AND THE ELDERS OF THAT CITY SHALL BRING DOWN THE HEIFER UNTO A VALLEY ‘EITHAN’ — “which is ‘hard,’ one that has never been tilled.” This is Rashi’s language. And our Rabbis have said³⁶³ that the field becomes forbidden from ever being tilled or sown. If so, [the words which is neither tilled nor sown]³⁶⁴ are admonitions that he who sows or cultivates [a rough valley in which a heifer’s neck has been broken] transgresses this negative commandment. The meaning of the verse is thus that the elders should take forth the heifer to [what will forever become] “a rough valley” because it will never again be tilled or sown. The meaning of the expression And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near³⁶⁵ is in order to recite Forgive, O Eternal, Thy people Israel, whom Thou hast redeemed etc.³⁶⁶ And the purport of the verses is as follows: *And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near;*³⁶⁵ *and all the elders of that city, who are nearest unto the slain man, shall wash their hands;*³⁶⁷ *and they shall speak and say: ‘Our hands have not shed this blood.’*³⁶⁸ The washing of hands is to be done only by some of the [elders] mentioned; so also their speaking [‘Our hands have not shed etc.’] is done by some of them, similar to what is stated, And thou shalt eat before the Eternal thy G-d etc. the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herd etc.³⁶⁹ [meaning “he who is fit to eat,” for it cannot mean that all are to eat, for the Second Tithe may be eaten by all ritually clean Israelites, while the firstlings are eaten only by the priests; here, too, the washing of hands and speaking are done only by some, but not all, of the elders]. Now on the matter of breaking the heifer’s neck Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained³⁶⁸ that G-d commanded it to be done for the city which is nearest unto the slain man³⁷⁰ because had they not committed a similar sin, it would not have happened that a man be killed near them, and G-d’s thoughts are infinitely profound to us. But the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said in the Moreh Nebuchim³⁷¹ that the reason for the breaking of the heifer’s neck is to discover the murderer and to cleanse [the guilt for the innocent] blood. In most cases the murderer comes from the place which is round about him that is slain,³⁷² and when the elders go out and engage in the measuring of the cities, and the elders of the nearest city then bear witness before the Creator that they were not negligent in maintaining and guarding the roads, and that they do not know who killed this man, and as the matter is investigated, the elders gather and bring the heifer, people increasingly speak about it. Then perhaps the matter [of the murderer’s identity] will be solved. The Rabbis have already said³⁷³ that even if a maidservant comes and declares that a certain person committed the murder, the heifer is not killed [despite the fact that such testimony is not sufficient to convict]. And if the murderer is known and they are silent about him, yet call upon the Creator as their witness that they do not know him, this would be a great wickedness, and whoever knows the slightest thing about it will come and tell. Thus it [the murderer’s identity] will become public knowledge, and he will be killed either through the court, or the king, or the avenger of the blood. This law receives added force because the place in which the heifer’s neck is broken may never be tilled or sown. Those who see [the field] recognize it and discuss it. [Thus far are the words of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon.] Hence according to this reason there is a benefit in this rite. But the act [i.e., the breaking of the heifer’s neck] is not a pleasing one in itself and it would have been more fitting that it be done in a good field fit for sowing that could be recognized by those who see it, for in “a hard valley,” the reason for not being tilled, will not be obvious [because people will assume that it is left barren due to its stony ground]! In my opinion the reason for it is similar to that of the offerings which are done outside [of the Sanctuary Court], such as the goat sent [to Azazel]³⁷⁴ and the Red Heifer.³⁷⁵ Therefore the Rabbis have counted³⁷⁶ the commandment of breaking the heifer’s neck among the chukim [“the statutes” — the class of commandments for which we do not know the reasons]. Ki Theitzei

footnotes: ³⁶³ Sotah 46b. ³⁶⁴ In Verse 4 before us. ³⁶⁵ Verse 5. ³⁶⁶ Verse 8. ³⁶⁵ Verse 5. ³⁶⁷ Verse 6. ³⁶⁸ Verse 7. ³⁶⁹ Above, 14:23. ³⁶⁸ Verse 7. ³⁷⁰ Verse 3. ³⁷¹ Guide of the Perplexed III, 40. Ramban follows Al Charizi’s translation. In Ibn Tibbon’s text the wording is quite different. ³⁷² Verse 2. ³⁷³ Yerushalmi Sotah IX, 1. ³⁷⁴ Leviticus 16:22 and 26. ³⁷⁵ Numbers 19:3. ³⁷⁶ This is so counted by Rambam, at the end of Hilchoth Me’ilah. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 440, Note 23.

A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN. Scripture speaks of the common case. And in the Sifre it is stated:¹ 211. “Whence do we know that [the same law applies] even if she be ugly? From what Scripture states, and thou desirest her — even though she is not beautiful.” And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “A beautiful woman — in his eyes.” Thus the expression [a beautiful woman] is connected with [the first word in the verse] ‘v’ra’itha’ (and thou seest).². Ramban thus points out that, according to Ibn Ezra’s interpretation, the verse means to say: “and thou seest a beautiful woman among the captives,” for the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. She may actually be ugly. Scripture mentions and thou desirest her, denoting that he is not to permit her to himself except because of lust — when his impulse overpowers him. However, if he discovers within himself that he has no lust for cohabitation with her, but he wants just to take a wife, he should not marry her. Thus the Rabbis have said in the Sifre:³ 212. “And thou wouldest take her to thee to wife. You are not to say, ‘This one is for [my] father, that one for my brother.’” And in the Gemara⁴ we find that he is not to take two women — one for his son and one for himself, or one for his father and one for himself. Now the prohibition against taking one for his son [or for his father] applies even to her alone [i.e., if he has not taken one for himself].

footnotes: ¹ Sifre, Ki Theitzei ² The verse reads: And thou seest among the captives a beautiful woman ³ Sifre, Ki Theitzei ⁴ Kiddushin 22a.

