IF THERE BE A QUARREL BETWEEN MEN. According to the tradition of our Rabbis that stripes are administered to those who are guilty of having violated negative commandments³⁶⁶ [and not in civil cases, the question arises] what is its [the stripes’] connection with a quarrel between two people? He who eats n’veilah (carrion) in his home is liable to stripes! So also he who sows his field or his vineyard with diverse seeds, or he who cohabits with any of the women forbidden by a plain prohibitive law [i.e., one not involving the court-imposed death-penalty], and all the rest of the negative commandments [are all typical of the transgressions punishable by stripes. All involve negative commandments, not civil suits as is the case in the verse before us.] Additionally, what is the meaning of the phrase and they shall justify the righteous³⁶⁷ [since a civil case does not involve questions of wickedness and righteousness]? Therefore, the Rabbis have interpreted³⁶⁸ the verse as referring to plotting witnesses. Scripture says: “In case, If there be a quarrel between two men, and they come high unto judgment and they will judge them through the testimony of two witnesses, as we have been commanded.³⁶⁹ [Afterwards, two other witnesses came to court and testified that the first pair of witnesses were elsewhere at the time when the event they testified about allegedly took place. Thus the person found guilty as a result of the original testimony is shown to be ‘righteous’ while the plotting witnesses have been proven ‘wicked.’] Then the judges will justify the righteous [through the second pair of witnesses] and condemn the wicked contrary to the first judgment; then it shall be if the wicked man [i.e., the first pair of witnesses] deserve to be beaten. ”³⁷⁰ This applies to where the command and ye shall do unto him, as he had purposed to do unto his brother³⁷¹ as well, but Scripture implicitly excludes the offspring from liability [for it says, and ye shall do unto him, but not to his offspring] as he had ‘purposed to do unto his brother.’ Therefore the witnesses are scourged for their false testimony (Makkoth 2 a-b). cannot be carried out upon them — such being the case if they testified [against a priest] that he is the son of a divorced woman [and therefore not qualified to be a ministering priest in the Sanctuary], or that he is a slave or a bastard [who is prohibited from the priesthood or from marriage to a Jew], or if they testified against someone that he transgressed one of the negative commandments [which are punishable by stripes] — in all these cases they [the plotting witnesses] are punishable by stripes. It is possible that there be a quarrel between men resulting in stripes — such as where someone assaulted his fellow [causing a damage of] less than a perutah,³⁷² [a small coin], there are no stripes. But if the damages are less than a prutah, he is punishable by stripes. (Kethuboth 32b). or that he cursed his fellow with the Name of G-d,³⁷³ or that someone exacted a utensil necessary for the preparation of food as security for a loan, and similar cases. Scripture speaks of the common occurrence that the party to a dispute [with his fellow] will bring him to court and he will be punished with stripes because of him. Now, the reason for the forty stripes, according to the Midrash,³⁷⁴ 28. is because he transgressed against the Torah which was given in forty days and he caused death upon himself who was formed in the forty days following conception; let him, therefore, be given forty stripes, and be freed of his punishment [of death]. I have already mentioned the subject of levirate marriage and the secret thereof, as well as of Chalitzah (the loosening of the shoe) and its reason.³⁷⁵

footnotes: ³⁶⁶ Makkoth 13b. ³⁶⁷ In Verse 1 before us. ³⁶⁸ Makkoth 2b. ³⁶⁹ Above, 19:15. ³⁷⁰ Verse 2. ³⁷¹ Above, 19:19. There are cases, however, as the text continues, where this law cannot be applied, for example if they testified that a priest is the son of a divorcee, thus disqualifying him from the priesthood. If the witnesses were non-priests, that punishment is obviously inapplicable. And even if they were priests the punishment cannot be inflicted because their intent was to disqualify not only the priest himself but his offspring ³⁷² If the assault did result in a significant damage, he is liable on five counts: for injury, for pain, for medical expenses, for loss of wages, and for humiliation. The rule is that wherever the damages have a monetary value greater than a prutah ³⁷³ Shebuoth 36a. ³⁷⁴ Tanchuma (Buber), Bamidbar ³⁷⁵ Genesis 38:8 (Vol. I pp. 469-470).

