MAMZEIR’ (BASTARD). The term signifies a man who is muzar (estranged) from his brothers and his friends, for it is not known whence he comes. This is similar to the verse, And a ‘mamzeir’ shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines,²²³ the verse stating that no one will dwell in Ashdod save a foreigner or a stranger who will chance to pass by, for the pride of the Philistines will have been cut off from it [Ashdod]. Now, if a child is born to a man from his father’s wife, he [the father] will put him far away and not acknowledge him because of his shame and disgrace [resulting] from the evil deed that he committed. His mother also will cast him away by night, like the asufi (any cast-off child whose father and mother are unknown) that is mentioned in the Talmud.²²⁴ Thus the mamzeir is “estranged” in his native city, and so also the offspring of any of the forbidden relations as our Rabbis have said in Yerushalmi Kiddushin:²²⁵ “Rabbi Abahu said: What is the meaning of mamzeir? Mum zar (a strange blemish”).

footnotes: ²²³ Zechariah 9:6. ²²⁴ Kiddushin 69a. ²²⁵ Yerushalmi Kiddushin III. 14.

BECAUSE THEY MET YOU NOT WITH BREAD AND WITH WATER. We find it stated [in Moses’ message to Sihon], Thou shalt sell me food for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink etc. as the children of Esau that dwell in Seir, and the Moabites that dwell in Ar did unto me.²²⁶ [This clearly states that the Moabites did not deprive them of bread and water, and in the verse before us it is mentioned that the Moabites did not meet them with bread and water!] Now, many scholars²²⁷ say that the Moabites did not meet them with bread and water, but that the Israelites bought it from them. But this is baseless, for it is adequate for a camp that they be sold [food] when they want to buy. Moreover, Israel came not within the border of Moab,²²⁸ and the Moabites brought them forth bread and water for money, and Scripture tells that the Moabites acted as did the children of Esau — why, then, were the Moabites forever banned [from the congregation of Israel] on account of this [for not having met them with bread and water], and of the Edomites it declared that we are not to abhor them?²²⁹ And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra stated²²⁷ that “the expression as the children of Esau … and the Moabites did unto me²³⁰ refers to the verse, Let me pass through thy land; I will go along by the highway,²³¹, Verse 27. but neither [the Edomites nor the Moabites] sold them bread and water. For the Israelites passed through Mount Seir [in Edom] and Ar [in Moab]; it was only to pass through his city where he dwelled that the king of Edom did not permit them — this being the sense of the expression, Thou shalt not pass ‘through me’²³² [but he did allow them entry through other parts of Edom].” This interpretation [of Ibn Ezra] is also baseless, for the Israelites said to the king of Edom, “Let me pass through thy land,”²³³, Verse 17. The language there is: Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy land. and Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border.²³⁴, Verse 21. Thus they did not enter the border of Edom at all! And so it is written, And they journeyed from Mount Hor by the way to the Red Sea, to compass the land of Edom²³⁵, 21:4. because they had to retreat by way of the Red Sea from Mount Hor which is on the border of the land of Edom, but they did not come into the land of Edom itself at all. Jephthah said it clearly: But when they came up from Egypt, and Israel walked through the wilderness unto the Red Sea, and came to Kadesh; then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying: Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land; but the king of Edom hearkened not. And in like manner he sent unto the king of Moab; but he would not; and Israel abode in Kadesh. Then he walked through the wilderness, and compassed the land of Edom, and the land of Moab, and came by the east side of the land of Moab, and they pitched on the other side of Arnon, but they came not within the border of Moab.²³⁶ Thus it is clearly explained that they did not come into the land of Edom or the land of Moab at all. Had they come there, the Edomites and Moabites would have sold them bread and water, for it is not customary for one who allows an army to pass through a land not to sell them bread and water. It appears to me that Scripture banned these two brothers [Ammon and Moab, sons of Lot — from the congregation of Israel] because they were the beneficiaries of the lovingkindness of Abraham who saved their father and mother from the sword and captivity²³⁷ and, by virtue of Abraham’s merit, G-d sent them out of the midst of the overthrow [of Sodom]²³⁸, 19:29. — hence they were obligated to do good to Israel and instead they did them evil. One of them [the Moabites] hired Balaam the son of Beor against Israel, and one [the Ammonites] did not meet them with bread and water as they approached their territory, as it is written, Thou art this day to pass over the border of Moab, even Ar; and thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon.²³⁹ Now Scripture warned the Israelites [concerning the children of Ammon] harass them not, nor contend with them.²⁴⁰, Verse 19. And yet the Ammonites did not meet them at all [with bread and water], for otherwise Scripture would have stated, “As the children of Esau, and the Moabites, ‘and the Ammonites’ did unto me,” but the verse²³⁰ does not mention Ammon because they did not meet them. Thus Ammon acted more wickedly than all of them, for the children of Esau and the Moabites, when they knew that the Israelites were warned against contending with them in battle, brought bread and water out of their border, but Ammon did not wish to do so. This is the meaning of the phrase, because they met you not, that they did not come forth toward them with bread and water as the others did. Therefore Scripture mentioned an Ammonite first [An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Eternal],²⁴¹ and it cited his sin first, because they met you not with bread and water, and then it mentioned a Moabite and his sin [and because they hired against thee Balaam]. Now our Rabbis interpreted:²⁴² “An Ammonite, but not an Ammonitess [if she is converted to Judaism she may be married to an Israelite]. A Moabite, but not a Moabitess, because it is customary for a man to meet [a passing camp with bread and water] but it is not customary for a woman to meet,” to bring forth food outside of the border of the land. And so the Rabbis also mentioned in the Yerushalmi²⁴³ and in the Scroll of Ruth Rabbathi:²⁴⁴ “It is customary for a man to hire but it is not customary for a woman to hire.”²⁴⁵