V’ASETHAH’ HER NAILS. “She shall ‘let them grow,’ [the reason being] that she should become repulsive.” This is Rashi’s language which accords with the words of Rabbi Akiba,³ 212. and so did Onkelos explain it [“and she shall let her nails grow”]. Now, according to their opinion the word v’asethah will be like ‘v’asath’ (and it shall bring forth) the produce,⁵ for “growth” is termed asiyah (doing). But in the Sifre³ 212. there is stated a proof to the words of Rabbi Eliezer [who explains ‘v’asethah’ her nails — and “she shall cut” her nails] from the following verse, and he [Mephibosheth] had neither ‘asah’ (dressed) his feet [i.e., cut the nails] nor ‘asah’ (trimmed) his beard.⁶ And this is indeed a great proof! Therefore I say that these are all regulations of mourning, all connected with the expression, and she shall bewail her father and mother.⁷ Thus he commanded that she shall shave her head,⁸ similar to what is written of Job [when he heard of the death of his children], and he shaved his head,⁹ and so also, cut off thy hair, [and cast it away, and take up a lamentation].¹⁰ So, too, the cutting of nails is a form of mourning like the shaving of the head. He states, and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her,⁷ that is to say, she shall don the garments of mourning, and she shall remain in thy house⁷ like a widow and not go outside at all, and she shall bewail her father and her mother,⁷ doing all this a full month, for such is the custom of mourners. And in the opinion of our Rabbis¹¹ 213. who say that all [these regulations] were intended to mar her beauty [the sense of the verses is as follows]: He commanded that she remove her beautiful garments, for [among] the heathens — accursed ones — their daughters adorned themselves in wartime in order to entice [the enemy] after them. She is to shave her head, which is considered a great disgrace, and pare her nails, for the custom of women is to let them grow and paint them with forms of stibium or other tints. And Scripture denotes the paring of a thing with the term asiah [“making” — ‘v’asethah’ her nails] because people cut the hair of the legs and the upper lip, as well as the nails when they grow [thus “making” and putting them in order]. It appears to me that [the term asiah in this connection] is an abbreviated expression, [Scripture] being accustomed to speak briefly concerning a self-evident matter. The sense of the verse, and he had neither ‘asah’ his feet nor ‘asah’ his beard⁶ is that he [Mephibosheth] had not “done” what was appropriate to be done to them, alluding to the shaving of the hair on the legs and the beard, or to the washing of the feet themselves. Such also is the opinion of Yonathan ben Uziel who rendered the verse, “he did not wash his feet nor trim his beard.” So also ‘v’asethah’ her nails means “and she shall do that which is done with the nails “[i.e., paring them]. And the commentators¹² have said that the meaning of the term asiah is “setting in order.” And such is the meaning of the expression, and he hastened ‘la’asoth’ (to dress) it.¹³ And the reason for this section [i.e. of all these regulations] is that she is converted against her will, and no one asks her whether she is willing to abandon her religion and become Jewish as is [customarily] done with proselytes. Instead, the [future] husband tells her that she must observe the law of Israel against her will and abandon her gods. This is the reason for the verse, and she shall bewail her father and her mother a full month,⁷ because she abandons her people and her gods.¹⁴ This is the interpretation of Rabbi Akiba¹⁵ 213 and Yebamoth 48b. who says that her father means only the idols, similar to what is said, They say to a stock, ‘thou art my father,’ and to a stone, ‘thou hast brought us forth.’¹⁶ In general, then, she is mourning because she is leaving her religion and joining another people. It is possible that the court imposes upon her to undergo immersion [in a ritual pool for the purpose of conversion] against her will just as is done with [Canaanite] bondmen,¹⁷ and because she does not convert to Judaism through the normal procedure, Scripture removed her [from her master] all this time. Now, the reason for [her] mourning and bewailing [which Scripture commanded] according to the opinion of our Rabbis¹⁵ 213 and Yebamoth 48b. is in order that she should become repulsive, so that his desire for her may wane. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that the Torah assigned her a period [of mourning] in accordance with the custom of those who weep for the dead in honor of her father and her mother who died in the battle. And the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim¹⁸ that this regulation was out of compassion for her, that she find comfort for herself, for those in misery find comfort and calm in their weeping and mourning, and during that time he must not force her to leave her religion, nor may he cohabit with her. In my opinion this respite is not primarily intended to show compassion for her, but to eliminate the names of idols from her mouth and her heart. The wandering away and separation from her father and her mother and her people will further “quench the coal,”¹⁹ for it is improper to cohabit with a woman who is coerced and in mourning. This is similar to the case our Rabbis, of blessed memory, have mentioned²⁰ with respect to illegitimates, “children born of a wife whose husband has decided to divorce her,” and surely of this captive woman who cries out in her heart to her gods to save her and bring her back unto her people and unto her gods.²¹ Thus when they inform her that we will force her to give up her people and her native land, and convert to Judaism, we must tell her, “Be comforted for thy father and thy mother, and the land of thy nativity²², 2:11. whom ye shall not see any more, forever,²³ but, instead, be your master’s wife,²⁴ in accordance with the law of Moses and Jewish custom.”²⁵ Then we are to give her a time for weeping and mourning as is the way of mourners in order to assuage her sorrow and her longing, for in all sorrow there is profit²⁶ and consolation afterwards. Now, during that time she has pondered in her mind about the conversion, and has partly eradicated from her heart her idols, people, and native land, she has consoled herself for them and has attached herself to this man to whom she knows she will become [a wife] and has become accustomed to him. Therefore Scripture states, and thou shalt bring her to thy house,⁸ which the Rabbis have interpreted:³ 212. “To thy house — and not to the house of another person.” Similarly, and she shall remain in thy house⁷ meaning that all this time she is to stay in the house which he uses, [for the reason that] perhaps she will desire and consent to [marry] him.²⁷ And in general, all these regulations are on account of the compulsion, but if she voluntarily expresses a desire to be legally converted by the court, she is immediately permitted to him, or even to his father or his brother. And thus the Rabbis have said in the Chapter Hacholeitz:²⁸.” — Yebamoth 47b. “And she shall bewail her father and her mother a full month.⁷ This applies only if she did not take it upon herself [to be converted,] but if she took it upon herself, she undergoes immersion and is permitted immediately.” It is possible that with all prisoners of war we are to act according to this law [even if she wishes to convert], because she might express her desire to be converted [at once] out of fear [of the regulations mentioned in this section. Therefore, we must question the sincerity of her expressed desire to convert]. He states, And it shall be, if thou have no desire for her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will,²⁹ meaning that she may do as she wishes and we must not force her to observe the law of Moses and Jewish custom. For, if she converts voluntarily we may compel her to observe the Torah, and if she profanes the Sabbath [by doing forbidden work thereon] she is to be stoned, and if she eats swine’s flesh she is to be scourged, as is the law of an apostate Israelite.³⁰ Moreover, if she herself confessed that the conversion was not coerced, we may not let her go as she wishes, for even if we suspect that her conversion was due to fear, her status is that of a true Israelite woman, for we have already decided the law³¹ that all [who are converted whether out of fear or gain] have the status of proselytes.

