כי ימצא חלל באדמה, “If a slain person is found lying on the earth, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text the legislation about breaking the neck of the עגלה ערופה, the calf the Torah commands to be killed publicly and to be thrown into a virgin valley, is supposed to be a great trick designed to reveal the identity of the murderer. Maimonides in Moreh Nevuchim 3,40 writes as follows: “the people killing this calf are from the town nearest where the murdered person has been found. In most instances the murderer is a local resident. The elders of that town testify that they had not been negligent in maintaining all the services which are part of a civilised town. It is hoped that the publicity which this procedure attracts will lead to information disclosing the identity of the culprit.” The sages are already on record that even an unsubstantiated statement by a lowly slave-woman claiming that a certain person is the murderer is sufficient to halt these proceedings (Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 9,1). If the identity of the murderer was known but the townspeople were part of a conspiracy of silence, and they have the audacity to testify in front of their Creator that they did not know the identity of the murderer, this is a great sin and anyone (from outside) who acquires knowledge is called upon to make public what he knows, so that the guilty party will be dealt with either by a court of law, the king, or the relative who is the blood-avenger. The whole incident assumes additional significance in that the site where the calf was killed will forever have to remain virgin earth so that people who observe that this earth is not being used for anything will make inquiries about this. Thus far Maimonides. The expression וערפו means that they are to remove the neck of this calf (Ibn Ezra). The reason why all of this has to take place in the town nearest the slain person is that in our estimation the murderer comes from that city, or that people of that town had been guilty of a similar crime; otherwise such a disaster would not have happened near their town.

Some explain the words נחל איתן, as a place of דשן ושמן, a very fertile valley. Now that this tragedy has occurred, the Torah forbids us to again make use of that land. Our sages in Sotah 15 also understand the words אשר לא יעבד בו ולא יזרע as referring to the future; after the calf has been killed there, this site is to be treated as if out of bounds completely. The Mishnah in Sotah 45 says that although this site is forbidden to be sown, one is allowed to comb flax on that site or to chisel stones there seeing that these activities are not performed with the actual soil. According to this latter explanation every one of us must be careful to maintain roads in such a condition including security patrols, so that murder cannot occur and the murderer escape. Once a property owner knows that if such a murder has occurred nearby they may all forfeit use of their property as a result he will cooperate in supervising his town and what is around it (Based on the father of R' David Kimchi in the Sefer Hashoroshim).

A Midrashic approach to the subject of עגלה ערופה, based on Sotah 46: G’d said: “let the yearling calf whose neck is broken serve as a symbol and have her neck broken in a place which will not produce fruit (any produce) in order to atone for the slain person whose life has been cut short so that he will no longer be able to produce “fruit.” Other commentators dealing with the legislation surrounding the עגלה ערופה claim that the reason the calf in question must be one that has never born a yoke or performed labor for man, and that it has to be brought to a valley which has no traces of ever having been worked by man is so the calf will not recognize the site. There is to be no paved path through that valley so that the calf is not tempted to leave that area. The priests would hit it on its neck in order to encourage it to escape that valley and show us the way to the murderer. This is the meaning of the words (verse 4) וערפו שם את העגלה בנחל. Prior to that the elders of the town washed their hands over the calf, saying: ”our hands have not spilled this blood.” The priests would then respond: “grant atonement for Your people Israel.” The expression כפר in this instance includes a request for the facts to come to light, for the murderer to be found. If the Israelites of that generation were generally Torah-observant, the calf would walk to the house of the murderer, stop, and the priests would proceed to kill the calf at that spot. This is the meaning of the words: “and the blood shall be atoned for them.” If the people of that generation were generally not Torah-observant, and therefore entitled to identify and deal with the murderer, and as a result the calf would not seek out a specific house before coming to a halt, the priests would hit the neck of the calf with an axe, severing the neck. This is the meaning of ונכפר להם הדם, “the blood (guilt) will be atoned for them.” G’d would have to do the atoning then.

A rational approach to this legislation: the calf which is being killed, עגלה ערופה, is a similar phenomenon to the שעיר לעזאזל, the scape-goat, which is killed after it (symbolically) carries the sins of the entire Jewish people (Leviticus 16,10). Both wind up in a totally barren environment. Something similar happens to one of the birds offered by the person who has been declared cured of the dreaded skin disease tzoraat. It is released into the air after its partner has been slaughtered and the surviving bird’s blood has been dipped in the blood of the bird which has been slaughtered (Leviticus 14,51-53). The surviving bird is perceived as carrying the guilt of the person for whom it atones into certain nether regions inhabited by demons and the like. All of the three phenomena we listed have as their purpose to blunt possible accusations by spiritually negative forces which abound in the world and which look for any excuse to assume the role of prosecuting attorney against the Jewish people. From a technical point of view it would have been enough for the Torah to write that the valley in question should be one which has neither been worked nor sown, i.e. לא יעבד ולא יזרע. Why did the Torah add the extra word בו (verse 4)? The Torah wanted to make clear that not only the valley but also the calf itself must not have performed any kind of work. By being so totally undomesticated, the animal is perceived as (still) belonging to the domain of the forces appointed by G’d to rule in the desert and similar inhospitable places (as we explained on other occasions). When the calf’s neck is broken then it occurs in the domain of these demonic forces. The very word איתן implies that the valley is very harsh, hard, tough. The reason that the Torah spelled the word שפכה with the letter ה at the end, instead of the letter ו which we would have expected, may be an allusion to the fact that if one kills a person one deprives him of his five senses. By doing so, the murderer has destroyed an entire world. The world had been created with the last letter ה of the tetragrammaton (Bereshit Rabbah 12,9). The reason for this somewhat exaggerated sounding description of the murder of a single individual is the fact that G’d created only a single human being at the beginning. If he had been killed prematurely, the human race would have been exterminated as the result of such a single act of killing. The reason for the words כפר לעמך ישראל אשר פדית ה', “provide atonement for Your people Israel, whom You have redeemed o Lord” (verse 8), is simple. The procedure of killing this calf resulted in our providing these demonic forces with a delight. This enhances the power of these forces to act as advocates for the prosecution against Israel. As a result, we have to ask forgiveness, כפרה, from Hashem for having been forced to make use of this legislation. Similar considerations are valid in connection with the שעיר לעזאזל. In Leviticus 16,33, at the conclusion of the whole procedure, the Torah writes: “He shall bring atonement upon the Holy of Holies, and upon the Tent of meeting and the Altar; he will bring atonement for the priests and all the people.” In other words, after the whole Yom Kippur service has been dealt with the Torah had to write these words to show that having somehow caused satisfaction to the Azzazel, the people and all concerned are in need of atonement for this.