footnotes: ²²⁶ Above 2:28-29. ²²⁷ Mentioned so in Ibn Ezra (above, 2:29). ²²⁸ Judges 11:18. ²²⁹ Verse 8. ²²⁷ Mentioned so in Ibn Ezra (above, 2:29). ²³⁰ Above, 2:29. ²³¹ Ibid. ²³² Numbers 20:18. ²³³ Ibid. ²³⁴ Ibid. ²³⁵ Ibid. ²³⁶ Judges 11:16-18. ²³⁷ See Genesis 14:16. ²³⁸ Ibid. ²³⁹ Above, 21:18-19. ²⁴⁰ Ibid. ²³⁰ Above, 2:29. ²⁴¹ Verse 4. ²⁴² Yebamoth 76b. ²⁴³ Yerushalmi Yebamoth VIII, 3. ²⁴⁴ Ruth Rabbathi 4:8. ²⁴⁵ Hence the Ammorite and Moabite women were not considered as having partaken in the sins of the men and, therefore, the women were excluded from the prohibition. When Ruth the Moabitess adopted the faith of Israel, therefore, Boaz was permitted to marry her.

THOU SHALT NOT SEEK THEIR PEACE. “Since it is written [with respect to a fugitive slave], He shall dwell with thee, in the midst of thee [where it liketh him best; thou shalt not wrong him],²⁴⁶ I might think that the rule also applies to this one [an Ammonite or Moabite fugitive slave]. Scripture, therefore, says, Thou shalt not seek their peace.” This is Rashi’s language. Now, this interpretation in the Sifre²⁴⁷ 251. is deduced from the expression [here] nor their prosperity [Thou shalt not seek their peace ‘nor their prosperity,’ and not as it might appear from the heading in our text of Rashi that it is derived from the expression their peace, for thus is the language of the Sifre]: “Since it is stated there [with respect to the fugitive slave] ‘batov lo’ (where it liketh him best); thou shalt not wrong him²⁴⁶ — exclude these [the Ammonite and Moabite fugitive slaves] from this tovah (good).”²⁴⁸ (nor their ‘good’). But the expression Thou shalt not seek their peace is interpreted in the Sifre as follows: “Since it is stated, When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it,²⁴⁹ I might think that the same rule applies to Ammon and Moab. Scripture therefore says, Thou shalt not seek their peace. ” It is also so stated in Tanchuma.²⁵⁰. On “Tanchuma” see Vol. IV, p. 158, Note 1. It appears to me that Scripture has forever forbidden war against Ammon and Moab, and the verse stating, neither contend with them²⁵¹ was not only a temporary command, but a negative commandment for the generations. It is for this [reason] that He said, because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession.²⁵², Verse 19. Thus their land belongs to them forever because it is the possession that G-d gave them. If so, the verse here stating, Thou shalt not seek their peace commands that if we wage war against them over a city which they captured from other peoples, that we are not to proclaim peace to them. Similarly, if they invaded our Land we are permitted to pursue them and capture cities from them, to smite the inhabitants of those cities who harmed us, as Jephtah did [of whom it is said], And he smote them from Aroer until thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities.²⁵³ David also did so to all the cities of the children of Ammon²⁵⁴ because they “breached the fence” first and warred against him. In that event we need not to proclaim peace to them and we may smite those fighting us in every city, the men, and the women, and the little ones²⁵⁵ if we wish. Thus the Rabbis have said in Midrash Rabbah:²⁵⁶ “And ye shall smite every fortified city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all fountains of water.²⁵⁷ They [i.e., Jehoshaphat king of Judah and Jehoram king of Israel] said to him [Elisha]. ‘Scripture states, Thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof,²⁵⁸ and you say thus [destroy them]!’ He [Elisha] said to them: ‘Scripture commanded this with respect to all peoples, but this one is minor and despised,’ as it is said, And this is but a light thing in the sight of the Eternal, and He will deliver the Moabites into your hand,²⁵⁹ for it is said, Thou shalt not seek their peace ‘v’tovatham’ (nor their good), this alluding to the ‘good trees.’” Now, all this is to harm them and to vex them, but the land is to remain that family’s for it is the possession which G-d gave them. This subject is mentioned in Agadoth [homilies],²⁶⁰ Bereshith Rabbah,²⁶¹ and in Midrash Tehilim.²⁶² In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, the purport of the verse Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity is as if to say, “Although they are members of your family, and your father Abraham loved their father as his brother, that sucked the breasts of his mother,²⁶³ yet you should not act towards them like brothers seeking their peace and prosperity, for it is they who have broken the covenant of brotherhood;²⁶⁴ let it remain broken forever.” Thus G-d guarded for Lot’s children the merit of their father who accompanied His prophet [Abraham] on the path where G-d sent him. Therefore He gave them an inheritance from Abraham’s possession²⁶⁵ and He punished his children for their sin that they could not become attached to Israel. Similarly He banned the Egyptians for three generations²⁶⁶ because of their wickedness in bringing upon us many evils and troubles,²⁶⁷ but He did not abhor them forever because we were strangers in their land where we found refuge with them in days of famine through the honor they showed our father [Jacob], and they appointed over themselves a chief and ruler from among us. So also did He do with the Edomites. He preserved the merit of the ancestors for them since they were of holy seed,²⁶⁸ but he banned them for three generations²⁶⁶ because they came forth against us with the sword and they remembered not the brotherly covenant.²⁶⁹ Now, the tradition of our Rabbis²⁷⁰ is that the third generation does not mean “the third generation from the days of Moses” but when one of them [Edomites or Egyptians] becomes a proselyte his third generation [i.e., his grandchild] may enter into the assembly of the Eternal.