footnotes: ³ Sifre, Ki Theitzei ⁵ Leviticus 25:21. ³ Sifre, Ki Theitzei ⁶ II Samuel 19:25. ⁷ Verse 13. ⁸ In Verse 12 before us. ⁹ Job 1:20. ¹⁰ Jeremiah 7:29. ⁷ Verse 13. ⁷ Verse 13. ⁷ Verse 13. ¹¹ Sifre, Ki Theitzei ⁶ II Samuel 19:25. ¹² Ibn Ezra [on the verse before us] and Rashi on the verse in II Samuel 19:25. ¹³ Genesis 18:7. ⁷ Verse 13. ¹⁴ See Ruth 1:15. ¹⁵ Sifre, Ki Theitzei ¹⁶ Jeremiah 2:27. ¹⁷ A Canaanite bondman sold to an Israelite had to undergo circumcision and immersion, and he was obligated in the observance of certain commandments. When liberated he assumed the status of a full-fledged Israelite. ¹⁵ Sifre, Ki Theitzei ¹⁸ Guide of the Perplexed III, 41 (at the end). ¹⁹ See II Samuel 14:7. I.e., the extinguishing of the hope. ²⁰ Nedarim 20b. See also Rashbam in Pesachim 112a (at end of page) that children born of such a union are tantamount to being illegitimate although legally they are not so considered. ²¹ Ruth 1:15. ²² Ibid. ²³ Exodus 14:13. ²⁴ See Genesis 24:51. ²⁵ Kethuboth 72a. ²⁶ Proverbs 14:23. ⁸ In Verse 12 before us. ³ Sifre, Ki Theitzei ⁷ Verse 13. ²⁷ One cannot help but express a deep reverence for the compassionate interpretation Ramban has given to this section. ²⁸ “If a man submits to Chalitzah ⁷ Verse 13. ²⁹ Verse 14. ³⁰ See Vol. II, p. 160. ³¹ Yebamoth 24b.