There is yet another aspect embodied in the procedures of the עגלה ערופה, and that is that the procedures teach us something about the nature of a murdered person. The procedures leading to atonement of this crime comprise three elements. 1) the breaking of the calf’s neck; 2) the location where this has to take place, i.e. a totally barren area, one which has never been useful. 3) the recital of a confession by the priests: “our hands did not spill this blood. Please atone for Your people of Israel.” Every intelligent person realizes that the murderer achieved his objective only by means of separating, detaching his victim from three “souls,” life-forces. He separated him from the animalistic soul, from the soul which enables vegetable matter to grow, and, finally, he separated him from the נפש השכלית, the abstract life-force we call “soul.” We know that the first soul which departs from the slain person is the animalistic soul. This is why the Torah selected a calf for this procedure, seeing that it (the mother) symbolizes animalism. Killing it removes that “soul.” The location, i.e. one that does not produce any growth, symbolizes the “vegetable” soul, i.e. its absence. Finally, the confession and request for atonement symbolise the loss of the abstract soul of the slain person. I have heard that the carcass of the calf generates worms which will attack the murderer wherever he is. This is a mystery of nature related to the barren valley, the domain of the demons we mentioned.

A Kabbalistic approach: the whole procedure of “sacrificing” the עגלה ערופה to the attribute of Justice in its most severe manifestation aims at preventing this attribute which is poised to strike the community in whose proximity the murder occurred from causing harm. The reason the neck of the animal was chosen as the point of death is that it represents the “hardest,” most unbending part of the personality. Seeing that at this time G’d, as it were, turns His back (neck) on us, this calf does not have its throat slit as do the animals which are ritually slaughtered. The reason why this whole legislation is described in such detail is that the murder has occurred in Eretz Yisrael, on holy soil. The reason the Torah added the word בקר to the word עגלת בקר (a calf is always a junior בקר) is that this animal symbolises the חיה with the face of an ox in the prophet’s vision in Ezekiel 1,10. Sometimes the חיה described there as on the ”left,” does appear on the right, i.e. represents the attribute of Mercy. Although the calf must not have been worked, borne a yoke, it may impose such a yoke, burden on others (symbolically speaking). As to the words והורדו, “they shall bring it (the calf) down” (verse 4), this means that the elders shall drag the calf down to that valley. The words וערפו שם, reminds us of Genesis 49,24 משם רועה אבן ישראל, [if I understand correctly a reference to Joseph dragging down his family to Egypt, Joseph representing the “ox,” בכור שורו. Ed.]. The words את העגלה בנחל, mean that the calf is to be submerged in the waters of the brook of that valley. These waters are called נחלי אל, a reference to the emanations. The reason the Torah refers to the murdered person as חלל, usually understood as an empty space, is that he has been deprived of his souls, thus effectively making him “empty,” חלול. The word is also related to חולין, something profane, devoid of sanctity. The procedure is designed to eliminate the spirit of impurity outside the town in the field. This is why the Torah emphasizes נופל בשדה, “fallen in the field” (verse 1). The word חלל is an allusion to orbit, i.e. the revolving planets in their orbits; the slain person is perceived as having been on earth before in a different body. This may be the reason the Torah speaks of חלל באדמה instead of חלל בארץ. This whole procedure was performed by the priests, the Levites, seeing it is their function to settle strife and plague (verse 5). The words ריב and נגע refer to strife both in the terrestrial regions and in the celestial regions. The waters with which the elders wash their hands (verse 6) represent the waters of the attribute חסד which have their origin in a domain above that of the עגלה. The washing of the hands is to ensure that the elders will not be harmed by the attribute of Justice.

וענו, “they shall respond;” the priests, speaking in Hebrew. ואמרו, they shall say ידינו לא שפכו את הדם הזה, “our hands did not spill this blood.” The prayer of the priests was addressed to the attribute Hashem, the attribute which had orchestrated the Exodus from Egypt. This is why the words אשר פדית ה', “which You, the attribute of Hashem have redeemed,” are appended to the priests’ prayer for atonement. When they continue: ואל תתן דם נקי בקרב עמך ישראל, “do not place innocent blood in the midst of Your people of Israel,” is an appeal to the attribute of Mercy not to allow the attribute of Justice to go into action on account of this murder.

