Sifrei Devarim Reader

R. Yossi says: He (a single witness) does not arise for a transgression, but he does arise for an oath (i.e., If one denies a debt to which there is a single witness, he must take an oath against the claim of the witness.) R. Yossi says: Kal vachomer (a fortiori): If in a situation where one's mouth (i.e., admission) does not combine with a single witness for death (i.e., If a single witness testifies that a man had killed, and the man himself admits that he had killed, the two do not combine [like two witnesses] to make him liable to the death penalty) — If (in such a situation) he does swear by his own admission [i.e., If a single witness testifies that a man owes another a hundred, and he admits to fifty, he must take an oath on the rest] — then, in a situation where one's admission does combine (to make him liable) for money (i.e., If a single witness testifies that a man owes another a hundred, and he himself admits to it, his admission does combine with that of the witness to make him liable for money), then how much more so is he liable for an oath on the testimony of a single witness, (and why is a verse needed to tell us this?) — No, (the kal vachomer can be refuted, viz.:) Why is it that he swears by his own admission?

Because he pays by his own admission. Should he then swear by (the testimony of) a single witness, when he does not pay by the testimony of a single witness! The verse is needed, then, to tell us that a single witness does not arise for a transgression, but he does arise for an oath.

(Ibid. 15) "By word of two witnesses, or by word of three witnesses, shall a thing be established": not through their script or through their interpreter. "shall a thing be established": From here it was stated: R. Eliezer says: He forewarns her (a suspected wife) in the presence of two witnesses (not to secrete herself with the suspect), and causes her to drink (the bitter waters of the sotah) by the word of one witness (that she secreted herself).

R. Yehoshua says: He forewarns her in the presence of two and causes her to drink by the word of two. For it would follow: If the latter testimony (that she had secreted herself), which forbids her universally (i.e., even to her husband), were by one witness, how much more so would the former testimony (to her forewarning), which does not forbid her universally (i.e., she is permitted to her husband) — how much more so should it be acceptable with one witness. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 24:1) "for he has found in her a thing of nakedness." And it is written here "By word of two witnesses … will a thing be established" — Just as here, two (are required), so, there, two. How much more so (are two required for) the latter testimony (that she had secreted herself.) For if the first testimony, which does not forbid her universally (i.e., to her husband) is not valid with fewer than two, then the latter testimony, which does forbid her to her husband, how much more so is it invalid with fewer than two. This is the intent of (Bamidbar 5:13) "and there be no witness in her" (see there).

(Devarim 19:16) "If there arise a witness chamas against a man to testify against him sarah": "chamas" connotes a robber, and "sarah," as in (Ibid. 13:6) "for he has spoken sarah," and (Jeremiah 28:16) "This year you shall die, for you have spoken sarah of the L-rd."

We are hereby taught that he is not liable until he falsifies himself — whence they ruled: Witnesses do not become zomemin ("scheming witnesses") until they falsify themselves. How so? A says: I testify that that man killed someone (on a certain day). B. says: How can you say that? That slain man (or that slayer) was with us on that day in this and this place? — These are not zomemin. But if they said: How can you testify thus? You were with us on that day in that place — These are zomemin, and they are killed for their testimony.

(Devarim 19:17) "Then the two men shall stand": It is a mitzvah for the litigants to stand.

"the two men": This tells me only of men (as being required to stand). Whence do I derive (the same for) a man (contending with) a woman; a woman with a man; two women with each other? From "who have the contention" — in any event. If so, why is it written "men"?

Because it is written (Ibid. 15) "By word of two witnesses, etc.", I might think that a woman, too, may testify; it is, therefore, written here, "two," and there "two." Just as "two" here are "men," and not women, so, "two" there.

"who have the contention": Let the owner of the (disputed) ox come and stand by his ox.

"before the L-rd": They think they are standing before flesh and blood — they are standing before the L-rd!

"before the Cohanim and the judges who shall be in those days": This is as R. Yossi Haglili said: Would it enter your mind that they (should stand before) a judge who is not in your days! (The reference is) rather, to (a judge) who had been kin (to one of the litigants [e.g., married to his sister, in which instance he would not be fit for judging his case]), and who had become "distant" (by her death — his present status [thus, "in your days"] permitting him to judge the case.) Variantly: (The reference is) to one who was certified (to judge you) in those days, in keeping with (Koheleth 7:10) "Do not say: What has happened that the former days were better than these, etc."