AND AFTER THAT THOU MAYEST COME UNTO HER, AND BE HER HUSBAND. The Rabbis have commented in the Sifre:¹⁵ 213 and Yebamoth 48b. “You have no privilege in her except cohabitation.” By this the Rabbis meant to say that betrothal with money or a writ³² is not binding on her. Even the cohabitation is not for the purpose of betrothal, since her status is still that of an idolatress upon whom betrothal is not binding; however, Scripture permitted him to cohabit with her.³³ And because Scripture states [at the expiration of the thirty-day mourning period], and she shall be thy wife,³⁴ it indicates that she becomes his real wife, and if she commits adultery while living with him, she is to be tried as a married woman. Thus the Rabbis have said in the Gemara of Tractate Kiddushin:³⁵ “And thou wouldest take her to thee to wife.³⁶ You have possession of her [through legal marriage],” that is, after following these regulations. And in the Sifre the Rabbis have said,¹⁵ 213 and Yebamoth 48b. “And she shall be thy wife,³⁴ similar to what is stated, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, he shall not diminish.”³⁷ If so, she is his wife in all respects seeing that the Torah gave him possession of her. And in line with the simple meaning of Scripture it appears that he is prohibited from cohabiting with her at all until after he has gone through this entire procedure, this being the sense of the expression, and after that thou mayest come unto her, and be her husband. And that which Scripture stated, and thou desirest her, and thou wouldest take her to thee to wife,³⁶ means that he would take her for his wife after [complying with] all these regulations which it will command. Similarly, so that I took her to be my wife³⁸ [means that Pharaoh took her to his house to be his wife]. However, in the Gemara of Tractate Kiddushin³⁹ the Rabbis have said that he is permitted to engage in the first cohabitation [even before the procedure prescribed in this section], this being the sense of the expression, and thou wouldest take her to thee to wife.³⁶ They interpreted the expression, “And thou shalt bring her home to thy house⁴⁰ — this teaches that he is not to coerce her during battle.” The Rabbis connected it with the verse above, and thou wouldest take her to thee to wife [stated in Verse 11] meaning, when thou shalt bring her home to thy house [Verse 12]. Thus he takes her captive in battle and brings her to his home and to his city, and he cohabits with her in order to bring his lustful heart under control,⁴¹ and after his first cohabitation she is prohibited to him until he follows through the entire procedure with her. This is the way of the Gemara in many places. But I have seen in the Yerushalmi of Tractate Sanhedrin:⁴² “Rabbi Yochanan sent to the Rabbis there [in Babylon],⁴³ in the Land of Israel during the generation following the death of Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi, redactor of the Mishnah. His contemporary in Babylon was Rav, leader of the Academy of Sura. ‘You say two things in the name of Rav which are not so. You say in the name of Rav, a beautiful woman was permitted only for the first cohabitation [prior to the prescribed procedure].’ And I say neither the first cohabitation nor the second is permitted save only after [complying with] all these regulations, [for it is written], and after that thou mayest come unto her, and be her husband — after she has gone through all these prescribed deeds.” And this is the plain sense of the verse.

footnotes: ¹⁵ Sifre, Ki Theitzei ³² This is a document stating. “Be thou betrothed to me,” and if he delivers it to her in the presence of two witnesses, she becomes his lawful wife. Thus, a legally permitted betrothal may be performed by one of those three means: money, a writ, or intercourse (Kiddushin 2a). ³³ Thus, if she refused voluntary conversion at the expiration of the thirty-day mourning period, explained in the preceding verse, she is not legally bound to the man who cohabited with her. ³⁴ In Verse 13 before us. ³⁵ Kiddushin 22a. ³⁶ Verse 11. ¹⁵ Sifre, Ki Theitzei ³⁴ In Verse 13 before us. ³⁷ Exodus 21:10. ³⁶ Verse 11. ³⁸ Genesis 12:19. ³⁹ Kiddushin 21b. ³⁶ Verse 11. ⁴⁰ Verse 12. ⁴¹ See Ezekiel 6:9. ⁴² In our text of the Yerushalmi it is found in Makkoth II, 6. ⁴³ Rabbi Yochanan was the leading Rabbi of Amoraim

[AND IT SHALL BE, IF THOU HAVE NO DESIRE FOR HER,] THEN THOU SHALT LET HER GO WHITHER SHE WILL. The Rabbis have said thereon in the Sifre:⁴⁴ 214. “But not to her fathers’ house.” Now, I do not know whether the intent thereof is to state that she is a Jewess and that we do not allow her to leave the law of Israel and go back unto her people, and unto her gods,²¹ or whether it means to state that he is not to send her to her father’s house with attendants, for in that case he would be assisting those who commit a transgression. Instead he is to send her out of his house to sojourn wherever she could find a place,⁴⁵ for perhaps she will remain in the Land and follow the young men⁴⁶ and be married to one of them. Now, since Scripture states that he is to let her go where she pleases, and warns that he not sell her for money and that he not treat her as a slave,⁴⁷ we deduce that she needs no divorce from him. Rather, Scripture considered her to be a married woman as long as she was with him; when he hates her he may send her away like a rape victim.⁴⁸ It is possible that the sense of the verse is to state that, if he cohabits with her and desires her, she shall become his wife. If he cohabits with her, however, and she is not enticing to him and he does not desire her, similar to the affair of Amnon with Tamar,⁴⁹ he must let her go where she pleases, everything depending upon this cohabitation. For, if after he cohabited with her [the first time] she tarried with him for days and he cohabited with her, and then changes his attitude and hates her, like a man who hates his wife, she had already become his wife, and thus she is Jewish and can be sent away only with a bill of divorce.⁵⁰

footnotes: ⁴⁴ Sifre, Ki Theitzei ²¹ Ruth 1:15. ⁴⁵ Judges 17:8. ⁴⁶ Ruth 3:10. ⁴⁷ In Verse 14 before us. ⁴⁸ Thus the question raised by Ramban at the beginning of this section [whether she is considered a Jewess or not — see text] is resolved in favor of the second alternative: she is not considered a Jewess, and is not required to be released from him by a divorce. ⁴⁹ II Samuel 13:15. ⁵⁰ Further, 24:1.