כפר לעמך, “grant atonement for Your people.” According to Pessikta (and Sifri) on our verse the word כפר refers to the living who can attain atonement by means of their money. The words פדית, “whom You redeemed,” refer to the already dead who will achieve their atonement by charity given by the living (in their name). The verse teaches that the donations made to the Temple treasury by the living on behalf of their dead accomplish something. This is so in an increased measure if the son donates in his father’s name; it is considered a merit for the departed father. The same applies to the recital of Kaddish by the son for his father. The concept is based on the fact that the son “eats” the “fruits” of his father. The same applies to the son acting as reader in the synagogue during his year of mourning. There is a Baraitha in Massechet Kallah Rabbati chapter 2 involving Rabbi Akiva rescuing the soul of a departed from purgatory through the son becoming pious, etc., although the father of that child had been the worst kind of sinner.

ואתה תבער הדם הנקי, “and you shall remove innocent blood from your midst.” You are to remove the threat of punishment for innocent blood having been spilled. Alternatively, ”you are to destroy the one who has spilled innocent blood if possible.” 'כי תעשה הישר בעיני ה', ”when you do what is right in the eyes of the Lord.” In the eyes of the Lord Who took you out of Egypt on condition that you do not allow innocent blood to be spilled, and generally do what is right in His eyes. We encounter here again the absence of the expression ה' אלו-היך as the redemption from Egypt took place under the aegis of the attribute of Mercy, i.e. Hashem (only).

It is also possible to interpret this verse as a promise for the future. G’d is saying: “if you do what is right in the eyes of the Lord there will not be any murders of innocent people.” This in turn will serve to hasten the arrival of a period when murder, warfare, etc., will be banished from this earth. At that time the prophecy of Isaiah 2,4: ”and they beat their swords into plowshares,” will be fulfilled. People will no longer teach the art of warfare; no nation will raise a hand against its neighbor. There will be an abundance of peace and serenity, as alluded to in Song of Songs 7,1. People will offer their sacrifices to the attribute Hashem which is also known as שלום as we know from Genesis 32,18 ויבא יעקב שלם. The author cites a few more verses implying that G’d’s name is שלום.

תנה בני לבך לי ועיניך דרכי תצורנה, “Give your heart to me my son, and let your eyes observe my ways.”(Proverbs 23,26)

In this verse Solomon warns that we should devote our hearts to the service of the Lord, and distance ourselves from the allurements of this world, the ones to which the heart and eyes are so attracted. This is why he says: “give your heart to Me:, i.e. to the part of the world which concerns service to your Creator and not to the alternative, the transient pleasures of terrestrial earth. Seeing that we do possess these urges, we are asked to channel them into permissible paths, i.e. service of the Lord. When we do this (wholeheartedly, not merely ‘giving to religion its due’) then our service to the Lord will be received with goodwill, seeing it reflects true reverence and love for G’d. Use of the pleasures of this world should be designed only to better serve the Lord and to better understand His Torah, at least the מושכלות, the laws accessible to our intelligence. Since many of the pleasurable experiences in this world are directly connected to the performance of commandments, what matters is the intent which governs the use one makes of these pleasures. David summed up his own lifestyle and what prompted it in these words: ה', נגדך כל תאותי, “Lord, all my (natural) desires are focused in Your direction.” He complimented himself that he had been able to sublimate the enjoyment inherent in partaking of the pleasures of this world so that they became religious experiences for him. It is a well known fact that the various organs, limbs, in our body are agents of the heart and the eyes. They merely carry out what the eyes and heart desire. Of the two, the heart is the primary element. If one’s heart is whole with Hashem, everything is wholehearted. If the heart is not wholly devoted to G’d everything one does is blemished. This is the meaning of רחמנא לבא בעי, ‘G’d requires one’s heart’ (Sanhedrin 106). A Midrashic approach understands the verse in Proverbs as an admonition by G’d to the people of Israel. G’d says to Israel: “if you will give me your heart and your eyes, I will know that you are truly Mine. If not, you are not Mine.” The essence of all this is that the heart and the eyes are the true root which determines either our rapprochement to G’d or vice versa. They are the “brokers” of the sins We know this from Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 1,8: “proof that the heart and eyes are the “brokers” of sin is what the Torah writes in Numbers 15,39: “do not explore after your hearts and after your eyes which you tend to stray after.” The expression זונים , “straying,” is the same as זונה, a harlot, a woman who strays after men not her husband. By using this term the Torah makes it plain that whoever is motivated in his actions by the dominance of his heart or his eyes is equated with a harlot. He allows himself to be seduced by his evil urge, as does a harlot. When Solomon follows up in Proverbs 23,27 with “for a harlot is a deep pit, a forbidden (alien) woman is a narrow well,” he suggests that he who approaches the entrance of the house of a harlot will not escape the trap and damage which harlotry entails, just as someone who falls into a narrow well will not escape some damage. The same happens to anyone who gives in to the dictates of his hearts and eyes. The simile of the alien woman being compared to a narrow deep well means that even if the alien woman is not engaged in promiscuous sexual activity, the fact is that if someone has his eyes on that well (woman) all the time and draws water from it, it is in the nature of things that the water he draws will be replaced by other water, perpetuating the inquisitiveness of the person confronted with the narrow well. Solomon defines the allure of a woman as initially the making of conversation, שיחה, i.e. spelling the word שיחה (with the dot on the right side of the letter ש with a sin instead). Having engaged in conversation with such an alien woman, the next step is to look at her, followed by desiring her in one’s fantasies; this will eventually result in one’s touching such a woman, and the next step is the reversal of thesin again to a shin, i.e. שיחה, meaning “pit,” the pit of sin. Solomon wrote these two verses sequentially in order to drive home the point to the people that they should devote their hearts and eyes to the spiritual part of life, to G’d and not to the material part of life characterized by our cravings. It is these cravings, or rather our giving in to them, which result in people forfeiting both their life on earth and their hereafter. The brief enjoyment resulting from indulging one’s cravings is not worth what we have to give up in exchange. The Torah goes to great length in legislating against anything which could result in harlotry as the sexual promiscuity and perverseness of the Canaanites was proverbial. Even the army of the Jewish people had to maintain standards of sanctity in war, so much so that the Torah did not permit the converting of prisoners of war to Judaism (for the purpose of marriage) until after a whole string of special conditions had been met.