(Devarim 19:18) "And the judges shall inquire well. And elsewhere, (Ibid. 13:15) "And you shall inquire, and you shall search out, and you shall ask well," and elsewhere (Ibid. 17:4) "And it be told to you, and you hear, and you shall search it out well" — "well" - "well," for an identity (gezeirah shavah). We are hereby taught that he is subject to seven inquiries (chakiroth, cross-examinations). Whence is it derived that there are also bedikoth ("examinations," factual review)? From (Ibid.) "and, behold, true and correct is the thing." Whence is it derived (that through his testimony) he is branded as "false"? From (Ibid. 19:18) "and, behold, a false witness is the witness."

Whence is it derived that (through his testimony) he brands his neighbor (witness) as "false"? From (Ibid.) "'false' has he testified against his brother."

I might think that even if their testimony has been cross-examined (and accepted) in beth-din (and other witnesses come to refute the refuters, that the latter are rendered "edim zomemin"); it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "And the judges inquire well, and behold, (i.e., the case is "closed") — (The first refuters are detained) only so long as beth-din needs them, and not after their testimony has been cross-examined in beth-din. "a witness" — two (i.e., the minimum of "witness" is two); "the witness" — even one hundred.

(Ibid. 19:19) "Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother": If money (i.e., if he schemed to make his brother liable for money), money (i.e., then he pays money); if stripes, stripes; if (other) punishments, punishments.

We "hear" the punishments (for edim zomemin.) Where do we find the exhortation (against it)? In (Shemoth 20:13) "you shall not testify against your neighbor false testimony."

"to do to his brother": From here they ruled: Edim zomemin are not killed unless the verdict has been pronounced (to kill the defendant). For the Sadducees were wont to say: Scheming witnesses are not killed unless the defendant is killed, it being written (Ibid. 21) "a soul for a soul" — to which the sages replied: But is it not written "Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother" — but his brother is (still) living? If so, why is it written "a soul for a soul"? For I might think that they are killed as soon as their (the refuters') testimony is accepted. It is, therefore, written "a soul for a soul" — they are not killed unless the verdict has been pronounced (to kill the defendant).

R. Yossi Haglili says: What is the intent of "Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother"? We find in all the (capital) punishments of the Torah that the penalty of the man is like that of the woman, and that of the edim zomemin like theirs. But in the instance of one who fornicated with the daughter of a Cohein, the penalty of the man is not the same as that of the woman, that of the man being strangulation, and that of the woman, burning. But we have not heard what is to be done with their zomemin (in such an instance). It is, therefore, written "Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother." As the death of his brother is his death, and not as the death of his sister.

And whence is it derived that one who shamed another pays money? It is written here (19:21) "your eyes shall not pity," and elsewhere (in an instance of shaming) (Ibid. 25:12) "your eyes shall not pity." Just as here monetary payment (is being referred to), so, there, monetary payment.

R. Yehudah says: It is written here (19:21) "hand" and "foot," and elsewhere (Shemoth 21:24) "hand" and "foot." Just as "hand" and "foot" here refer to monetary payment, so, "hand" and "foot" there.

R. Yossi Haglili says: Whence is it derived that one should not go out to war unless he has hands, feet, eyes, and teeth? From (the juxtaposition of (19:21) "Your eyes shall not pity; a soul for a soul, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" with (20:1) "when you go out to war against your foes."

(Devarim 20:1) "when you go out to war against your foes": Scripture here speaks of a non-obligatory (optional) war.

"against your foes": (Remember that) it is against your foes that you are warring.

"and you see horse and chariot": Just as they go out against you with horse and chariot, so, you go out against them with horse and chariot.

"horse and chariot": Now do they have only one horse? Is it not written "a great host"? (The meaning is that) when Israel do the L-rd's will, they are all reckoned as one horse. Similarly, (Shemoth 15:1) "Horse and its rider He has cast into the sea." Was there only one horse? Is it not written (Ibid. 14:7) "And he (Pharaoh) took six hundred choice, chariots, etc."? (The meaning is that) when Israel do the L-rd's will, they are all reckoned as one horse. (Devarim, Ibid.)

"Do not fear them, for the L-rd your G-d is with you, who brought you up from the land of Egypt": He who brought you up from the land of Egypt will stand up for you in a time of trouble.