THOU SHALT NOT ‘THITH’AMEIR’ (DEAL AS A SLAVE) WITH HER. This is like the expression ‘v’hith’amer’ (and he deal with him as a slave), and sell him.⁵¹, Verse 7. Onkelos in both cases rendered it as an expression of “trading,” and our Rabbis in the Sifre⁴⁴ 214. and in the Gemara⁵² explained it as a term of “serving.” Thus it is an express negative commandment⁵³ against making any use of her as a bondmaid, and if he did put her to such service he is to be scourged. It appears to me in line with the simple meaning of Scripture that thou shalt not ‘thith’ameir’ [spelled with an a’yin] is like “thou shalt not thith’ameir” [spelled with an aleph], as in the expression, all the workers of iniquity ‘yith’amru’ (bear themselves loftily).⁵⁴ is spelled with an aleph. So also, Thou hast ‘he’emarta’ (acknowledged) *the Eternal this day;*⁵⁵ is written with an aleph. and in their splendor ‘thith’yamaru’ (you shall gain grandeur)⁵⁶ — exchanging the aleph for a yod — are all expressions of exaltedness and greatness. ‘He’emarta’ the Eternal this day⁵⁵ is written with an aleph. means that “you have exalted and magnified Him to be thy G-d.”⁵⁵ is written with an aleph. And the Eternal ‘he’emircha’ this day⁵⁷ is written with an aleph. means that “He exalted and magnified you above all peoples to be His own treasure.”⁵⁷ is written with an aleph. All of these expressions are derived from the phrase in the top ‘amir’ (of the uppermost bough).⁵⁸ is written with an aleph. Thus the verse here states, Do not exalt yourself nor magnify yourself, by acting as her master to sell her or to use her as a bondmaid. Similarly in Arabic they call a master amir. And the usage of the a’yin and the aleph is often identical in the [Sacred] Language. ‘Peda’eihu’ (deliver him) from going down the pit⁵⁹ [the word peda’eihu spelled with an a’yin] is like peda’eihu [spelled with an aleph — “deliver him”], as I have explained with reference to the word petha (suddenly).⁶⁰ So also, cherubim of ‘tza’atzuim’ work⁶¹ [written with an a’yin] is like [the same word spelled] with an aleph, from the word *‘hatze’etzaim v’hatzfioth’*⁶² meaning “the sons and the daughters,” for [Onkelos] translated the Hebrew word keruvim (cherubim) as k’ruvaya⁶³ [“like children” — and hence cherubim of ‘tza’atzuim’ work⁶¹ written with an a’yin is identical to the same word written with an aleph, thus meaning “work in the image of children”]. And in the language of the Sages [the a’yin and aleph] are used interchangeably, such as: omdoth (appraised) written with an a’yin, and omdoth written with an aleph;⁶⁴ beki’in (experts) written with an aleph, and beki’in written with an *a’yin;*⁶⁵ adin (yet) written with an a’yin and adin written with an aleph;⁶⁶, Note 67. orchei (advocates) who advise their clients on how to plead before the judges,⁶⁷ written with an a’yin and archi (a court)⁶⁸ written with an aleph; aris⁶⁹ (a share cropper) written with an a’yin and aris written with an aleph. And we are taught [in the Mishnah]:⁷⁰ “Milk enough for gmiah [“a gulp” — if enough milk for one gulp was taken from one domain to another on the Sabbath, whoever took it is culpable]. And in the Gemara⁷¹, 77a. they asked: “Is the word gmiah written with an a’yin or an aleph, and the Rabbis resolved it by quoting the verse, ‘hagmi’ini’ (give me to drink), I pray thee, a little water⁷² [the word hagmi’ini written with an aleph] and yet they use the same term m’gama (taking a drought) written with an a’yin, such as: “[If his teeth pain him he should not] quaff vinegar through his teeth and spit it out but m’gameia (he may take a quaff) and swallow it” [the word m’gameia written with an a’yin]. And in the Mishnah of Tractate Keilim in the Tosephta⁷³ thereof we are taught⁷⁴ concerning a mardeia (the handle of the plough) written with an aleph⁷⁵. in place of mardeia written with an a’yin. Thus the Rabbis were not at all concerned about interchanging these two letters [the aleph and the a’yin], and so also in many places. Now, Rashi wrote: “Thou shalt not ‘thith’ameir’ with her — you shall not use her as a slave. In the Persian language, work and service are termed amirah. I have learned this from the work of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher.”⁷⁶ This is true, for I have seen in the Yerushalmi in [Tractate Shabbath] Chapter “Rabbi Akiba said”⁷⁷ and in [Tractate Abodah Zarah] Chapter “All Images”⁷⁸ the following text: “There [in Babylon] they call a good worker amira.” It is also commonly used in the Aramaic language, as is written in the Scroll of Susanna:⁷⁹, another of the books of the Apocrypha. In our version of the Apocrypha the text referred to here by Ramban is found, with changes, in Judith 1:8. “And the king of Assyria sent to all amira (servants) of Nineveh and to all d’amrin (who serve) on the sea coast, and to the servant of Carmel and Gilead [to come with him to the war], but all the servants of the land disregarded the commandment of Nebuchadnezzar and they were not afraid of him.” So also in many places of that book the inhabitants of a land are called “amurei of the land,” meaning those who are servants to the land and make use thereof. Or it may mean that the king of Assyria commanded the soldiers, these being called “the servants of the land,” for they are subject to the king to go with him in his wars, and they are his soldiers and his horsemen, similar to the expressions: *they ‘served’ Chedorlaomer;*⁸⁰ and many nations shall ‘serve’ him.⁸¹

