which means any kind of house.

ועשית, “you must install a parapet for your roof.” If the old roof had collapsed, you must replace it with a new one. This law is introduced here to remind you that after you have completed the conquest of the Holy Land, and have taken over many houses intact from their previous owners, who may not have had such a protective rail or fence on their roof, you must now provide such a parapet. [After dealing with one kind of hazard that your property may present to outsiders, the Torah warns against being the cause of other kinds of hazards by writing as a general rule:]

לא תשים דמים בביתיך, “do not place anything in a position in your house that might cause bloodshed.” This includes ferocious dogs and shaky ladders. (Talmud, tractate Ketuvot folio 41)

לא תזרע כרמך כלאים, “do not sow your vineyard with more than one kind of seed;” previously, in Leviticus 19,19 we had a similar law where we were warned not to sow two seeds in one field. [The reason given is that the seeds might mingle and produce a new species that is not fit for human consumption because it is something that runs counter to the way G-d created the earth, where we were always told the word למינו, “according to its species.” Ed.] פן תקדש The use of the verb קדש here is similar to קדש וקדשה “man-prostitute and woman-prostitute” (Compare Deut. 23,18) because they too, are mixing with other people.

כלאים, different kinds of seeds, that are hard to tell apart, and therefore are apt not to be recognised. In order to give the warning more deterrent power, the penalty for having grown crops based on mixing seed is not only that they are forbidden to be eaten, they are forbidden to make any kind of use of. [When the mixing of species is more visible, such as mixing linen and wool, or mating two different species of animals, the penalty is less severe.]

לא תחרוש בשור וחמור, “do not plough with an ox and donkey together pulling the plough.” The ox, being an animal that chews the cud is constantly eating, whereas the donkey in the meantime is being overworked. This is an example of inflicting pain on living creatures. (Baaley Tossaphot.) Another explanation is that the ox is considered to be the king of the domesticated animals and his image is engraved on the Divine Throne, while the donkey is considered to be a despicable animal. This is not a befitting union. An alternate interpretation; G-d’s mercy extends not only to human beings but to all of His creatures. Therefore these two categories of beasts being mismatched as one is far stronger than the other, it would be causing the donkey pain to be part of such a team pulling the plough.

יחדו, “together;” it is forbidden only when the two animals are tied together to the ploughshare. (Sifri). Our sages in the Talmud, tractate Baba Kama folio 54, state: what is stated here includes any two animals of different species, but excludes two human beings pulling the plough together, even if one is considerably stronger than the other. The reason why this law is written here is that we previously spoke about sowing different kinds of seeds, and ploughing is closely related to sowing.

צמר ופשתים יחדו, “wool and linen together.” The reason why only these two categories of yarns are forbidden to be mixed is that the two were involved in the first murder. Kayin’s offering to G-d had consisted of leftover flax that he had grown, while Hevel had offered sheep which grow wool. Seeing that these two species had been indirectly responsible for the first disagreement between two human beings ending in the death of one, we are to be forever mindful of this. An alternate interpretation: These two fibers were used in the garments worn by the priests when performing service in the Temple but are not permitted to be worn by the priests at any other times. This is why the affliction known as tzoraat, does not strike garments consisting of any other fibers. This is a reminder that there is a basic problem involving these fibers, one that is overcome only on holy consecrated ground when used by the priests in their service to G-d. The Torah teaches that the expression shatnes, means a mixture of woolen and flax (linen) fibers.

גדילים, “twisted strings;” the expression is a variant for קליעה, “plaited work.” This law appears here as in connection with the tzitzit, fringes used in a ritual context that must be attached to four cornered garments, the prohibition for plaiting wool and linen has been waived. (Ibn Ezra)

ארבע כנפות, “four corners.;” only four-cornered garments (or more corners) are subject to this commandment, not three-cornered ones. (Ibn Ezra)

כי יקח איש אשה, “When a man marries a woman, etc.” seeing that the Torah had dealt with man’s basic preoccupations previously, i.e. building a house, planting and harvesting a field, and the rules governing his clothing, it is appropriate to add some aspects of marriage and its restrictions at this point.

ובא אליה ושנאה, “and after having had marital relations with her he hates her;” this translation is inaccurate: the Torah means that he had hated her already previously.

ואקרב אליה, “when I wanted to become intimate with her, etc.” an elegant expression for carnal relations. Compare Genesis 20,4: ואבימלך לא בא אליה, “and Avimelech had not slept with her.” Or, Isaiah 8,3: ואקרב אל הנביאה, “I was intimate with the prophetess.”

ויסרו אותו, “they will chastise him;” they will administer punitive lashes to his skin for having transgressed the positive commandment that “you shall love your neighbour as if he were yourself.” (Leviticus 19,18)

ונתנו לאבי הנערה, “and they (the elders of the town) give to the father of the girl;” all of the elders. The word נער is repeatedly spelled without the letter ה at the end of the word in this paragraph, but here it is read as if spelled with that letter, suggesting that harmony is being restored through the procedure decreed by the Torah.