(Devarim 20:2) "And it shall be, when you draw near to the battle": I might think that this refers to the day of the joining of the battle; but (Ibid. 3) "And he shall say to them: Hear, O Israel, you are drawing near today to do battle with your foes" already refers to the day of the battle. How, then, am I to understand "And it shall be, when you draw near to the battle"? When they approach the boundary, the Cohein presents to them all of the conditions that follow.

(Devarim 20:3) "And he shall say to them "Hear, O Israel, who is the man that is fearful and faint-hearted...and the officers shall continue": Why was all this stated? So the cities of Israel should not be desolate. As Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai has said: Come and see how G-d cares for human dignity.When one [soldier] returns, the others would say "maybe he has just built a house" or "maybe he has betrothed a woman". All had to bring proof besides the fearful one whose situation was evident. He heard shields clashing and was scared, blaring trumpets and was shaken, he sees swords being wielded and loses control of his bodily functions.

(Devarim 20:3) "And he shall say to them "Hear, O Israel … against your foes": and not against your brothers: not Yehudah against Shimon and not Shimon against Yehudah, in which instance if you fell into their hands they would pity you, (viz. II Chronicles 28:8-15) — It is against your foes that you are going, who, if you fall into their hands, will not pity you!

"Let your hearts not faint. Do not fear, and do not tremble, and do not break before them." (He warned them) against the four things that the enemy did in war: clashing, trumpeting, shouting, and tramping. "Let your hearts not faint" at the whinnying of the horses and the flashing of the swords. "and do not fear" the clashing of the shields and the tramping of the shoes. "and do not tremble" at the blaring of the trumpets. "and do not break" before the cries (of battle). "For the L-rd your G-d goes with you": They come with the "triumph" of flesh and blood, and you come with the triumph of the L-rd.

(Devarim 20:4) "For it is the L-rd your G-d who goes with you to do battle with your foes": He who was with you in the desert will be with you at this time.

"to save you": from snakes, scorpions, and adverse winds.

Thus far the Cohein anointed for war speaks; from this point on, the officers.

(whether he has betrothed a virgin or a widow, even one awaiting levirate marriage, and even if he has heard that his brother died in the war, he returns.)

All of them (the returnees) heed the words of the Cohein at the battle formation and return and supply water and food for their brothers and repair the roads.

Thus far the Cohein anointed for war speaks; from this point on, the officers. I might think (that they speak) their own words, but (8) "Then the officer shall speak further" already speaks of their own words. How, then, are we to understand "Then the officers shall speak"? As referring to the words of the Cohein appointed for war. How so? The Cohein spoke and an officer relayed what he said.

(Devarim 20:5) "Who is the man that has built a new house": This tells me only of one who has built. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who inherited, acquired, or received it as a gift? From "Who is the man?" (— in any event).

"a house": Whence do I derive (the same for) a straw loft, a cattle shed, a wood hut, and a treasure store? From "who has built" (— any manner of building). I might think then that also included are gateways, porticos, and porches; it is, therefore, written "house." Just as a house can be "inhabited," so, all that can be inhabited, to exclude the above, which cannot be "inhabited."

"and did not inhabit it": to exclude a (house) robber.

"let him go and return to his house": (Let him) heed the words of the Cohein at the battle formation and return,

"lest he die in the war": If he does not heed the words of the Cohein, in the end he will die in the war.

"and another man will inhabit it": I might think, his son or the son of his brother — It is written here "another," and elsewhere (Ibid. 28:30) "another." Just as "another" there is a gentile, so, "another" here.

(Devarim 20:6) "And who is the man that has planted a vineyard": This tells me only of one who has planted a vineyard. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who inherited, acquired, or received a vineyards as a gift? From "Who is the man" (— any manner of man).

This tells me only of a vineyard. Whence do I derive (the same for a plot containing) five food plants of five (different) kinds? From "that has planted," (fewer than five not being "planting"). I might think, even four food plants and five barren plants. It is, therefore, written "a vineyard," (these not being considered "a vineyard.")

R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: I understand the verse as applying only to a vineyard, (and not as five food plants).

"and did not redeem" (in the fourth year): to exclude (from "returning") one who sunk vines. "and did not redeem it": to exclude one who engrafted them.

"let him go and return to his house": (Let him) heed the words of the Cohein at the battle formation and return.

"lest he die in the war": If he does not heed the words of the Cohein, in the end he will die in the war.

