אם במחתרת ימצא הגנב, “if the thief is discovered while tunneling, underground, etc.;” the scenario described here where the owner of the house being burgled kills the intruder, and the Torah exonerates him, applies only when the thief had made an effort to remain undiscovered. If he broke in the front door and the owner harms or kills him, he is liable for damages or even murder, seeing that his life had not been endangered. The thief had obviously decided that if discovered he would flee the way he had entered, and not become violent.

שלם ישלם שנים, “must pay twice the value of what he had destroyed” The Talmud tractate Baba Kamma, folio 60, quotes G–d as having said: “I have lit a destructive fire in Zion,” (Lamentations 4,11) it therefore behooves Me when (the time comes) to pay for the destruction I have caused.” This is the deeper meaning of what the prophet Zecharyah has said in Zecharyah 2,9, “I will be for Zion a (protective) wall of fire all around it.”

על כל דבר פשע, “concerning any matter of trespass, such as, etc.;” concerning this unusual wording, the Midrash points out that the numerical value of the words: כל דבר, “any matter,” is the same as the numerical value of the letters in the name of Aaron, אהרן=256. The Torah continues with the words: על שור, “on account of an ox (calf),” a hint at the damage caused by Aaron who had produced a golden calf from the crucible into which he had thrown the golden jewelry given to him. The word: חמור, “donkey,” is understood by that Midrash as applying to the mixed multitude who had joined the Israelites’ bandwagon at the Exodus, and who had been the first to clamour for a replacement of Moses, who had not returned from the Mountain after 40 days and forty nights without food and drink. (Exodus chapter 32). The word שה in this verse is understood by that Midrash as applying to the Jewish people in Jeremiah 50,17 where he called them שה פזורה, “scattered sheep.” The words: על שלמה, “for a raiment,” are a metaphor for idolatry, a variant of the word צלם idolatrous image, the letter ש substituting for the letter צ, and the vowel patach for the vowel tzeyreh. Both the letter צ and the vowel patach are used interchangeably in the Bible on other occasions. The words: על כל אבדה, “every type of lost object,” are also a metaphor for idolatry. In Deuteronomy 12,2 the Torah commands us to destroy any kind of idolatry which we will find in the land of Canaan. The word used for “destroying” is the word used for “losing” something, i.e. אבד תאבדון. To continue with the interpretation of our verse: the words: אשר יאמר כי הוא זה, of which he says: “this is it,” are a reminder of what the people said of the golden calf when it emerged from the crucible into which Aaron had thrown the men’s gold in Exodus 32,4, when they proclaimed of the golden calf: אלה אלוהיך ישראל אשר העלוך מארץ מצרים, “these are your gods Israel which have taken you out of Egypt.” The words: עד האלוהים, normally translated as “to a judge,” refer to Moses whom G–d had described as being an elohim compared to Aaron (Exodus 7,1) who would be his interpreter in his dealings with Pharaoh. The words: יבא דבר שניהם, “shall the matter of their litigation be presented,” refer to G–d and Aaron respectively, whereas the words: אשר ירשיעון, “whom they condemn” refer to Moses, whereas the words:ישלם שנים, “he will repay twofold,” refer to the two sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, who paid with their lives for having brought alien fire on the censers on which they presented incense. (Leviticus 16,1) Thus far Tanchuma on section eight of his commentary on Parshat Acharey Mot.

'שבועת ה, “the oath of the Lord, etc.;” Rashi explains this verse as follows: if the party in charge of the animal entrusted to him for safe keeping has illegally made use of it, as a result of which this animal came to harm, he is liable although normally anyone who looks after a friend’s property without being paid compensation is not liable for anything but the result of his negligence. Elsewhere, in the Talmud, tractate Baba Metzia folio 41, Rashi adds that even if the safe keeper had already returned the animal in question to its owner, seeing that he had illegally made use of it while it was under his care, any accident that will befall that animal will be considered as the result of that offense he had committed. According to Rabbeinu Tam, -Rashi’s grandson,- this presents a difficulty, seeing that in our verse the Torah had written that no one had witnessed the accident that had happened to said animal, i.e. we de do not even know if the circumstances were such that they could be attributed to the safe-keeper’s illegal actions. [All we know is that it occurred while the safe-keeper had not been present, as he should have been. Ed.] According to Rabbeinu Tam, the wording of the Torah implies that if the safe-keeper had witnesses who had seen that he had not been negligent or done something illegal as a result of which the accidents had become possible, he is not held responsible. According to Rashi what use would it be for the safe-keeper if there even was “proof” that he had not been at fault, seeing that the Torah requires the safe-keeper to swear an oath that he had not done anything which according to Torah law was not permissible? According to Rashi, even a true oath would not be helpful for the person who had sworn it, so why should he use the name of the Lord in vain? Besides, how could the “witnesses” know if the accused had ever committed an illegal use of what had been entrusted to him for safekeeping, if that person had in the meantime replaced the animal in the pen where he had kept it locked up? Considering all this, Rabbeinu Tam concludes that in such situations the safe-keeper is considered as innocent of wrongdoing.

כמהר הבתולות, “according to the dowry customary for virgins.” Rabbi Yehudah hachassid concludes from this verse that we have a hint that the ketuvah, document of financial security given to a virgin by her bridegroom, at the wedding, in the event that she is divorced without having given cause, or is widowed, amounts to two hundred zuz. He based himself on the defective spelling of the word: כמהר which should have been spelled כמוהר, with the letter ו in the middle. As it is written it could serve as initials for the words כמה מהר הבתולות ר, “how much does the dowry of a virgin amount to? 200 (zuz)”

אם כסף תלוה, “if you lend money, etc.;” Rabbi Yehudah hachassid says that the reason this verse commences with the word אם, “if,” instead the word כאשר, “when,” is that there are occasions when this is not a commandment but something that is voluntary, such as when the borrower has a reputation of not repaying a loan.

אם חבול תחבול, “if you will take a pledge,” (as a security for an overdue loan) the repetition of this verb is to tell the lender that the value of the pledge is not to exceed the value of the debt; G–d is telling the lender that he must remember how much he himself owes G–d at any given time. If he is conscious of that, He in turn, will remember this every evening when his soul rises to heaven and He restores that soul to him in the morning. If he fails to deal fairly with the borrower, G–d will remember this in His dealings with the lender and treat his soul as a pledge.

והיה כי יצעק אלי, “and it will come to pass that if the borrower cries out to Me,” (complaining about unfair treatment) the borrower’s complaint to Me will sound as follows: “we have both been created by You as equals. Why should the lender sleep comfortably each night with a pillow to rest his head on, while I have to rest my head on a stone?” At first glance the wording of the Torah describing G–d’s response, i.e. “I will listen for I am gracious,” to the borrower’s complaint does not appear to fit his complaint; This is why I, (author) have decided to interpret the verse differently. It appears to relate to what was written previously in verse 25, where the Torah commanded the lender to restore the pledge (pillow) by nightfall, so that he can also rest his head on a pillow. G–d’s response is to be understood as follows: “if the borrower in his prayers mentions that you have treated him with consideration, I too will consider your own problems having due regard for the empathy you have shown the borrower.” This is spelled out clearly in Deuteronomy 15,10, where the subject of how to relate to destitute people is discussed at greater length.

And the meat in the field that is torn. Since the dog risked its life over the torn prey when the wolf came to tear it, it should not seem like an imposition of good will towards it that when you have torn prey, you should throw it to the dog as reward for having guarded it until now so it would not be torn, and also to continue guarding the other animals, for thus is the way of the world to appoint dogs to guard the flocks from wolves.