footnotes: ²⁴⁶ Further, Verse 17. ²⁴⁷ Sifre, Ki Theitzei ²⁴⁶ Further, Verse 17. ²⁴⁸ Hence the language in the verse before us, Thou shalt not seek their peace ‘v’tovatham’ ²⁴⁹ Above, 20:10. ²⁵⁰ Tanchuma, Pinchas 3 ²⁵¹ Above, 2:9 (Moab); 19 (Ammon). ²⁵² Ibid. ²⁵³ Judges 11:33. ²⁵⁴ II Samuel 12:31. ²⁵⁵ Above, 2:34. ²⁵⁶ Bamidbar Rabbah 21:7. ²⁵⁷ II Kings 3:19. These were the words of the prophet Elisha to Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, and Jehoram the son of Ahab, king of Israel, when they battled Moab. ²⁵⁸ Above, 20:19. ²⁵⁹ II Kings 3:18. ²⁶⁰ See at the end of his notes to Rambam’s Sefer Hamitzvoth where Ramban quotes many of these Midrashim. ²⁶¹ Bereshith Rabbah 74:13. ²⁶² Midrash Tehilim 60:1. ²⁶³ Song of Songs 8:1. ²⁶⁴ See Zechariah 11:14. ²⁶⁵ See Ramban above, 2:10. ²⁶⁶ Verse 9. I.e., the third generation of an Egyptian [or Edomite] proselyte may marry into the congregation of Israel. See text at the end of this section. ²⁶⁷ Further, 31:17. ²⁶⁸ See Ramban above, 2:4. ²⁶⁶ Verse 9. I.e., the third generation of an Egyptian [or Edomite] proselyte may marry into the congregation of Israel. See text at the end of this section. ²⁶⁹ Amos 1:9. ²⁷⁰ Yebamoth 78a.

