אם זרחה השמש עליו דמים לו, “If the sun illuminated the burglar, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text, the assumption of the Torah is that if someone breaks into a house at night he means to kill the owner (if he obstructs him in his attempt to steal) The murderer plans to flee by daylight when his being about does not arouse any suspicion. If the owner of the house kills the intruder, this is considered self defense even if the intruder had not yet laid a hand on the owner. When the intruder came by day, it is presumed that he had no intention to kill, and if nonetheless, the owner killed him, he is guilty of having shed his blood.

כי יתן איש אל רעהו כסף או כלים, “When a man entrusts his neighbour with silver or chattels for safe-keeping;” the first paragraph in this sequence deals with someone who does not receive compensation for looking after his friend’s valuables in his own house. The reason why the Torah singled out money or vessels is that these are the most common items a person asks his neighbour to keep for him during his absence from home. The next paragraph deals with a situation where the guardian of his friend’s property is compensated for his trouble. This is why the Torah chose domestic animals as the example of what is to be guarded, as these require time-consuming care, not like money or vessels. It may therefore be presumed that the owner offered to compensate his neighbour for his trouble.

אם טרוף יטרף, “if it is thoroughly torn;” the Torah describes the animal’s death as due to the kind of accidental death that the guardian could neither have foreseen nor prevented. This frees him from the need to compensate the owner, if his claim can be substantiated. The same rule applies if that beast had been kidnapped by armed thugs, or if it died of natural causes. In the event that the custodian claims that the animal in his charge had been killed by a predator, and there are no witnesses, he has to swear an oath in support of his claim. The Torah describes a scenario of, say, a lion attacking a sheep in a flock. Usually, there are more than one shepherd in the vicinity who can testify to what occurred. If the animal sustained a fracture or died of natural causes, this would likely have happened in the privacy of the custodian’s house so that there is hardly a chance to produce a witness testifying to the innocence of the custodian. Hence the Torah writes: אין רואה, there is no outside witness. Ibn Ezra understands the line יביאהו עד, “let him bring a witness,” not as an unreasonable demand, but as referring to part of the mutilated animal. It can be determined by examining the remains how this animal met its death.

מהר ימהרנו לו לאשה, “he shall make all the preparations required to marry her.” Nachmanides understands this as the seducer (groom) sending the girl the customary gifts סבלונות, a groom sends prior to the wedding. These are expensive gifts, not boxes of chocolate or a bunch of flowers. They are items that the bride needs as part of her outfits to prepare her for a dignified wedding ceremony. The wedding canopy would usually be erected after the bride had received these gifts from her husband to be. The reason why the Torah phrased this procedure in the way it did, instead of writing: “he must marry her forthwith,” is because it is not the seducer’s duty to marry her unless she has indicated her willingness to become his wife. If she does not agree to marry her seducer, the latter must still send her these gifts, as by seducing her he has greatly diminished the chances that another young man would want to marry this girl whose virginity has been jeopardized. Such a girl‘s father would have to tempt prospective suitors with a much larger dowry in order to make them consent to marry his daughter. Our sages say that the value of the mohar described in our verse is 50 shekel (Ketuvot 38), similar to the amount payable by a rapist to the father of the girl whom he had raped. The difference in law between the rapist and the seducer is merely that the former cannot ever divorce his wife (whom he had raped before she became his wife) against her will The seducer has a choice both in marrying his “victim” and eventually divorcing her if he so desires. The reason suggested for this rule is that it is not uncommon for young men to seduce girls who are of marriageable age. It would not be appropriate that the sinner should benefit by his deed in forcing marriage of his “victim” against her will. We must not forget that the girl who allowed herself to be seduced had been guilty of frivolous conduct also. This is why the Torah did not apply the same harsh rules to him that it applied to the rapist who forced himself on his victim. It suffices that he is made to pay a hefty financial fine. Moreover, rapists, as a rule, force their attentions on girls who are minors, and it would not be fair to force such a victim to be married to her violator against her will. If we were to do this she would become a victim of the same person a second time. Both she and her father can object to the rapist marrying her, whereas the rapist himself has no choice in the matter. In both situations the Torah limits these rules to when the girl in question is not yet older than 12 and a half years. In the verses dealing with rape this is spelled out in detail, i.e. הנערה (Deut. 22,28) Fully adult girls, (12 and a half+ receive the compensation themselves, not their father). In our verse here the Torah does not need to write the word נערה to indicate that this is the oldest girl to whom this legislation applies, seeing that if she were older the father would not be in the picture as the recipient of the fine stipulated by the Torah. She would not herself qualify as a potential recipient of a fine, seeing no crime had been committed against her interests. All she had had to do was to decline the invitation to engage in intimacies with the man in question.