footnotes: ⁵¹ Ibid. ⁴⁴ Sifre, Ki Theitzei ⁵² Sanhedrin 88b. ⁵³ See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 249-250. ⁵⁴ Psalms 94:4. The word yith’amru ⁵⁵ Further, 26:17. He’emarta ⁵⁶ Isaiah 61:6. ⁵⁵ Further, 26:17. He’emarta ⁵⁵ Further, 26:17. He’emarta ⁵⁷ Further, 26:18. He’emircha ⁵⁷ Further, 26:18. He’emircha ⁵⁸ Isaiah 17:6. Amir ⁵⁹ Job 33:24. ⁶⁰ Numbers 12:4. ⁶¹ II Chronicles 3:10. ⁶² Isaiah 22:24. ⁶³ Genesis 3:24. See also Vol. II, p. 450. ⁶¹ II Chronicles 3:10. ⁶⁴ Yerushalmi Nazir, end of Chapter IX. Both usages are found there. — See my Hebrew commentary, p. 444, Note 65. ⁶⁵ See my Hebrew commentary p. 444, Note 66. ⁶⁶ See ibid. ⁶⁷ Aboth 1:8. ⁶⁸ Kiddushin 76a. ⁶⁹ See my Hebrew commentary p. 444, Note 69. ⁷⁰ Shabbath 76b. ⁷¹ Ibid. ⁷² Genesis 24:17. ⁷³ See Vol. III, p. 179, Note 124. ⁷⁴ Tosephta Keilim Baba Bathra 3:5. ⁷⁵ In our version of the Tosephta, though it is written with an a’yin ⁷⁶ See Vol. IV, p. 62, Note 146. ⁷⁷ Yerushalmi Shabbath IX, 1. ⁷⁸ Yerushalmi Abodah Zarah III, 6. It is not found there in our text of the Yerushalmi. ⁷⁹ One of the books of the Apocrypha. See in Ramban’s Introduction to the Commentary on the Torah (Vol. I, p. 12) where he refers to The Great Wisdom of Solomon ⁸⁰ Genesis 14:4. ⁸¹ Jeremiah 27:7.

BECAUSE THOU HAST HUMBLED HER. The Rabbis interpreted it in the Sifre:⁴⁴ 214. “Even after a single act.” This coincides with what we have mentioned that the Rabbis are of the opinion that he is permitted to engage in the first cohabitation with her as soon as he brings her to his home. From that moment on he is admonished against using her [as a slave] and against selling her.

footnotes: ⁴⁴ Sifre, Ki Theitzei

LO YUCHAL’ [literally: “he could not” but rendered: HE MAY NOT] DECLARE THE SON OF THE BELOVED FIRSTBORN. This is an admonition⁸² against doing so. Likewise are all such verses as: ‘Lo thuchal’ (thou mayest not) eat within thy gates etc.;⁸³ ‘lo thuchal’ (thou mayest not) put a foreigner over thee.⁸⁴, 17:15. And in all these cases, Onkelos translates “you have no right” [which proves that the verse before us, too, constitutes an admonition], and the purport of these expressions is, “you could not allow yourself the possibility of doing so,” emphasizing the importance of the admonitions. Similarly, But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion⁸⁵ constitutes a positive commandment that he bequeath a double portion to the firstborn. Thus he who equalizes the firstborn with his brothers [i.e., he assigns him a share equal to theirs] violates both a negative commandment and a positive commandment, even though his words are not legally valid. He surely violates both [commandments] if, knowing he [the son of the hated one] is the firstborn, and did not wish to make it known that he is the firstborn and claimed that he is an ordinary son and caused him to inherit like any one of his sons. Now, these are newly-declared commandments. And from that which Scripture states [he may not declare the son of the beloved firstborn] in the face of the firstborn, the son of the hated it would appear to me that this commandment and this law are binding only during the lifetime of the firstborn. But, if the firstborn died during the life of his father, even though he [the deceased son] inherits his share as the firstborn in the grave and bequeathes it by law to his children, yet if the father wished [to deviate] and said, “My sons shall inherit such-and-such of my belongings, and the children of my [late] son, the firstborn, shall take such-and-such of my belongings,” his instructions are valid just as they would be valid in a case where there is no firstborn son. Similarly, the father would not be violating this negative commandment if he did not acknowledge the firstborn son only after his death, for I have never found the expression ‘al pnei’ (in the face of) except with reference to the living, such as: ‘al pnei’ (in the presence of) *Aaron their father;*⁸⁶ ‘al pnei’ (in the presence of) his father Terah,⁸⁷ and similarly all such expressions. [Therefore, in this case, since it states that the father may not do it ‘al pnei’ the firstborn of the hated, it follows that the prohibition is binding only during the lifetime of the firstborn and that the father had acknowledged him as such.].

footnotes: ⁸² Since Rambam did not enumerate it in his Sefer Hamitzvoth as a separate negative commandment, because he included it as part of the specific laws relating to the commandment of inheritance, Ramban points out that, in his opinion, it is to be considered as a separate prohibition. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 336, Commandment 12. In the following two cases Rambam also admits that they are to be counted as separate commandments. ⁸³ Above, 12:17. Literally: “thou couldst not.” So also in the following verse. ⁸⁴ Ibid. ⁸⁵ Verse 17. ⁸⁶ Numbers 3:4. ⁸⁷ Genesis 11:28.