WHEN THOU GOEST FORTH IN CAMP AGAINST THINE ENEMIES, THEN THOU SHALT KEEP THEE FROM EVERY EVIL — “because Satan indicts [people] in the hour of danger.” This is Rashi’s language. The correct interpretation regarding this commandment appears to me that Scripture is warning of a time when sin is rampant. The well-known custom of forces going to war is that they eat all abominable things, rob and plunder, and are not ashamed even of lewdness and all vileness. The fairest of man by nature comes to be possessed of cruelty and fury when the army advances against the enemy. Therefore, Scripture warned, then thou shalt keep thee from every evil. And by way of the simple meaning of Scripture this is an admonition against doing anything forbidden. And in the Sifre it is stated:²⁷¹ 254. “I might think that Scripture is speaking of the laws of defilements and purities and tithes. It therefore says ‘ervah’ [an unseemly thing, which refers to unchastity].²⁷². Whence do I know to include idolatry, lewdness,²⁷³ bloodshed, and blasphemy? Scripture therefore says, then thou shalt keep thee from every evil. Or perhaps the verse is speaking of defilements and purities, and tithes? It says ervah (an unseemly thing):²⁷². just as ervah uniquely represents a deed for which the Canaanites were driven from the Land²⁷⁴ and which removes the Divine Presence [from Israel], so all deeds for which the Canaanites were driven from the Land and which remove the Divine Presence [from Israel] are included in the admonition of this verse. When Scripture states davar [thing, but literally ‘word’ — then thou shalt keep thee from every evil ‘davar’] it includes also ‘evil talk.’” This also is included in the purport of the verse we have explained, that besides the [specific] admonitions which are stated concerning these stringent sins, he added yet a [special] prohibition to an army that we guard against any of these sins so that the Divine Presence withdraw not from the Israelites who are there, just as he said, For the Eternal thy G-d walketh in the midst of thy camp²⁷⁵ Thus he who commits any of the great sins while in the army, those about which it is written, they have set their detestable things in the house whereon My Name is called to defile it,²⁷⁶ [he causes the Divine Presence to withdraw from Israel]. Moreover, [we are to avoid these sins] in order that the enemy should not overpower us because of our committing the very deeds that cause them to be driven from before us, this being the sense of the expression, and to give up thine enemies before thee.²⁷⁵ The Sages [in the Sifre] added evil talk [as derived from this admonition] in order that contention should not increase among them and smite them with a very great plague, [even] more than the enemy [will inflict upon them].

footnotes: ²⁷¹ Sifre, Ki Theitzei ²⁷² Further, Verse 15: and that He see no ‘unseemly thing’ in thee ²⁷³ “Lewdness.” In our Sifre this term is not mentioned here, and rightly so, since it has already been expressly forbidden, as explained above. ²⁷² Further, Verse 15: and that He see no ‘unseemly thing’ in thee ²⁷⁴ Leviticus 18:24. ²⁷⁵ Further, Verse 15. ²⁷⁶ Jeremiah 7:30. ²⁷⁵ Further, Verse 15.

And by way of the simple meaning of Scripture the verse warns that a man to whom a [nocturnal] pollution occurred, should leave the camp completely for the reason mentioned, that G-d walks among us to help us and the camp is holy, and that our hearts are to be intent towards the Holy One, blessed be He, hoping for His help and that we put not our trust in a human arm.²⁷⁷, 17:5. A similar reason is also for the command to cover excrement,²⁷⁸ for the entire camp is like the Sanctuary of G-d. From this law we deduce, concerning a place of prayer, that we must remove ourselves four cubits away from excrement [if it is behind us]²⁷⁹ or as far as the eye can see [if it is in front of us]. However, our Rabbis interpreted it:²⁸⁰ “Then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp²⁸¹ — neither in the camp of the Levites, nor in the camp of the Divine Presence” when the ark of G-d was there with them. The covering of excrement also, in their opinion, is required when mentioning G-d’s Name in prayer or in the reading of the Sh’ma. If so, this too, is an admonition which he restated²⁸² here with respect to an army in order that everything should not be as lawless as in the camps of the peoples. These commandments as well are then explanatory [of those mentioned before].²⁸² Now, the reason for covering excrement is not because excrement is like something unclean that defiles its location and breaks through and rises [like the impurity of the dead]. Rather it is because it is forbidden to see it during time of prayer when the heart cleaves to the Glorious Name,²⁸³ because ugly things give rise to ugliness in the soul and they confound the intent of the pure heart, but when it is hidden from the seeing eye there is no harm.

footnotes: ²⁷⁷ See ibid. ²⁷⁸ See Verse 14. ²⁷⁹ Berachoth 25a. ²⁸⁰ Pesachim 68a. In other words, while according to the plain meaning of Scripture the person who suffered a pollution is to leave the entire camp, the Rabbis say that he is required to leave only the camp of the Levites, and, of course, the camp of the Divine Presence, if the ark of G-d was there with them (see above 10:1). See also “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 39, Note 2 with respect to such “camps” in the city of Jerusalem. An army with the ark of G-d in its midst has the status of “a Sanctuary of G-d” as Ramban expressed it above. Therefore the laws of the three camps into which Jerusalem was divided when the Sanctuary existed were also applicable to an army camp. ²⁸¹ Verse 11. ²⁸² The commandments pertaining to sending out the impure have already been stated in Numbers 5:2-3. But here they were “restated” with respect to an army etc. ²⁸² The commandments pertaining to sending out the impure have already been stated in Numbers 5:2-3. But here they were “restated” with respect to an army etc. ²⁸³ Further, 28:58.