מכשפה לא תחיה, “Do not allow a witch to remain alive. Contrary to other examples of people guilty of the death penalty, where the Torah describes their fate in positive terms, i.e. “you must execute them,” in this instance the Torah chooses a negative way of describing its objective writing “must not be allowed to live.” In practice this appears to mean that failure to execute someone guilty of a capital offence is accounted merely as the failure to observe a positive commandment, i.e. negligence by the court, whereas here failure to execute a witch is described as the violation of a negative commandment, i.e. an act of insubordination against G’d. The reason the practice of witchcraft is so abhorrent in the eyes of G’d, is that these people not only sin but cause all those whom they mislead into believing in their powers to abandon their faith in the true G’d; in other words they present themselves as G’d’s competition. Another such category of sinner is the מסית, the person who actively solicits others to abandon the faith of his fathers. There the Torah categorically demands that no possible ameliorating circumstances be allowed to be presented in defense of the accused. (compare Deut. 13,7-12) In our case, the wording of the Torah implies that all means of killing such a witch must be employed if it proves impossible to convict her by the normal legal processes and the stringent demands of testimony normally applied in prosecutions that can result in the death penalty

זובח לאלוהים, “someone offering sacrifices to gods, etc.” The use of the vowel patach (kametz) under the letter ל is proof that the Torah refers to known deities, the ones which had been previously mentioned, and whose worship had already been forbidden.

יחרם, “he shall be destroyed.” The individual is to be executed. The reason why the Torah chose the unusual term יחרם here is a play on words, seeing that the individual has seen fit to deify “dead” gods, he too is to be equated to the deities whom he had worshipped. We find that the Torah indulges in such play on words, for instance when describing how we are to relate to certain forbidden foods, living creatures of a lower order; or the offering of such creatures as sacrifices. In Deut. 7,26 the Torah forbids the presentation of such living creatures as sacrifices to the Lord, the reason being given כי חרם הוא, ”it is something that is viewed as slated for destruction.” People who are so misguided will wind up exactly where these sacrifices wind up, i.e. יהיה חרם כמוהו. He who deifies these creatures as substantive will wind up losing his own substance, just as these gods that never had any substance. The verse also implies that such gods are totally out of bounds, i.e. one must not derive direct or indirect benefit from them. Nachmanides writes that actually the vowel ל under the latter ל before the word אלוהים frequently indicates that the word אלוהים following is a celestial being such as an angel. He quotes numerous examples. Offering a sacrifice to an angel, as was the intention of Manoach in Judges 13,15 is equally prohibited. The only address for sacrifices is the attribute Hashem. The Torah had to make this plain, as many well meaning people believe that by honouring angels they also honour their Creator. They consider the angel as being a go-between man and G’d, whose task it is to inform man of what is pleasing to G’d. Their error consists in their assumption that by presenting gifts to intermediaries they are actually serving G’d. In order to prevent such errors from being practiced by Jews, the Torah had to make plain that Hashem is the only address for such offerings.

כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים, “for you had remained strangers in the land of Egypt.” Nachmanides writes that not all proselytes have become potentially fit for conversion because we, the Israelites, were strangers only in the land of Egypt. Personally, (Nachmanides speaking) I think that the moral/ethical message here is that we must not taunt the proselyte, reminding him of his lack of illustrious ancestors, seeing that we ourselves not so long ago were no better than he while we were idol worshipping aliens in Egypt. I, the Lord, have saved you from there because I took note of your pitiful state. Similarly, any proselyte will certainly also enjoy My full protection a soon as he turns to Me complaining about being discriminated against. G’d promises similar immediate attention to the pleas of widows and orphans. Their claim for Divine assistance is based on the circumstances in their lives preventing them from taking the kind of initiatives that promise to improve their social and economic status among their peers. Elsewhere the Torah writes:ואתם ידעתם את נפש הגר “you know the mental state of the stranger,” meaning that his mentality is devoid of self-confidence, and that he is therefore liable to cry out to G’d for help at frequent intervals. (compare Exodus 23,9)

כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון, “Do not oppress any widow or orphan.” The word כל, “every,” is meant to include wealthy widows and well to do orphans. It teaches that contrary to appearances, such people are keenly aware of the loss of companionship and moral support they have sustained, and that cannot be compensated for simply by earthly possessions. The Torah addresses people generally, society, hence the word תענון, is in the plural mode. Ibn Ezra comments that the penalty for someone witnessing such oppression without protesting the behaviour of the party guilty of it, is the same as the person actually guilty of such oppression of the orphan and widow.

אם ענה תענה אותו, “if you as an individual will be guilty of oppressing such an unfortunate person, etc.” the Torah addresses every such individual not only as a member of society, but in his capacity as a heartless individual.

והיו נשיכם אלמנות, “your own wives will become widows, etc.” This will be the penalty exacted as a result of widows complaining to G’d.