"and another man will redeem it": I might think, his son or the son of his brother — It is written here "another," and elsewhere (Ibid. 28:30) "another." Just as "another" there is a gentile, so, "another" here.

(Devarim 20:7) "And who is the man who has betrothed a woman": whether he has betrothed a virgin or a widow, even one awaiting levirate marriage, and even if he has heard that his brother died in the war, he returns.

"and he has not taken her": (Scripture speaks of) a woman who is (halachically) fit for him — to exclude his divorcée (who had remarried), a widow betrothed to a high-priest, a divorcée or a chalutzah (a woman awaiting levirate marriage), betrothed to any Cohein, a mamzereth (a bastard, the issue of an illicit relationship) or a nathinah (a descendant of the Giveonites) betrothed to an Israelite, or an Israelitess betrothed to a nathin or a mamzer.

"let him go and return to his house": Let him heed the words of the Cohein and return. All of them (the returnees) heed the words of the Cohein at the battle formation and return and supply water and food for their brothers and repair the roads. Why were all these things stated? So that the cities of Israel not lie waste.

(Devarim 20:8) "Then the officers shall speak further to the people": their (the officers') own words (and not those of the Cohein).

"Who is the man that fears and that is soft of heart?": that fears because of his transgressions, as per the words of R. Yossi Haglili: Come and see how the L-rd was solicitous of one's dignity, Scripture attributing (his returning) to all of these (aforementioned) things to salvage the dignity of one who returns because of faint-heartedness — so that they say of him: Perhaps he (is returning because) he built a house or planted a vineyard or betrothed a woman.

R. Akiva said: "that fears and that is faint of heart" is to be taken literally — He cannot stand in the ranks of battle and behold the drawn sword. And all had to bring proof (of building a new house, etc.), except the fearer and the faint-hearted, his proof being "with him," i.e., he hears the clashing of the shields and takes fright; the whinnying of the horses, and shakes; the blaring of the trumpets, and panics. R. Yossi Haglili says: "that fears and that is soft of heart": one who is forty (or older). If it is already written "that fears," why need it be added "and that is soft of heart"? To teach that even the bravest of the brave and the strongest of the strong — if he is merciful (i.e., "soft-hearted"), he returns, as it is written "and not melt the heart of his brothers as his own heart."

"and not melt the heart of his brothers as his own heart." R. Shimon says: If one hears the words of the Cohein and (they apply to him) and he does not return, in the end, all will return because of him.

(Devarim 20:9) "And it shall be, when the officers finish speaking to the people, they shall appoint commanders at the head of the people," and at the rear of the people. Sentinels armed with iron staves are posted before and behind them with the authority to "cripple" all who desire to flee, for the beginning of defeat is flight, as it is written (I Samuel 4:17) "Israel fled before the Philistines, and a great 'plague' overtook the people." When is this so? (that all of the aforementioned return?) In an optional war; but in a mandatory war, all go out, even a groom from his chamber and a bride from her bridal canopy.

(Devarim 20:10) "If you draw near to a city": Scripture here speaks of an optional war.

"to do battle with it": and not to reduce it by hunger, thirst, or plague.

"then you shall call out to it for peace": Great is peace, for even in war peace is needed. Great is peace, for even the dead need peace. Great is peace, for even the dwellers on high need peace, as it is written (Iyyov 25:1) "He makes peace among His exalted ones." Great is peace, for the priestly blessing ends with "peace." And even Moses was a lover of peace, as it is written (Devarim 2:26) "And I sent messengers from the desert of Kedemoth … with words of peace."

(Devarim 20:11) "And it shall be, if it answers you for peace": I might think, even (if) some (do so); it is, therefore, written "and it opens itself to you" — all of it and not part of it.

"then all the people found in it": including Canaanites within it.

(Even Canaanites, whom you are otherwise commanded to destroy) "shall be tribute to you and they shall serve you": If they said: We accept tribute but not servitude; servitude, but not tribute, they are not heeded — They must accept both.

"But if it does not make peace with you, and it makes war with you": Scripture apprises you that if it does not make peace with you (and you let it be), in the end it will make war with you.

"then you shall lay siege to it" — even to reduce it by famine, thirst, or plague.

(Ibid. 20:13) "Then the L-rd your G-d will deliver it into your hands": If you do all that has been stated, in the end, the L-rd your G-d will deliver it into your hands.