AND IT SHALL BE THAT THE FIRSTBORN THAT SHE BEARETH SHALL SUCCEED IN THE NAME OF HIS BROTHER THAT IS DEAD. It [the true purport thereof] is not the simple meaning that they call the first son by the name of the dead, Reuben or Shimon as his name was, for in the case of Boaz it says thus, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren,³⁷⁶ and yet they did not call the child born [to Boaz and Ruth] Machlon. But this verse by way of the Truth, [the mystic teaching of the Cabala], is an assurance³⁷⁷ and thus it is to be understood in its simple sense. And our Rabbis found support in this verse for the following laws:³⁷⁸ that the eldest [surviving] brother contracts the levirate marriage, that a sterile woman may not be contracted for such marriage, nor the wife of a eunuch since his name was “blotted out” [when he was yet alive]. Now, all these are but Scriptural supports [for laws of levirate marriage], because the laws of the sterile widow and the widow of the eunuch are derived from the very essence of the Scriptural section [and are not derived from the Scriptural supports quoted].³⁷⁹

footnotes: ³⁷⁶ Ruth 4:10. ³⁷⁷ See Vol. I, p. 469, Note 155, and p. 470, Note 163. ³⁷⁸ Yebamoth 24a. ³⁷⁹ That is to say, since the purpose of the levirate marriage is as stated by Scripture that the name of the dead be not blotted out from Israel by definition, a sterile woman is excluded from the commandment for she cannot fulfill that function. No special verse is needed to exclude her from such a marriage. Similarly the widow of the eunuch may not be contracted for such a marriage since his name was already “blotted out” when yet alive and no special verse is necessary to exclude his widow from such a marriage. These laws, therefore, are derived from the very essence of the chapter, and the Rabbis merely found support for them in the language of the quoted verse.

REMEMBER WHAT AMALEK DID UNTO THEE. I have already mentioned the Midrash which the Rabbis interpreted in the Sifra:³⁸⁰. “I might think that it means, ‘in your heart.’ But when Scripture states, thou shalt not forget,³⁵³ forgetfulness of heart is already stated. How then can I fulfill the injunction Remember? It must mean ‘by verbal utterance.’” It is also stated in the Sifre,³⁸¹ 296. “Remember what Amalek did unto thee means verbal [remembrance]. Thou shalt not forget³⁵³ means [remembrance] in the heart.” But I know not what is this remembrance through the spoken word. If it is to say that we are to read the section of Amalek in public, then we might deduce therefrom that the duty of reading on the second [Sabbath in the month of Adar the section] Remember what Amalek did unto thee is by law of the Torah!³⁸² 685:7, where this opinion is mentioned. So also we shall have in that case a Scriptural support for the reading of the Scroll [of Esther on Purim]!³⁸³ The correct interpretation appears to me that the verse states that you are not to forget what Amalek did to us until we blot out his remembrance from under the heavens, and that we are to relate it to our children and to our generations, saying to them, “Thus did the wicked one do to us and therefore we have been commanded to blot out his name.” Similarly, in the affair of Miriam, we were commanded³⁸⁴ to make it known to our children and relate it to the generations. And although it would have been appropriate to conceal it in order not to speak of the shortcomings of the righteous,³⁸⁵ yet Scripture commanded that it be made known and revealed so that the admonition against slander be put in their mouths³⁸⁶ because it is a great sin and causes many evils, and people are in the habit of stumbling therein, just as the Rabbis have said:³⁸⁷ “All people are [suspect] of a shade of slander.” Ki Thavo

footnotes: ³⁸⁰ Above, 24:9. The Sifra quoted is at the beginning of Seder Bechukothai ³⁵³ Further, 25:19. ³⁸¹ Sifre, Ki Theitzei ³⁵³ Further, 25:19. ³⁸² Megillah 29b. On each of four Sabbaths preceding the month of Nisan there is a special Scriptural section read during the Synagogue service. On the Sabbath immediately preceding Adar we read the section of the shekels; on the Sabbath before Purim we read the section before us on Amalek because Haman was a descendant of Agag, king of the Amalekites — Now it is known that the reading of the Torah in public was ordained by Moses and the prophets (Baba Kamma 82a). But, concludes Ramban, according to the above interpretation we may thus say that the reading of the section on Amalek in public is ordained by the Torah! See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim ³⁸³ See Ramban above, 4:2, as to how the Sages had difficulty in establishing this duty. But, concludes Ramban, in the text before us we have Scriptural support for the reading of the Scroll of Esther, since this is a form of “verbal remembrance.” However, since the Rabbis made no reference to it we must say that the correct interpretation of the text is as follows. ³⁸⁴ Above, 24:9. ³⁸⁵ Sanhedrin 93b: “And does Scripture speak of the shortcomings of the righteous?!” ³⁸⁶ Further, 31:19. ³⁸⁷ Baba Bathra 165a.