ובניכם יתומים, “and your children will become premature orphans.” This will be the result of an orphan complaining to G’d about being treated unfairly. This type of retribution is quite different from death sentences handed out by a heavenly court of law. Concerning such penalties the Torah employs such syntax as ומתו בו כי יחללוהו, “they will die on account of having profaned it or Him.” (Leviticus 22,9) Examples of how such decrees are carried out would be soldiers dying in battle, (i.e. before having completed a normal life cycle).

אם ענה תענה אותו, Rashi comments on that line in verse 22 that it contains an abbreviated dire warning without spelling out the kind of penalty resulting. The penalty mentioned in verse 23 refers only to G’d’s response to a complaint by the injured party, whereas no mention is made of the penalty imposed when the injured party did not complain to G’d about being maltreated. Nachmanides writes that Rashi is not correct, but that the words אם ענה תענה אותו, have to be understood as in lieu of the words “if he will complain to Me” preceding the punishment of the offender in time, that G’d threatens that He will immediately respond to the complaint if the oppressed orphan even before he has finished complaining. The apparently illogical sequence of this line underlines the immediacy of G’d’s response. The reason for G’d’s “haste” in responding to the outcries of widows and orphans is that whereas ordinary people try to mobilize their social contacts or their wealth to help them over temporary difficulties, the orphans and widows have no such means to fall back on. Only G’d will avenge the wrong done to them

ושמעתי כי חנון אני, “I shall listen for I am compassionate.” G’d is concerned that the reader should not conclude that G’d’s concern for the property and comfort of the righteous does not also extend to the not so righteous, such as in the legislation not to take as a pawn for a loan which is overdue certain necessities. (compare Deut. 24,17) Some commentators interpret the line והיה כי יצעק אלי to mean that if the individual in question was in the habit of thanking the Lord for the acts of kindness he had experienced that had been performed by you, such as not taking your bedclothes as a security for a loan, He in turn would respond to the prayer when he asks for help.

אלוקים לא תקלל, “You shall not revile G’d; nor shall you curse a legally appointed dignitary of your people.” This is a warning not to curse a judge who has found you guilty in litigation.

ונשיא בעמך לא תאור; not to curse the king if he imposed some penalty on you. Not only the king, any legitimate official is meant. Even a member of a religious court, i.e. one dealing with ritual matters, is included in this prohibition.

מלאתך, “your fullness offering, etc.” Nachmanides writes that this word is applied also to seed as in פן תקדש המלאה הזרע, (Deut. 22,9) “lest the growth of the seed that you plant become forbidden.” The expression is also found in connection with the יקב, the winery, i.e. the wine press or the oil press. Apparently, produce from field or vine is called both תבואה because it is “brought” home to be stored, and it is also called מלאה as it has to be gathered and collected, to wit סוכות is the festival called חג האסיף the holiday of ingathering. We encounter the expression מלא רועים referring to a gathering of shepherds. (Isaiah 31,4) It is also possible that they are called מלאה as an expression symbolizing the blessing represented by the farmer filling his granaries and vats.

ודמעך, “your priestly heave-offering.” A reference to grape and olive harvests, the juice of which is perceived as flowing out like tears, a little at a time. Ibn Ezra understands the word מלאתך as the grape harvest that due to its abundant moisture needs to be transferred to vessels for storage before irretrievable loss of juice occurs. The word דמעך, refers to the olive harvest in his opinion, as oil drips very slowly, drop by drop similar to tears.

לא תאחר, “do not delay in offering.” Our sages understand this to mean that they are not to be offered in reverse order. (Terumot 3,6) [such as tithes being given before the terumah to the priests. Ed.] According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah simply warns not to eat of any of these fruit before the requisite gifts have been set aside enabling the farmer and ordinary individuals to eat from all this. The reason why the Torah speaks about redeeming the firstborn, calling it a gift to G’d, in the same breath, is that just as the harvest of what grows in the field and orchard must be freed for secular use only after the various tithes have been set aside, the same rule applies to the “harvest” of the union of husband and wife, the first born male child.

ואנשי קודש, “and “holy” people, etc. The reason that the Torah suddenly refers to the status of holiness, sanctity, is that up until now in this portion when we spoke about laws governing interpersonal relations this consideration did not enter the ordinances revealed in our chapter. Now, when forbidden foods are mentioned, the rationale which serves as the background to such legislation is the fact that Jews are spiritually on a higher level than gentiles, i.e. they are in varying degrees “holy.” A person is to eat the kind of food that not only assures his physical health, but also that which contributes to his spiritual health. This “spiritual health” is referred to generally as טהרה, ritual purity. Avoidance of the foods mentioned by the Torah is intended to forestall the body of Jews becoming gross, uncouth, something which the intake of certain animals prohibited by the Torah would facilitate, even if the same animal when healthy, unblemished, is fit to be consumed. The Torah’s message is that Hashem desires us to maintain a level of spirituality that enables us to cleave to Him in the desired manner.