"then you shall smite all of its males by the sword": I might think, even the children; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 14) "but the women and the little ones … you shall take for yourself": — But perhaps the little ones of the females are meant! — Can you say this? Now if (in the war with) Midian, where the adult women were put to death, the little ones were spared, then here, where the adult women were spared, how much more so would the little ones be spared (and no verse would be needed to tell us that). It must be, then, that "little ones" here refers to the little ones of the males.

"all of its spoil shall you take for yourself": I might think that their spoil should be forbidden; it is, therefore, written "its spoil shall you take for yourself, and you shall eat the spoil of your foes."

(Devarim 20:15) "Thus shall you do to all the cities that are distant": The distant ones (i.e., those not of the seven nations) are subsumed in this law (to spare the women and children), but those that are near (i.e., the seven nations) are not subsumed in this law.

(Ibid. 16) "But from the cities of these people (the seven nations) … you shall not allow any soul to live": (But you shall slay them) by the sword.

(Ibid. 17) "But you shall utterly destroy them": I might think that their spoil were forbidden to you; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 6:11) "and houses full of all good." "the Chitti, the Emori, the Canaani, etc."

"as the L-rd your G-d commanded you": to include the Girgashi.

(Devarim 20:18) "So that they not teach you to do according to all their abominations": whereby we are taught if they repented, they are not killed.

"and you sin to the L-rd your G-d": If you do not act in accordance with all that is said here you are called "sinners to the L-rd."

(Devarim 20:19) "If you besiege a city many days": Scripture here speaks of an optional war.

"many days": "days" — two; "many" — three. We are hereby taught that peace is offered for two days, and a third day for the battle. And even though there is no proof for this, there is an intimation of it in (I Samuel 30:1) "And David and his men came to Tziklag on the third day." Variantly: From here it is derived that gentile cities are not besieged fewer than three days before the Sabbath, (so that the siege not extend into the Sabbath); but if the siege began, it is not interrupted. And a sea voyage is not begun fewer than three days before the Sabbath. When is this so? For a long voyage, but for a short one, it is permissible.

"to war upon it, to capture it": and not to destroy it.

"You shall not cut down its tree by wielding an axe against it": This tells me only of iron (i.e., an axe blade). Whence do I derive (the same for destroying it by) diverting a water course from it? From "You shall not destroy its tree" — in any manner.

(We are hereby taught that peace is offered for two days, and a third day before the battle. And so it states: (I Samuel 30:1) "And David Remained in Tziklag for two days." And gentile cities are not besieged fewer than three days before the Sabbath, (so that the siege not extend into the Sabbath); but if the siege began, it is not interrupted. This is one of three lessons taught by Shammai the Elder: A sea voyage is not begun fewer than three days before the Sabbath. When is this so? For a long voyage, but for a short one, it is permissible.)

"For from it you shall eat": a positive commandment;

"but it you shall not cut down": a negative commandment.

Variantly: "for from it shall you eat": a tree providing life for a man. R. Yishmael reasoned hence: If the L-rd is so solicitous of the fruits of a tree, how much more so of the tree itself! And if Scripture exhorts against (cutting down) a tree, which only produces fruit, how much more so (does it exhort against destroying) fruit itself!

(Devarim 20:20) "Only a tree that you know": This is a fruitful tree. (Ibid. 19) "to come before you into the siege": Cut it down.

(Ibid. 20) "that it is not a fruitful tree": This is a barren tree. If in the end we include (to be cut down for the siege even) a fruitful tree, what is the intent of "that it is not a fruitful tree"? We are hereby taught that a barren tree takes precedence (to being cut down) to a fruitful tree (if only one is needed for the siege). I might think that this holds true even if the barren tree is worth more, as per the words of R. Elazar b. R. Shimon; it is, therefore, written "Only" (to exclude such an instance).

"and you shall cut": Make of it barriers and siegeworks.

"until it is subdued": even on the Sabbath. This is one of the things expounded by Shammai the elder.

(Devarim 21:1) "If there be found a slain one on the earth": "If there be found": and not if there were generally found" — to exclude (its being found) near the border or near a city inhabited mostly by gentiles — where it was stated: When murderers proliferated, the breaking of the heifer's neck was abolished. When R. Elazar b. Dinai came, (otherwise known as Techinah b. Prishah), they began to call him "the son of the murderer."