**כי תצא למלחמה על אויביך ונתנו ה' אלו-היך בידך ושבית שביו, “When you go into battle against your enemies and the Lord your G’d delivers him into your hand and you take as (its) prisoner.”**We would have expected the Torah to write ונתנם, “and He will deliver them into your hand,” instead of “and He will deliver him into your hands.” The Torah means that the defeat of your enemies will be so drastic as if they had all been only one man. Alternatively, the word ונתנו refers to the protective angel of the enemy nation in the celestial regions. The words ושבית שביו refer to the enemies here on earth.

אשת יפת תאר, “a woman of beautiful form.” The reason the Torah writes the word אשת i.e. the possessive form, is that even if the woman in question had been married already it is halachically permitted to marry her after proper conversion and marriage ritual; the reason is that sleeping with a Cannanite is not forbidden on account of her marital status which halachah does not recognize (Maimonides Hilchot Melachim 8,3). Her conversion is valid even if due to fear rather than a genuine love of Judaism.

והבאת אל תוך ביתך, “and you will bring her into your house.” Our sages teach, based on this verse, that the soldier must not rape this prisoner as an act of war, but must conduct relations with her on a basis of mutual consent in a private location. Only the first such sexual relation is permitted. Any subsequent sexual relations with the prisoner may only take place after she has converted and become the soldier’s wife. (compare Kidushin 21 and 22) This is what is meant by 23,15 ולא יראה בך ערות דבר, “He will not see a shameful thing among you.” The reason the Torah did permit the first sexual encounter with the Gentile prisoner prior to her conversion is an accommodation to the evil urge. The Torah, the master psychologist, recognized that if it did not make this concession to the infatuation of the soldier he would ignore the prohibition and not pay attention to all the other strictures imposed by the Torah in the next several verses either. This is why the Torah prefaced these rules with the words: “when you bring her to your house.” [According to this view,] the Torah assumes that prior to the soldier bringing his prisoner to his house he had not slept with her. He is now permitted to sleep with her once, after which all the details about the woman in question shaving her hair, cutting her nails, mourning her parents for a month, etc., all take effect. During this entire period her captor is not allowed to touch her. This is the reason why Tamar was legally permitted for Amnon son of David to marry, seeing that her mother Maachah had become pregnant by David from a sexual relation prior to her becoming converted so that she was not really a sister or half-sister to Amnon. This is why she had said to Amnon (Samuel II 13,13) “speak to the king; he will not refuse me to you.” Unless her mother had not been Jewish at the time she was conceived, how could she have made such a statement! (compare Sanhedrin 21). Technically, she was a בת כותית, Gentile, and our sages have ruled that “the son of your son born of a Gentile mother is not considered your son but her son” (Kidushin 68).

ובכתה את אביה ואת אמה ירח ימים, “and she shall weep for her father and mother for a month.” According to the plain meaning of the text there are a number of advantages in the Torah setting aside a whole month for this mourning period. 1) During this period the prisoner may observe the mourning rites of the Jewish people if she heard that father or mother had been killed during that war while she was still of prisoner status (i.e. not Jewish). Any normal human being, Jewish or not, is supposed to observe the commandment to honor father and mother both while they are alive and after they have died. 2) The Torah hopes that during the period of 30 days the infatuation of the Jewish soldier for his prisoner will cool, especially when he observes her daily without the benefit of makeup, etc., deprived of her hair, finger nails, etc. [Some say that the nails have to be allowed to grow. Ed.]. Being dressed in mourner’s clothing also does not add to her allure for her captor. When he observes the woman cry and generally deport herself as unhappy in her new environment the ardor of her soldier-suitor may evaporate and he may send her home. 3) During that period her pagan mannerisms and expressions may be uprooted and she will gradually forget her past and adjust to her new environment and the fact that she has found a future. She will learn to appreciate her good fortune compared to her compatriots and resolve to become a dutiful wife to her captor. She will then be ready to immerse herself in a ritual bath and recite the appropriate benediction accompanying her conversion. As to why the Torah does not make any mention of this immersion in a ritual bath, this may be explained by Numbers 31,19 where the immersion of the prisoners in a ritual bath has already been standardized.