THOU SHALT NOT DELIVER UNTO HIS MASTER A BONDMAN THAT IS ESCAPED. This is connected with the section above that [when you go forth against the enemy] if a slave flees from his master against whom the host has gone forth and saves himself by fleeing to your camp you are not to deliver him to his master for money that he may give you. And since it states, he shall dwell with thee, in the midst of thee, in the place which he shall choose,²⁸⁴ it appears that it is a commandment that he become a free man and that we should not enslave him. The reason for this commandment is that with us he will worship G-d and it is not proper that we return him to his master to worship idols. Moreover, it is possible that he [the bondman] may show them the entrance into the city,²⁸⁵ for in that way they will capture many cities through slaves and captives fleeing from there. And our Rabbis have said²⁸⁶ [that this prohibition is applicable] even [to] a Canaanite bondman who belongs to an Israelite who fled from outside the Land into the Land of Israel, for this one too, should preferably work for those who dwell in the Land of G-d and be saved from working for those that dwell in an unclean land,²⁸⁷ and where not all commandments are binding.

footnotes: ²⁸⁴ Verse 17. ²⁸⁵ Judges 1:25. ²⁸⁶ Gittin 45a. ²⁸⁷ Amos 7:17.

THERE SHALL BE NO ‘K’DEISHAH’ OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ISRAEL — “one who is devoted to and always prepared for illicit intercourse. NOR SHALL THERE BE A ‘KADEISH’ OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL — one who is always prepared for pederasty.” This is Rashi’s language. Now, if this prohibition constitutes an admonition against the woman so engaged and warns her against being “devoted to and always prepared for illicit intercourse,” then an unmarried woman who has [illicit] intercourse with a man unpremeditatedly and secretly is not among those guilty of transgressing a negative commandment! So also in the matter of the kadeish, why did Rashi mention that he is devoted to “and always prepared” [for such sin] — even one who permits himself to be so abused in an innermost chamber is guilty of extirpation [if there are no witnesses] and death by the court [if there are witnesses]! Moreover, it would have been proper for Scripture to state, “There shall not be among you a k’deishah, nor shall there be among you a kadeish,” for the expressions of the daughters of Israel and of the sons of Israel make it appear that the verse discusses another nation! It appears to me concerning this prohibition that it constitutes an admonition addressed to the members of the court that they should not permit one of the daughters of Israel to sit in public view at the crossroads for the purpose of illicit intercourse, or prepare herself a tent of prostitution as is customary in foreign lands where they sit at the door with timbrels and harps, similar to what is written, Take a harp, go about the city, thou harlot long forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered.²⁸⁸ And similarly Scripture warns the court concerning a kadeish. And in line with the plain meaning of Scripture, even if he should lie with women in a tent which he prepared himself for such illicit relations or that he should sit in public view at the crossroads [on the lookout for such women], he warned the court [against permitting such activities]. It appears to me that such is the opinion of Onkelos [who rendered the verse: “A woman of the daughters of Israel shall not become the wife of a slave, and no man of Israel shall marry a bondwoman”].²⁸⁹ is one who is devoted to, and always ready for illicit intercourse” is different from that of Onkelos. The same is with regard to a kadeish. But he [Onkelos] combined with this prohibition the matter of a slave and bondwoman who live with Israelites in [common law] marriage, because everyone knows concerning this slave who married the daughter of an Israelite that his betrothal of her is invalid and yet she remains with him like a wife with her husband, and if so she is a k’deishah in broad daylight. Now, I have seen in the Sifre the following text:²⁹⁰ 260. “There shall be no ‘k’deishah’ of the daughters of Israel — you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations. Nor shall there be a ‘kadeish’ of the sons of Israel — you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations. Now, I could have reasoned: if the k’deishah [commits] a minor transgression [seeing that the punishment for violation of this prohibition is stripes] yet you are warned against it in Israel, is it not logical that [the crime of] the stringent kadeish [which is punished] by extirpation and death by the court, as explained above] be forbidden in Israel! [Why then was it necessary to state, nor shall there be a ‘kadeish’ of the sons of Israel?] Or vice versa: if the kadeish commits a stringent [crime, yet] you are not admonished against it among the nations, is it not logical that you should not be admonished against the minor k’deishah with respect to the nations etc.”