A STUBBORN AND REBELLIOUS SON. In the opinion of our Rabbis⁸⁸ he is not a minor, for a minor is not subject to any punishments ordained by the Torah or to [the observance of] any commandments. Rather, this verse applies to a boy who has grown two hairs [signifying puberty, and, therefore making the child subject to all the laws prescribed by the Torah]. Now, he is liable to two punishments: the first, because he dishonors his father and his mother⁸⁹ and rebels against them, and the second, because he is a glutton, and a drunkard,⁹⁰ transgressing that which we have been commanded, Ye shall be holy,⁹¹ and it is further stated, and Him shall ye serve, and unto Him shall ye cleave⁹² — as I have explained,⁹³, 6:12. we are commanded to know G-d in all our ways, and a glutton, and a drunkard⁹⁰ does not know the way of G-d. In general, then, as of now he [this stubborn and rebellious son] has not committed a sin punishable by death, but is judged because of [what he is destined to become in] the end, just as our Rabbis have mentioned.⁹⁴ This is the sense of the expression, and all Israel shall hear, and fear,⁹⁵ for he was not executed due to the greatness of his sin, but in order to discipline the public, and so that he not become a menace to others. It is the manner of Scripture so to warn that when the death-penalty is imposed as a deterrent, the execution should serve as a benefit to others. Thus it mentioned the same in the case of the rebellious elder [who defies the decision of the Great Sanhedrin — And all the people shall hear, and fear]⁹⁶ because, in his decision [contradicting that of the court] there is no sin deserving of death, but [the death sentence being imposed only to] deter dissension from the Torah, as I have explained there.⁹⁷, Verse 11. Similar is the case of plotting witnesses⁹⁸, 19:20: And those that remain shall hear, and fear. who are executed [for scheming to condemn someone to death] although they have not caused his execution.⁹⁹, Verse 19. Scripture also mentions it in the case of the beguiler¹⁰⁰, 13:12: And all Israel shall hear, and fear. because he is executed merely for his evil speech even though the beguiled has not worshipped the idols, nor hearkened to him; his [the beguiler’s] death is rather to chasten the survivors. This, too, is a newly-declared commandment — or it may be explanatory of the commandments, Honor thy father and thy mother,¹⁰¹ and Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father.¹⁰²

footnotes: ⁸⁸ Sanhedrin 68b. ⁸⁹ Further, 27:16. ⁹⁰ Verse 20. ⁹¹ Leviticus 19:2. ⁹² Above, 13:5. ⁹³ Ibid. ⁹⁰ Verse 20. ⁹⁴ Sanhedrin 72a. ⁹⁵ Verse 21. ⁹⁶ Above, 17:13. ⁹⁷ Ibid. ⁹⁸ Ibid. ⁹⁹ See Ramban ibid. ¹⁰⁰ Ibid. ¹⁰¹ Exodus 20:12. ¹⁰² Leviticus 19:3.

AND THOU SHALT HANG HIM. “Our Rabbis have said:¹⁰³ All that have been stoned must be hanged. It is this which is stated, for he that is hanged is a reproach unto G-d,¹⁰⁴ and is a degradation of the King, for man is made in the image of the King, and the Israelites are His children. There is a parable of two brothers who resembled each other etc.”¹⁰⁵ This is Rashi’s language. “All that have been stoned must be hanged” are the words of an individual Sage [i.e., Rabbi Eliezer],¹⁰³ but the law is according to the words of the Sages that no offender [executed by] stoning is hanged save the blasphemer and the idolator. This is the sense of the phrase, for he that is hanged is a reproach unto G-d,¹⁰⁴ — because people will say, “Why was this person hanged? Because he blasphemed G-d or worshipped a particular idol by means of this particular service, and he saw therein this sign or wonder.” The discussion of the idol and the service thereof are considered a k’lalah [“a reproach” to G-d]. Or it is an expression of “degradation” as the Rabbi [Rashi] mentioned, from the expressions and he cursed me with a grievous ‘k’lalah (curse);¹⁰⁶ that his sons did bring ‘a curse’ upon themselves¹⁰⁷ [both verses being expressions of] contempt. And the parable concerning the twin brothers contains a secret; it does not refer, as the Rabbi thought, to the Israelites who are called the children of G-d.¹⁰⁸ In line with the simple meaning of Scripture the verse is stating: “If a man has committed a great sin for which he is deserving of death and of hanging on a tree because of the grievous nature of his sin, nevertheless his body shall not remain all night upon the tree,¹⁰⁴ for the most accursed and blasted of all people is the hanged. Among all forms of death, there is none as ugly and despicable like it [this degradation of the human body], and it is not fitting that we defile the Land and that G-d’s curse be within the Holy Land, for there the Eternal commanded the blessing, even life forever.¹⁰⁹ Therefore Joshua commanded and they took them down off the trees.¹¹⁰ In my opinion the affair of Saul’s children who were left hanging¹¹¹? The answer follows in the text. — It should also be pointed out that because of their display of cruelty the Gibeonites were forever banned from marrying into Israel (Yebamoth 79a). was because they were not hanged by a court of Israel, nor by any Israelite. Rather, David who turned them [the seven members of Saul’s family] over to the Gibeonites to do as they pleased with them, and it was they who hanged them [Saul’s relatives] and did not wish to bury them in order to demonstrate their vengeance against Saul’s family, and those that remain shall hear, and fear.⁹⁸, 19:20: And those that remain shall hear, and fear. But when water was poured upon them from heaven¹¹² then David knew that their sin had been forgiven, and that G-d was entreated for the Land,¹¹³, Verse 14. that the Eternal had remembered the Land¹¹⁴ with rain and the famine would end. Then he commanded and they [the Israelites] buried them with their fathers¹¹⁵ in honor of their royal status. David bore no guilt at all [in the entire affair], for we were commanded only that we not defile the Land by allowing someone whom we hanged [to remain on a gallows overnight]. Now, G-d did not want to forgive their sin [i.e., the sin of Saul’s conduct towards the Gibeonites] immediately in order to let it be known that G-d loves proselytes, as our Rabbis have said.¹¹⁶ (Joshua 9:26). When Saul smote Nob, the city of the priests (I Samuel 22:19) the Gibeonites were thus deprived of their source of livelihood. It was this grudge that they held against Saul and his family. When they finally satisfied their vengeful feelings against the members of Saul’s family, all the heathens proclaimed “There is no nation as worthy of our allegiance as Israel! See how the G-d of Israel atoned for a wrong inflicted upon wretched proselytes through the sons of kings!” At that time, one hundred and fifty thousand heathens were converted to Judaism, because it was shown that G-d loves proselytes (Yebamoth 79a). And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said by way of the plain meaning of Scripture [that the phrase ki kilelath Elokim talui¹⁰⁴ means] “that it is G-d Who invokes the evil, and the curse will descend upon the place near the hanged person, for there is a secret [in the fact that the contaminated air surrounding the corpse] affects the soul [of the living]. Therefore thou defile not thy Land. ”¹⁰⁴ Thus whoever allows the body [of a criminal] to hang overnight transgresses both a negative commandment [his body shall not remain all night upon the tree]¹⁰⁴ and a positive commandment¹¹⁷ (613) Commandments. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 243-244, and Vol. II, p. 65. [but thou shalt surely bury him the same day].¹⁰⁴ Our Rabbis have likewise interpreted¹¹⁸ that the same law applies to all other dead, that whoever suffers his dead to remain overnight, except in order to render it honor,¹¹⁹). If the burial is delayed for any of these reasons, no transgression is committed. [violates the above commandments]. Just as [leaving the criminal hanging overnight upon] “the tree” is a form of disgrace, so all forms of disrespect [shown to the dead are also forbidden]. Now, according to the opinion of the Rabbis [that this law applies equally to every deceased, we must say] that the phrase ki kilelath Elokim talui¹⁰⁴ states that “although this criminal is deserving of disgrace” because of his great sin, nevertheless you shall not do so. And the parable of the two brothers [mentioned above] applies to everyone who suffers his dead to remain overnight. So also the curse [emanating from a corpse] to which Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra referred, applies to every house where there is a dead person, and therefore he defiles everyone that cometh into the tent, and every thing that is in the tent.¹²⁰