A Midrashic approach found in the Sifri: the purpose of the line: “and she will weep for her father and mother,” is a reference to her saying good-bye to paganism. We find that pagan deities are referred to as “parents” in Jeremiah 2,27: “they say to wood and stone ‘you are my father, you have given birth to me.’” In Yevamot 48 Rabbi Akiva also said that these words refer to weeping for Avodah Zarah, the same verse in Jeremiah being quoted. I believe that the point the Midrash wanted to make was to account for the periodירח ימים a “lunar orbit.” This round number includes the various repetitive cycles. The sun orbits daily, the orbits of the seven fixed stars are counted in terms of each dominating one day of the week. The moon orbits in 30 days (approx.) All of these phenomena are reminiscent of one kind or another of idolatry based on celestial phenomena. The woman prisoner is given a month to divest herself of this philosophy. The word: “her father,” is a simile for the sun, whereas the word: “her mother,” is a simile for the moon. The word את each time includes the various stars-planets which also are part of these patterns of idolatry. According to this view, the woman has to observe this month of mourning and weeping even if her biological parents are known to be alive still. Her new status (impending) demands that she put a full stop to all previous connections with idolatry (including her biological parents). Seeing that as a member of the Gentile nations she had not been forbidden to acknowledge these intermediaries as her deities previously, she is allowed to take official leave of her former religion.

A rational approach (allegorical philosophy): This whole paragraph contains distinct allusions to the evil urge. It is this urge which causes man to sin on an ongoing basis and it usually approaches him in the guise of some irresistible female. This allure is employed by the evil urge to lure men into satiating their various cravings for the forbidden. When our sages in Kiddushin 21 said לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע, “that the Torah (in this paragraph) addressed specifically the danger of being seduced by the evil urge,” this is what they had in mind. They perceive the אשת יפת תאר as the personification of the evil urge. The Torah provides the antidote to the lure of the evil urge in the manner it suggests it be treated. One way of ridding oneself of it is that man strips the evil urge of his physical power which is represented by his hair (as we know from Samson). This is why the Torah commands that we shave off the hair of the יפת תאר. The word גלוח suggests destruction of the hair so that it does not grow back again. Prior to Adam’s sin, his clothing consisted of nails (a tough skin). When the Torah speaks about the אשת יפת תאר having to “do her nails,” this is an allusion to man’s objective to regain the status of Adam who wore “nails.” The contrast is the removal of the garments of the אשת יפת תאר, read: “evil urge. One is not to indulge in any of the pleasures of this world, unless they are specifically permitted, gratifying only those urges that are condoned by the Torah. The words וישבה בביתך, “she will sit in your house,” are a simile for keeping tight control of these urges just as one keeps control of everything under one’s roof. The way to accomplish all this is to first weaken the urges, i.e. to “weep for father and mother for a whole month.” Having sufficiently weakened these cravings, the words ואחר כן תבוא אליה apply, i.e. you may then gingerly make use of these urges provided it is within the framework of what is permissible under Torah law.

לא תתעמר בה, “you shall not enslave her.” The meaning of this word with the letter ע is the same as the similar sounding word with the letter א, i.e. תתאמר. We find the word in a similar meaning in Deut. 26,17: את ה' האמרת היום, “you have enslaved yourself to the Lord this day.” It is not unusual for the letters א and ע to be used interchangeably. Not only in scripture but also in the language of our sages are the letters ע and א used interchangeably such as in עריס or אריס, both being given as “tenant-farmer.” The prisoner who originally was captured for the sake of becoming the soldier’s wife must not be demoted to be treated as a slave in his household once his infatuation for her has waned. It is morally not acceptable This is a basic moral lesson the Torah teaches us here.