²⁹¹ we could not have derived from the stricter kadeish, and the exclusion of the nations regarding the prohibition of kadeish we could not have derived from the same exclusion regarding the lighter prohibition of k’deishah. Hence both admonitions had to be stated. From this text of the Sifre it would appear that the interpretation of the Rabbis does not agree with that of Onkelos, for according to his rendition there is nothing stricter about the kadeish than the k’deishah [since the prohibition against a slave marrying a Jewish woman is of equal stringency to that of a Jewish man marrying a bondwoman]. Moreover, what does the Sifre mean by, “you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations” [according to Onkelos’ interpretation]? Similarly, if the interpretation [of the Sifre] of the term kadeish were to have been “the male who is the subject of pederasty” as in the interpretation of Rabbi Yishmael in Tractate Sanhedrin,²⁹² then in that case too, the Sifre could not have said “you are not admonished against it with respect to the nations,” for he who permits himself to be so abused by a heathen is liable to stoning! Rather, it appears that the opinion of the master of this Beraitha is as we have mentioned. Scripture warns the court that a woman may not stand at the crossroads for illicit intercourse, for there she will prostitute herself with those who are forbidden to her, relatives and strangers, for they cover their faces in order to have illicit relations even with their brothers and relatives, this being the sense of what Scripture states, When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a harlot, for she had covered her face²⁹³ Similarly he warns the court against him who is ready to be abused by males, similar to what is written, And there was also sodomy in the Land; they did according to all the abominations of the nations.²⁹⁴ Now, aside from the admonition against those who commit the sin, he warns the court here that they should not permit a sodomite to stand on the road [ready for such abuse], as is known of them in the land of Egypt that they stand on the road with covered faces like women to do this abominable act. Now the Rabbis interpreted in this Beraitha [i.e., the Sifre quoted above] that we are not admonished concerning others except for ourselves if they do so with one another, for only in matters of idolatry are we admonished with respect to the nations. The terms kadeish and k’deishah, in the opinion of the commentators,²⁹⁵. are an expression of readiness, for they found this usage in the verse, I have commanded ‘lim’kudashai’ (My devoted ones).²⁹⁶ So also, ‘hikdish’ (He hath prepared) *His guests;*²⁹⁷ ‘kadshu’ (prepare ye) war against her.²⁹⁸ And in my opinion these are all expressions of “holiness” [consecration], for he who separates himself from illicit sexual relations is called “holy,” just as it is said, They shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; neither shall they take a woman sent away from her husband, for he is ‘holy’ unto his G-d.²⁹⁹ Thus the woman who guards herself from forbidden relations and lewdness is called k’doshah (holy), while she who separates herself from holiness and becomes defiled with illicit sexual relations is called k’deishah. This is comparable to the usage customary in the [Sacred] Language [to use the same root-letters to express the negative as well as the positive], as for example: and all mine increase ‘th’shareish’ (it would root out);³⁰⁰ means “a root,” and here it means the opposite: “uproot.” ‘v’dishnu’ (and they shall take away the ashes) from the altar.³⁰¹ (ashes) is used to indicate the opposite: “to take away the ashes.” For the known harlot, the defiled one of name and full of tumult³⁰² is separated from all holiness. This name [k’deishah] applies to her only because she is always ready for this abomination, for she has no moment for propriety and holiness at all. And the expression ‘hikdish’ His guests²⁹⁷ is a figurative expression, for he who makes a feast consecrates his guests and cleanses them so that they should not defile the table and the bread, as it is said, he is unclean; surely he is not clean.³⁰³ So also ‘kadshu’ war against her²⁹⁸ means that they should cleanse themselves, like one who cleanses his guests in order that scholarly people [who are meticulous in observing the laws of purity] should not separate themselves from them.