footnotes: ¹⁰³ Sanhedrin 45b. ¹⁰⁴ Verse 23. ¹⁰⁵ “One became king and the other was arrested for robbery and hanged. Whoever saw him hanging said that the king was hanged.” (Rashi, quoting the words of the Rabbis in Sanhedrin 46b). ¹⁰³ Sanhedrin 45b. ¹⁰⁴ Verse 23. ¹⁰⁶ I Kings 2:8. ¹⁰⁷ I Samuel 3:13. ¹⁰⁸ See above, 14:1. Aboth 3:15. ¹⁰⁴ Verse 23. ¹⁰⁹ Psalms 133:3. ¹¹⁰ Joshua 10:27. ¹¹¹ II Samuel 21:1-10. Related there is the event of a three-year famine in the days of King David. When he asked G-d the reason for it, he was told that it was in punishment of Saul’s mistreatment of the Gibeonites. (See Note 116 for the nature of Saul’s sin.) When David asked the Gibeonites how they could be appeased, they requested that they be given seven men of Saul’s family whom they would hang. As much as the king tried to mollify them, they insisted upon satisfying their lust for vengeance upon members of Saul’s family. When David acceded to their wishes, they left the victims hanging for a long period of time until the rains came. — The question here arises as to why David allowed the victims to be left hanging when the Torah states, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree ⁹⁸ Ibid. ¹¹² II Samuel 21:10. ¹¹³ Ibid. ¹¹⁴ See Ruth 1:6. ¹¹⁵ See II Samuel 21:13-14. ¹¹⁶ Joshua had made the Gibeonites hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the Eternal ¹⁰⁴ Verse 23. ¹⁰⁴ Verse 23. ¹⁰⁴ Verse 23. ¹¹⁷ These are so listed among the Taryag ¹⁰⁴ Verse 23. ¹¹⁸ Sanhedrin 46a-b. ¹¹⁹ Such as the need for more time to secure a coffin, burial clothes, mourners, etc. (ibid. ¹⁰⁴ Verse 23. ¹²⁰ Numbers 19:14.

AND THOU DEFILE NOT THY LAND. In the opinion of our Rabbis this is not merely a reason, meaning [that a corpse may not be left hanging] “in order that you defile not your Land,” for, if so, it would be permissible [to leave the dead overnight] outside the Land. Instead, this is a second negative commandment. Now, whoever leaves overnight the corpse of a criminal hanging, or of any dead body in the Land transgresses two negative commandments [his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, and thou defile not the Land] and a positive commandment [but thou shalt surely bury him the same day]. Outside the Land [whenever someone allows any corpse to remain overnight] he violates the positive commandment [mentioned] and the negative commandment [his body shall not remain all night] which is derived from the law of the hanging corpse, as I have explained. It is by reason of this negative commandment that Joshua buried the Canaanite kings¹²¹ during the day of their execution, although, in their hanging, there would not have been the curse which our Rabbis mentioned with regards to the blasphemer and idol-worshipper. Rather, it was on account of the uncleanness of the Land [which their hanging would have caused] or because he was apprehensive of the desecration of G-d on the basis of the parable of the two brothers, as I have mentioned.

footnotes: ¹²¹ Joshua 10:27.