The next paragraph which describes a situation in the home of someone who has two wives one of whom he loves whereas he harbours hostile feelings towards the other, teaches that the Torah did not easily agree to permitting the אשת יפת תאר to the Jewish soldier, seeing it foresaw that introducing her into the soldier’s household was likely to result in friction in that home. Had it not been the Torah’s wish to help the soldier sublimate his carnal lust for that woman, the Torah would not have done so, seeing the chances that her husband will eventually hate such a woman are statistically quite high. Moreover, if he has a son from her, the chances that the son will become a delinquent (בן סורר ומורה), [even if not in the strictly halachic sense of the word. Ed.] are not insignificant. This is why the paragraph about such a delinquent follows in short order. We find that the Torah’s psychology was justified when we look at the life of King David (compare Tanchuma Ki Teytze 1). He had taken Maacha, the daughter of Talmai, the King of Geshur as one of his wives (Samuel II 3,3) after he had gone out to war against him. She bore Avshalom for David. Avshalom rebelled against his father and tried to kill him; he slept with David’s concubines. He murdered one of David’s sons, and generally became the focus of political strife in Israel and responsible for the death of tens of thousands of Israelites. The prophet Nathan was told to tell David that G’d would make evil arise against David out of his own house (Samuel II 12,11, see commentary by R' D. Kimchi). Another paragraph which is appended to the foregoing one because it is a warning, is verse 22 in which the procedure of preserving even the dignity of the body of someone who has been legally executed for a crime committed is discussed. The sequences of our passages in this chapter are reminiscent of Isaiah 24,18 where the prophet tells us that when one has managed to escape one kind of terror, one will find oneself entrapped by a different kind of trap. The sum total of the moral/ethical teaching of these verses is that even marriages which are permitted by the Torah are not necessarily suitable unions. The marriages to prisoners of war are a prime example of such unions. Even though the women in question have converted to Judaism, this is not considered a complete (ideal) conversion. It is assumed that the woman in question converted out of fear, i.e. physical fear of otherwise being executed. Even when someone volunteers to become a proselyte with no pressure from any causes which we can detect, the sages (Yevamot 47) have instructed the judges performing the conversion to carefully examine the prospective proselyte’s background to determine if he or she is converting for ulterior motives, i.e. not because of genuine religious conviction. Money, position, etc., may all be reasons which attract a Gentile to become Jewish. In the case of males more likely than not they have their eyes on a Jewish girl whom they wish to marry. Judaism is different from other religions which are soul-snatchers, missionary by definition. The reason is that we are a national religion, not one which wishes to embrace all of mankind. Some of the other religions, Islam in particular, are imbued with the fervor to ram their beliefs down the throats of people whom they perceive to be pagans. [In some editions the author refers to “two” religions, i.e. Christianity also. Ed.]. Sometimes all kinds of enticements, both material and spiritual, are offered to the potential convert in order to get him to embrace a particular new faith. This is what Daniel already prophesied about (Daniel 7,20) “and a mouth speaking haughty words.” Daniel 7,25 also deals with the same phenomenon describing efforts at converting others to one’s belief being made my leaders of religious cults. In Daniel 11,36 Daniel harps on the same subject once more. Once the prospective convert to Judaism has been checked out and no ulterior motives have been discovered which would make us doubt his sincerity, he is advised of the yoke of Torah legislation and what is implied by joining the Jewish people (Maimonides Hilchot Issurey Bi-ah 13,14). All of this is designed to make the prospective convert reconsider his plans to become Jewish. During the reign of David prospective converts were rejected as it was suspected that these converts were inspired by fear of the growing power of the Jewish state. In Solomon’s time they were also not accepted as it was suspected that they were motivated by the affluence and security offered by King Solomon’s empire (compare Maimonides Hilchot Issurey Bi-ah 13,14-15). Despite these rulings, there were many converts during the reign of David and Solomon, and once local courts had conducted such conversions and the converts had undergone ritual immersion the higher courts did not revoke these conversions. Although Solomon who married numerous women of pagan ancestry converted all them of them prior to marrying them, and Shimshon too did not marry until after the lady had been converted, seeing these conversions were due to ulterior motives, scripture continues to describe the women in question as if they had remained Gentiles and sleeping with them was forbidden. The outcome of these “marriages” testifies to the fact that they were flawed from the beginning. The Book of Kings accuses Solomon of building altars for the former deities his various foreign-born wives served, although he personally did nothing of the sort. The fact that he did not interfere with such goings on is placed at his doorstep (compare Kings I chapter 11). In view of all the above we can understand the statement of our sages in Yevamot 47 that converts are as serious a plague for the Jewish people as is the dreaded skin disease tzoraat. The reason for this attitude is that experience has shown that the majority of converts abandoned their former religion only because of material advantages to be attained by becoming Jewish. Not only that, these converts have a habit of leading natural born Jews astray. Once these people have become legal converts it is practically impossible to isolate them and to ostracize them. The first time such converts led the natural born Jews astray was during the episode of the golden calf, whereas a short time later the same thing occurred in Numbers 11,4 when a group of people described by the Torah as אספסף instigated the craving for meat as a result of which tens of thousands of Israelites died a miserable death. Sifri Behaalotcha 86 attributes all this to these converts. Time and again such fair-weather converts have become the bane of our people. Just as we learned from the order in which these last few paragraphs have been arranged that one sin brings in its wake another sin, we can learn from another sequence of paragraphs that one commandment meticulously observed will bring in its wake the fulfillment of other commandments. In 22,6 we read about the commandment to release a mother bird before taking her chicks, followed by the commandment to install a railing on the roof of a new house. Following this the Torah instructs us not to mix certain species of seed, etc., etc. The message is that once we observe one commandment it will be easier to observe other commandments.

כי יהיה לאיש בן סורר ומורה, “When a man has a son who is wayward and rebellious, etc.” The expression סורר is also found in Hoseah 4,16 כפרה סוררה, “like a wayward cow.” It refers to an animal which refuses to respond to training. The word מורה means to be rebellious with words and doing the reverse of what his father tells him.

Nachmanides writes: that this boy is guilty of being punished for two misdemeanours. 1) He ignored his father’s instructions thereby insulting him. 2) He stole wine and meat from his father and ate like a glutton and drank like drunkard. He violated the commandment to honour his father (Exodus 20,12), and he also violated the commandment to “be holy” (Leviticus 19,2). The meaning of “to be holy” is to abstain from indulging one’s cravings. Also, we are to endeavour to understand the ways of the Lord G’d in all His ways. Anyone who is a glutton and a drunkard has no idea of the Lord’s ways. Seeing that at this time the offenses committed by this boy are not deserving the death penalty, the Torah does not order him executed because of the severity of his sin but because it wants his death to serve as a warning to the community at large. This is the reason why the Torah adds: “all of Israel must hear about it and be afraid.” You find a similar verse after the Torah describes the execution of the rebellious elder, זקן ממרא. There, too, the offense committed by the man is certainly not a capital offense by itself. Seeing that his execution is of a deterrent nature for other potential dissident scholars, the Torah demands that the people all be informed of what happened. Dissent from recognized authority must be discouraged most emphatically once it exceeds the academic level and threatens the executive branch of the rule of law. A third instance where the Torah demands the widest publicity for an execution based on similar considerations are the עדים זוממים, witnesses who framed someone but who at the last moment have been found out. The facts to which they claimed to have testified have not actually been disproved but their evil intent makes them liable to such punishment that although their intended victim went free they must be made an example of. The same is true of the מסית, the person who tried to seduce family members into serving idols. He is not executed for a deed but merely for abuse of his tongue. Here too the Torah demands the widest publicity for his execution in order to deter others from ever engaging in such a crime.