footnotes: ²⁸⁸ Isaiah 23:16. ²⁸⁹ Thus it is clear that Rashi’s interpretation: “a k’deishah ²⁹⁰ Sifre, Ki Theitzei ²⁹¹ In other words, the Sifre is stating that both admonitions were necessary. The minor transgression of k’deishah ²⁹² Sanhedrin 54b. ²⁹³ Genesis 38:15. ²⁹⁴ I Kings 14:24. ²⁹⁵ Ibn Ezra, here and R’dak, in Sefer Hasharashim, root kadeish ²⁹⁶ Isaiah 13:3. ²⁹⁷ Zephaniah 1:7. ²⁹⁸ Jeremiah 6:4. ²⁹⁹ Leviticus 21:7. ³⁰⁰ Job 31:12. Now, the word shoresh ³⁰¹ Numbers 4:13. Here too the word deshen ³⁰² Ezekiel 22:5. ²⁹⁷ Zephaniah 1:7. ³⁰³ I Samuel 20:26. ²⁹⁸ Jeremiah 6:4.

THOU SHALT NOT BRING THE HIRE OF A HARLOT, [OR THE PRICE OF A DOG, INTO THE HOUSE OF THE ETERNAL THY G-D FOR ANY VOW]. Harlots are wont to do good deeds with their hire, thinking thereby to atone for their sins, as our Rabbis mentioned in their proverb,³⁰⁴ “She commits illicit sexual intercourse for apples and she divides them among the sick.” Therefore the Torah prohibited a harlot’s gift to be brought for any vow, for now they sin more and more.³⁰⁵ Similarly the matter of the price of the dog is that hunters using dogs and watchmen of walls raise brazen dogs that harm the public, and the owners vow [to contribute] their value [to a cause which they consider sacred], as an atonement for their soul. Such is still the custom among men who ride to the hunts that they place the waxen image of their dogs before an idol that they may be successful with them. And the commentators [as mentioned by Ibn Ezra] have said [that the reason for the prohibition is] because they [i.e., these payments] came about in a contemptible manner.

footnotes: ³⁰⁴ Vayikra Rabbah 3:1. ³⁰⁵ Hosea 13:2. By bringing it for a vow into the House of G-d, she will be inclined to sin more, for she will think that her sin has been forgiven.

GAM SHNEIHEM’ (‘EVEN THEY BOTH’) [ARE AN ABOMINATION TO THE ETERNAL THY G-D]. “Even they both — this includes the products into which they have been processed, such as wheat which she made into flour.” This is Rashi’s language. But in the Gemara³⁰⁶ the Rabbis have said that the School of Shammai forbid it and the School of Hillel permit it.³⁰⁷ Instead, the verse [in accordance with the teaching of the School of Hillel] is to be interpreted as follows: “They [are forbidden] but not their young; they [are forbidden] but not the products into which they have been processed.” And the purport of the expression gam shneihem is that since one of them is indeed a great abomination — namely, the hire of a harlot, since the harlotry was committed for it — [while the price of a dog might be considered less of an abomination] the verse states that “even both of these” [including the price of a dog] G-d will reject. Similarly, *He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous, ‘even they both’ are an abomination to the Eternal;*³⁰⁸ the verse attaches the smaller offense [i.e., he that justifies the wicked] to the bigger one [he that condemns the righteous]. So also, then they shall both of them die,³⁰⁹ as I have explained [there, that the man is the greater sinner of the two, and therefore the verse states that even she is also to die]. Or it may be that the purport [of the expression gam shneihem] is that since he had already warned against the disqualifications of the offering through blemishes, and stated concerning them, Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Eternal thy G-d an ox, or a sheep, wherein is a blemish, even any evil thing; for that is an abomination unto the Eternal thy G-d,³¹⁰ he supplemented here saying that the hire of the harlot and the price of the dog — although in themselves perfect — that they too are the abomination of the Eternal like those [blemished offerings]. This is the correct interpretation. So also, The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Eternal hath made even both of them,³¹¹ the verse alludes to man in general and states that G-d created man and also made these characteristics in him. Similarly, Diverse weights, and diverse measures, both of them alike are an abomination to the Eternal,³¹², Verse 10. the verse intimates to whoever robs, extorts, and exploits in any manner which are greater abominations than these [false weights and measures], although it does not mention them, [and declares that even diverse weights and diverse measures are an abomination to G-d].

footnotes: ³⁰⁶ Temurah 30b. ³⁰⁷ And the accepted law is, in line with the legal rule, in accordance with the teachings of the School of Hillel. Why, then, did Rashi base his interpretation here upon an opinion held by the School of Shammai? ³⁰⁸ Proverbs 17:15. ³⁰⁹ Above, 22:22. ³¹⁰ Above, 17:1. ³¹¹ Proverbs 20:12. ³¹² Ibid.

LO THASHICH³¹³ form tashich is understood in a causative sense as meaning: “Thou shalt not cause thy brother to take interest.” See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 224-225. L’ACHICHA’ (THOU SHALT NOT CAUSE THY BROTHER TO TAKE INTEREST). This also is an explanatory commandment, adding here an admonition to the borrower as well, unlike all civil cases, for if a person wishes to damage his belongings he may do so [and it should, therefore, be permitted to the borrower to give freely to the lender]. However, because of the habitual nature of this sin [of giving interest], Scripture admonishes the borrower as well.³¹⁴ And he explained here³¹⁵ that a heathen’s interest is permissible. This he did not mention with reference to robbery and theft, as the Rabbis have said.³¹⁶ “Theft from a heathen is forbidden.” But borrowing for interest, which is agreed upon by both parties and is done voluntarily, was forbidden [by the Torah] only because of brotherliness and kindness, as He commanded, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,³¹⁷ and as he said, Beware that there be not a base thought in thy heart etc. [and thine eye be evil against thy needy brother, and thou give him nought].³¹⁸ Therefore he said [here], that the Eternal thy G-d may bless thee,³¹⁹ for it is an act of mercy and compassion that one does for his brother by lending him without interest, and it will be accounted to him for righteousness.³²⁰ The release of debts [in the Seventh year] is also an act of mercy among brothers, and therefore he said, Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it,³²¹ and for him [who releases the debt of a brother] he designated a blessing,³²², Verse 4. for Scripture mentions a blessing only in connection with charity and acts of mercy, and not for [the mere abstention from] robbery, theft, and fraud. He mentions interest of money, interest of victuals³²³ in order to explain that he who lends one measure of wheat for a measure and a half is [guilty of taking] true interest even if at the time of payment a measure and a half is not worth as much as was the one measure that he lent him. And he further explained, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest,³²³ meaning even building-blocks and other articles which are lent. For it might occur to one to think that “interest” applies only to money with which everything can be purchased and to victuals which sustain life, but in other things we should go according to the cash value at the time of the loan and the repayment [therefore Scripture prohibited all such interest expressly]. Now our Rabbis have interpreted³²⁴ 263. See also Ramban above 15:3 where this subject is explained more fully. the verse, Unto a foreigner thou shalt lend upon interest³¹⁹ as being a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment [which carries the force of a positive commandment] with respect to lending to an Israelite.³²⁵ [They rendered this interpretation] because the verse is redundant, for he already stated ‘lo thashich’ thy brother [which implies clearly that it is permitted to exact interest from a foreigner; why then the repetition, Unto a foreigner etc.? It was to teach that an interest-bearing loan to an Israelite is in violation of both a negative and a positive commandment].