לא יוכל לשלחה, “he can never divorce her at his own initiative;” this is in spite of the fact that generally, when husbands claim to have found that their wives had betrayed them they are considered as telling the truth. This type of individual is not believed unless he can corroborate his claim of her lack of virginity when she got married by eye witnesses. He has been proven a liar, therefore in the future his claims must be substantiated if he is to be taken seriously. A different interpretation: he is being dealt with on the basis of מדה כנגד מדה, “measure for measure,” i.e. tit for tat. He had tried to send her away (i.e. divorce her), hence he will never be able to rid himself of her. The Torah decreed the same penalty for someone who had raped (compare verse 29 this chapter). Seeing that he had forced himself upon his partner once, it is likely that sooner or later he will tire of her and try to divorce her. The Torah therefore prevented such a person from doing so. כל ימיו, “all his life.” [The Talmud there queries why the Torah used language that implied that he had done such a thing as divorcing her once before, whereas he had actually not done anything! The answer given by the Talmud is that this is the reason why that person also has not been punished with 39 lashes as he would have been had he violated a negative commandment by performing a forbidden act.]

ומתו גם שניהם, “they will both have to die;” Rashi explains the unusual wording, i.e. not “they will both be executed,” by saying that this includes the descendents of this pair of sinners. We are not to assume that as soon as these people have been convicted, even though not yet executed, any unborn children will not be affected by their deeds, since their parents had already been considered legally dead. What these people had done does not come under the heading of “if the parents sinned why should the children be punished for this? The word גם, “also,” in our verse is the Torah’s hint that this situation is different from other situations in which parents are both guilty of a serious sin violating the laws of chastity. An alternate approach to our verse: the word גם does indeed refer to the descendants of this pair of adulterers. Even if the willing female partner is a minor, she will also be subject to the penalty of having committed adultery. The same is true for an adult married woman who committed adultery with a boy that had not yet reached puberty. This is though even though we had been told in verse 21 that the girl involved who by being described as נערה was not yet an adult was alone in being stoned to death, (seeing she shamed her father under whose roof she had indulged in such shameless conduct). Furthermore, we cannot punish the person with whom she lost her virginity as we do not know who he was. If the adulterer (male) was known and there is evidence against both, they will both be subject to death by strangulation. Another interpretation of the apparently superfluous word גם: even if the woman involved in this adultery is pregnant at the time, we do not wait with carrying out the death sentence until her baby is born. According to an interpretation in Ibn Ezra, the word גם is a hint that more laws concerning forbidden sexual unions will follow.

וסקלתם אותם באבנים, “you shall stone them (to death) with stones. The Torah decrees a harsher mode of death for the woman who committed an adulteress act while betrothed, seeing that still having been a virgin, and not having tasted the physical gratification of sexual intercourse, she nonetheless shamed her family; this is a sin which reflects on her father and her family in whose house she lost her innocence and therefore reflects on there having been something wrong in her upbringing. Once she has been married and lived in her husband’s home, the family can blame her aberration as connected to her having left her father’s home. The adulterer is also stoned because he prevented the fiancé of this woman from being the first one to have sexual intercourse with her.

על דבר אשר לא צעקה בעיר, “because she did not loudly protest being violated,” even though in a city where help would have been at hand. Her silence is proof that she did not really object to being violated by the rapist. She had no reason to fear being killed as the rapist would surely have been found and brought to justice.

ואם בשדה וגו, if this rape had taken place on an field, far from civilization and help; you might argue that there is not much difference between rape in this paragraph and that in the previous paragraph, as the fact that the Torah decrees the death penalty for her attacker makes it is clear that witnesses must have been at hand, otherwise how could her attacker have been brought to justice? We have to answer that there is a basic difference between a rape that takes place in an open field, of a woman who walked there without a chaperone, and rape in a city where a woman feels safe in walking the streets alone, unaccompanied. If the victim did not raise her voice in the city when attacked, where the chances are great that her cries will be heard, we must interpret this as tacit consent on her part, hence the more severe type of the death penalty. If that woman was attacked while walking alone in the field, and she had raised her voice and by chance her rape had been observed by witnesses who had heard her cries, and the attacker had been caught then he is brought to justice; he would be brought to justice even if she had not cried out, as we give her credit for having been afraid that if she cried out her attacker would also kill her. She is therefore not considered as having consented to her violation. The Torah does not justify her tacit compliance, but even if she told the witnesses not to interfere, she is not executed, as her compliance is presumed to have been influenced by fear for her life. The Torah even excuses her behaviour if when the witnesses arrived the rape was in full progress and her libido had been aroused by her attacker. Whenever there exists doubt about the victim of a rape having consented tacitly, no court will punish her. [Public opinion might. Ed.]

כי ימצא איש נער בתולה, “if a man finds a young girl who is a virgin, etc.;” this paragraph is added at this point as other laws concerning virgins preceded it.

לא יוכל שלחה, “he is not permitted to divorce her;” (lit. he must continue to drink out of the vessel he has chosen) he cannot terminate this marriage even if she was blind or lame. (Talmud tractate Ketuvot folio 39)