ויסרו אותו, “and they shall discipline him.” They administer corporal punishment after having duly warned the guilty party of what is in store for him if he persists (Sanhedrin 71).

ותפשו בו אביו ואמו, “his father and his mother are to take hold of him, etc.” The procedure suggested by the Torah can be enacted only if both father and mother are willing to testify against their own son before the court. If either father or mother forgive their son, he goes free (Sanhedrin 88).

ואמרו אל זקני העיר בננו זה סורר ומורה, and they will say to the elders of the city: “this son of ours is wayward and rebellious.” At the beginning father and mother bring this child to a court composed of three judges. They produce two valid witnesses that he has stolen from his father and used the proceeds to buy meat and wine and that he has consumed same. The court sentences the boy to corporal punishment of 39 lashes if he had been duly warned. If he repeats the crime the parents take the boy to a tribunal of 23 judges who have authority to preside over capital offenses, and they bring their witnesses with them. His trial is then concluded and the boy will be stoned to death (Maimonides Hilchot Mamrim 7,7).

ורגמוהו כל אנשי עירו, “and all the men of his town will stone him, etc.;” in this verse the Torah tells us only of the penalty. Where did the Torah spell out the prohibition, i.e. the warning? After all, we have a principle that the death penalty by man can be enacted only if we have both the warning not to commit the sin in question as well as the penalty spelled out in the written Torah. The verse applicable is the warning not to eat something על הדם, “the result of which could be blood-guilt,” i.e. death by execution (Leviticus 19,26). No one other than the בן סורר ומורה is in line for execution for merely eating a forbidden meal. This is the meaning of the words זולל וסובא, that he ate meat to the value of 50 dinars in a ravenous manner, and washed it down with half a log of wine in the manner of drunkards.

A tradition going back to the time of the prophets teaches that the בן סורר ומורה is not guilty of the death penalty until he has stolen money from his father and spent it on the food and drink we just described and has eaten it outside the premises of his father in the company of other people all known to be useless members of society, and the meat he ate was half raw, partially cooked in the manner thieves who are in a hurry cook their meat. Also the wine must have been only partially diluted, i.e. show evidence that the person who drank it was in a great hurry, revealing that the person drinking it was unable to temper his craving. If, however, the son had obtained the father’s permission to consume this food, or he had stolen the money from someone other than his parents, or he ate the meat completely raw and drank undiluted wine, he is free from the penalty prescribed by the Torah. The reason is that this is a method which is most unlikely to become habitual. The son cannot always find strangers to steal from, etc. He can however, go on stealing from his father and indulge himself. The period during which the execution of a בן סורר ומורה is theoretically possible is only when he is between 13, and 13 years and 3 months old. (Compare most of the details mentioned in Maimonides Hilchot Mamrim chapter 7 and in Sanhedrin 70). This is based on the Torah writing: כי תהיה לאיש בן. This means that until the boy is at least of age (13) he is not subject to this penalty. At the same time, the Torah does not punish an adult son at the instigation of his father, seeing he is no longer under the authority of the father. Therefore the sages in Sanhedrin 69 accepted it as given that the Torah had in mind only a thirteen year old who had demonstrated proof of puberty and was not yet more than 3 months past that time. Once he had brought evidence of puberty he is fit to father children and the fetus which he helped conceive becomes visible after 3 months pregnancy of the potential mother. Seeing that the Torah wrote “when a man will have a son,” etc., this precludes someone already capable of being a father. The word בן also excludes בת, i.e. the legislation discussed here does not apply to females, to daughters. The reason is simply that girls are not in the habit of indulging such cravings for eating and drinking intoxicating liquids.

וכל ישראל ישמעו וייראו, “and the whole people of Israel shall hear and become afraid.” The judgment of such a wayward son would be proclaimed publicly throughout the country giving name, time, and place of the execution and the sin the execution was for (Maimonides Hilchot Mamrim 7,13). We have a Baraithah in Sanhedrin 71 according to which the execution of a בן סורר ומורה never occurred; similarly there was never such a thing as an עיר הנדחת, nor would there ever be either phenomenon. The Torah wrote the legislation for both as hypothetical scenarios only in order for the people studying them to accumulate the merit of having studied it. If that is so, we are entitled to ask why was it so important for the Torah to record such hypothetical legislation at all? However, this is part of the divine wisdom of the Torah to teach the people to what extent they must love G’d. There is no greater love than a father and a mother have for their son. If their son violates a commandment of G’d it is the usual practice of parents to excuse such behavior by their children as due to foolishness. If the Torah demands that parents overcome their love for their son and hand him over for the ultimate punishment because he violated a relatively minor rule of the invisible G’d, this is proof that these parents are truly devoted to Torah and G’d. This kind of obedience for G’d has already been demonstrated in practice by Avraham at the Akeidah when he had to demonstrate that he was ready to kill his son at G’d’s command, although Yitzchak had not been guilty of anything at all! Seeing that Avraham’s love for G’d was so absolute, exceeding his love for his only son, G’d described him as אברהם אוהבי. (Isaiah 41,8) After Avraham had done this his overriding love for G’d became world-famous. This is why the sages said concerning the hypothetical legislation involving execution of a wayward son at the instigation of his own parents that the purpose of the Torah is to make us study these laws and their moral implications. This is what I have heard from my teacher Rabbi Shlomo Aderet may he live long!