footnotes: ³¹³ The hiph’il ³¹⁴ In other words there is no need to admonish people against needlessly diminishing their fortunes through improvident gifts. But the paying of interest to a creditor is a common practice; therefore the Torah specified that the prohibition extends even to the borrower. ³¹⁵ Verse 21. See Ramban above, 15:3. ³¹⁶ Baba Kamma 113b. ³¹⁷ Leviticus 19:18. ³¹⁸ Above, 15:9. ³¹⁹ Verse 21. ³²⁰ Genesis 15:6. ³²¹ Above, 15:3. ³²² See ibid. ³²³ In Verse 20 before us. ³²³ In Verse 20 before us. ³²⁴ Sifre, Ki Theitzei ³¹⁹ Verse 21. ³²⁵ Thus one who lends money to an Israelite on interest violates both an explicit negative commandment that is inferred from a positive Scriptural statement, which has the same force as the positive commandment from which it is derived. This excludes the interpretation that there is a positive commandment that we are to lend a foreigner upon interest.

BUT IF THOU SHALT FORBEAR TO VOW, IT SHALL BE NO SIN IN THEE. Because those who bring a burnt-offering and sacrifices for G-d³²⁶ receive a good reward for it, as it is written, *I will offer unto Thee burnt-offerings of fatlings, with the sweet smoke of rams; I will offer bullocks with goats. Selah;*³²⁷ I will come into Thy House with burnt-offerings.³²⁸, Verse 13. He also said concerning freewill offerings, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him,³²⁹ and again He said, of a sweet savor unto the Eternal.³³⁰, Verse 9, etc. And if so, vows serve as encouragement [to the observance] of a commandment, and it is written, I will pay my vows unto the Eternal, yea, in the presence of all His people.³³¹ Therefore Scripture states here: “Beware of your vows, for although they serve as encouragement in bringing offerings to G-d which will be accepted favorably on your behalf, yet you may come to sin if you vow and do not fulfill, or you delay fulfilling it. But if you do not vow, no sin can attach to you in the matter, for even if never in your lifetime do you bring a [vow-] offering, it will be no sin in thee. If so, observe that which is gone out of your lips, according to the word which proceeded out of your mouth, and do afterwards as you have spoken, to fulfill all that your spirit caused you to willingly bring forth from your mouth.” Solomon said it in the same way: When thou vowest a vow unto G-d, defer not to pay it; for He hath no pleasure in fools; pay that which thou vowest. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.³³² Solomon states that G-d has no pleasure in fools who think that they do a good deed when they utter many vows to serve as encouragement to fulfill a commandment which they plan to do and they do not consider in their hearts, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say,³³³ “Perhaps I will not be able to fulfill all these vows.” Instead he thinks that the desire he had at the time of his vow will be accounted to him for good. Therefore Solomon warned again, *Suffer not thy mouth to bring thy flesh into guilt, neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error;*³³⁴ that is to say, do not make many vows, [for if you make them and you do not have the means to fulfill them] you will have to say before the cruel angel sent against you, “It was an error, I meant to bring them.” You pledged them with a perfect heart and now you are unable to do so, but G-d will be angry at thy voice and — the aforementioned angel — will destroy the work of thy hands.³³⁴

footnotes: ³²⁶ Exodus 18:12. ³²⁷ Psalms 66:15. ³²⁸ Ibid. ³²⁹ Leviticus 1:4. ³³⁰ Ibid. ³³¹ Psalms 116:18. ³³² Ecclesiastes 5:3-4. ³³³ Isaiah 44:19. ³³⁴ Ecclesiastes 5:5. ³³⁴ Ecclesiastes 5:5.