We must, however, contrast this with an opinion offered by Rabbi Yonathan on the same folio as the Baraitha we quoted. Rabbi Yonathan testifies that he personally had sat on the grave of a person who had been executed as a בן סורר ומורה, as well as on the site which had once been part of an עיר הנדחת. Either Rabbi Yonathan did not consider the Baraitha as authentic, or we would have to say that the grave of the בן סורר ומורה upon which Rabbi Yonathan sat was not that of a בן סורר ומורה in the precise meaning of the term, but that it was someone more like Avshalom, i.e. a wayward son who had indeed been executed, but for more serious crimes and at an older age.

לא תלין נבלתו על העץ, “Do not leave his body on the gallows overnight.” This is a warning that the body which was hanged after execution should not be allowed to remain on display overnight. Our sages used this verse to expand the law that a dead person should not remain unburied overnight (Sanhedrin 46). Sifri Ki Teytze states flatly that leaving a body unburied overnight is an infringement of the law not to leave the body of an executed person on the gallows overnight. It would be a double insult to leave man on the tree seeing the tree was meant in his honor, i.e. to provide the coffin for his body. Unless leaving the body overnight in order to supply it with shrouds, a coffin, etc., it would be an infringment of the law not to allow a dead corpse to remain unburied overnight. The general rule applicable to this commandment is that in the land of Israel if one leaves a person on the gallows overnight one has violated both a positive and a negative commandment. The negative commandment is spelled out here in the words לא תלין נבלתו על העץ, whereas the positive aspect of the commandment are the words כי קבור תקברנו ביום ההוא, “but you are surely to bury him on that day.” It seems to me that seeing Adam’s sin had been the cause that he did not spend the night in Gan Eden as we know from Psalms 49,13 אדם ביקר בל ילין, “Adam does not even spend a single night in the precious place” (as interpreted in Sanhedrin 38), man should not have qualified for all this consideration, but, on the contrary, his body deserved to be displayed overnight. The Torah teaches us with this legislation that despite such considerations it applies different yardsticks in its immeasurable wisdom as explained by the words כי קללת אלו-הים תלוי, “someone left hanging is a curse in the eyes of G’d.” According to the plain meaning of these words the implication is that it is proof that the person whose body has been hung must have blasphemed G’d the Creator, or he must have been guilty of serving idols. Otherwise he would not have been on display overnight. [Legally speaking, according to the majority opinion in Sanhedrin 45, only the body of a blasphemer was hung on the gallows for the balance of the day of his execution. Ed.]. We may therefore understand the word קללת as having a dual meaning, i.e. קללה, “curse,” and קלה, “treating lightly, as being of no value, belittling.” He who serves idols treats the Creator as if He were irrelevant. Our sages in Sanhedrin 46 describe a person when he is in a depressed state of mind as saying קל עלי עלמא, “the world is ‘light’ for me,” as really meaning that the world is too heavy for him, but he does not want to utter something that could be self-incriminating. Similarly, here. The Shechinah does not want to “incriminate“ itself. Therefore the Torah phrases this sentiment as if it were bemoaning its own fate, whereas in reality it is expressing its pain at the fate that befell one of its creatures. G’d experiences pain when man has to die. We know this already from Exodus 3,7 where G’d tells Moses concerning the pain experienced by the Jewish people כי ידעתי את מכאוביו, “for I am keenly aware of its pains.” Another verse testifying to this empathy of G’d with the pain of the Jewish people is found in Isaiah 63,9 בכל צרתם לו צר, “in all its troubles, G’d is troubled.” We have to understand the words קללת אלו-הים in a similar fashion, describing G’d’s empathy with this particular individual’s fate. The Talmud in Sanhedrin raises questions against the peculiar wording saying that if indeed this is the correct interpretation the Torah should have written קלת instead of קללת. The answer given is that the reason the Torah wrote the extra letter ל was to give the word both meanings (as we already mentioned) .

Ibn Ezra writes that the words קללת אלו-הים תלוי mean that any area adjacent to the body on the gallows will be a source of negative fallout for anyone coming into contact with it so that the sooner the body is removed the safer the area will be for people. G’d uses the body to disseminate these negative vibes, poisons, etc. Furthermore, writes Ibn Ezra, there is a mystical element attached to the life-force of a person (נפש) which causes infection? This is the reason why the dead cause ritual impurity. And this is why the Torah writes that we must not cause such impurity in our land by allowing corpses to remain above ground overnight. [In other words, the legislation is less for the sake of the body of the sinner who has been executed, than for preserving the land of Israel in its purity. Ed.].

A Midrashic approach based on Sanhedrin 46: This can be compared to two brothers who were very much alike. One of them became king, whereas his brother was caught as a robber and hung. Seeing that they look so much alike, passers-by seeing the hung body will think that the king had been hung.

A Kabbalistic approach: the meaning of the verse and the parable mentioned in the Midrash is that the “king” described there represents the attribute כבוד, better known as צלם אלו-הים, “the image of G’d.” In other words, the “image” is separate from the essence, i.e. it is an עבד אלו-הים, “a subsidiary of the Lord.” Seeing that the body hung on the gallows was someone symbolizing this צלם אלו-הים, he would become a קללת אלו-הים a provocation to the negative side of Elohim, unless buried on the day he was executed and not left there till night time which is the domain of the attribute of Justice; it is presumed therefore from the wording of the Torah that leaving he body there only during the day would not provoke the attribute of Justice.