Sifrei Devarim Reader

"slain" (connoting: by the sword), and not strangled. "slain": and not convulsing.

"which the L-rd your G-d gives to you": to include (the land of the Jews) across the Jordan.

R. Eliezer says: In all (of these instances) if he were slain (by the sword), they would break the neck (of the heifer). R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah said to R. Eliezer: If he were strangled or cast in the refuse, would they break the neck? So, in all of these instances, they would not break the neck.

"it was not known who killed him": But if it were known who killed him — even if one person in the end of the world had slain him, (though normally two witnesses are required) they would not break the neck.

R. Akiva says: Whence is it derived that if beth-din saw him killing but did not recognize him, they would not break the neck? From (Ibid. 7) "And they shall answer and say … our eyes have not seen" (But in that instance their eyes did see.)

(Ibid. 2) "Then your elders shall go out": "your elders" — two; "and your judges" — two. And since a beth-din cannot be evenly balanced, an additional one is added, making five. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: "Your elders and your judges" — two. And since a beth-din cannot be evenly balanced, an additional one is added, making three.

"and they shall measure to the cities that are around the slain one": (They measure) from the slain one to the cities, and not from the cities to the slain one. If his head was found in one place, and his body in another, the head is brought to the body. These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Akiva says: The body (is brought) to the head.

(Devarim 21:3) "And it shall be, the city closest to the slain one": the nearest and not the near ones — whence they ruled: If it were found equi-distant between the two cities, both bring two (distinct heifers [and not one heifer jointly]). These are the words of R. Eliezer. The sages say: One city brings, and two cities do not bring.

"the elders of that city shall take a heifer that has not been worked": and not the elders of Jerusalem. And Jerusalem does not bring an eglah arufah (the heifer of the broken neck).

"they shall take a heifer" ("eglath bakar"): R. Eliezer says: "eglath" — (up to) one year old; "parah" (a cow, the parah adumah [viz. Bamidbar 19:12]) — two years old. The sages say: "eglah" — (even one that is) two years old; "parah" — three or four years old — it being written (in respect to the former) "eglath bakar." How is this to be implemented? A two-year old satisfies both, "eglah" and "bakar."

Similarly, (Ibid. 5) "Then there shall draw near the Cohanim … (6) and all the elders of that city." How so? The elders for washing; the Cohanim for atonement.

(Devarim, Ibid. 3) "that has not drawn under the yoke": This tells me only of the yoke. Whence are other labors derived (as disqualifying factors)? From "that has not been worked" (— in any manner). If so, why is "yoke" specifically mentioned? The yoke disqualifies whether or not the animal works; the other labors disqualify only if the animal works.

(Devarim 21:4) "And the elders of that city shall bring the heifer down": I might think that this is (only) a mitzvah, (but not a categorical requirement); it is, therefore, written again "the elders of that city," after having been written before (verse 3), to make it a categorical requirement. From here they ruled: If the body were found near the border or near a city inhabited mostly by gentiles or near a city lacking a beth-din, they would not measure.

("And they shall bring the heifer down) to a hard river-bed": And whence is it derived that it is valid even if it is not hard? From (Ibid.) "in the river bed" — even if it is not hard.

("a hard river-bed) which shall not be worked": I might think that it is forbidden to comb flax there and to chisel stones there; it is, therefore, written "and which shall not be sowed." Sowing was included in all (labor). Why was it singled out? To make it a paradigm, viz.: Just as sowing is distinctly in the soil, so, all (such labors are forbidden), to exclude those which are not labors of the soil.

"and they shall break there the neck of the heifer": It is written here "breaking," and elsewhere (Vayikra 5:18) "breaking." Just as there, he breaks the neck with a hatchet from behind, so, here. "and they shall break there the neck": It is written here "there," and, elsewhere, "there." Just as there, he buries it and it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, so, here. [("a hard river-bed) which shall not be worked": I might think that it is forbidden to comb flax there and to chisel stones there; it is, therefore, written "and which shall not be sowed." Sowing was included in all (labor). Why was it singled out? To make it a paradigm, viz.: Just as sowing is distinctly in the soil, so, all (such labors are forbidden), to exclude those which are not labors of the soil.]

(Devarim 21:5) "Then there shall draw near the Cohanim, the sons of Levi": What is the intent of this? (i.e., Don't we know that the Cohanim are the sons of Levi?) — Because it is written (Ibid.) "for them did the L-rd your G-d choose to serve Him," I might think that only unblemished Cohanim are eligible (for this rite); it is, therefore, written "the sons of Levi" — to teach that blemished Cohanim are eligible for the breaking of the neck of the heifer.

"to serve Him and to pronounce the benediction in the name of the L-rd": The (priestly) benediction is being likened to the (priestly) service. Just as the latter is performed, standing, so, the former.

"and by their word shall every contention and every plague-spot be (ruled upon."): Contentions are being compared to plague-spots, and plague-spots to contentions. Just as plague-spots are (ruled upon) only in the daytime, so, contentions. And just as contentions are not (ruled upon) by kin, so, plague-spots. If so, why not say: Just as contentions require three (judges), so, plague-spots.

And it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If his money requires three, how much more so, his body! It is, therefore, written (re plague-spots, Vayikra 13:3) "… or to one of his sons, the Cohanim" — One Cohein rules on a plague-spot.

(Devarim 21:6) "And all the elders of that city": Even if they are a hundred. Because we said above ([21:2] re the measuring), three or five, I might think that this is so here, too. (in respect to the washing of the hands); it is, therefore, written "and all the judges of that city" — even if they are a hundred.

"they shall wash their hands over the heifer of the broken neck in the river-bed": on the spot where its neck was broken. I might think that they may go up from the river-bed; it is, therefore, written "in the river-bed." (Ibid. 7) "And they shall answer and they shall say": Their washing and their saying must be in the river-bed.

(Devarim 21:7) "And they shall answer and say": in the holy tongue.

"Our hands have not spilled": Now would it enter our minds that the elders of beth-din are spillers of blood! (The intent is:) He (the slain one) was not "in our hands" and dismissed without a meal; and we did not see him, (corresponding to "our eyes have not seen") and let him go without an escort.

And the Cohanim say (Ibid. 8) "Forgive Your people, Israel, which You have redeemed, O L-rd."

"which You have redeemed ": This teaches that this atonement atones for those that left Egypt.

These are the dead, whereby we are taught that the dead, too, require atonement, and that this atonement atones until the exodus from Egypt, and that the spiller of blood sins (retroactively) until the exodus from Egypt.

"which You have redeemed": It is to this end that You redeemed us — that there be no spillers of blood among us. Variantly: It is to this end that You redeemed us — that if we sinned You would make atonement for us. "and the blood will be atoned unto them":

The Holy Spirit says this: "If you do as prescribed herein, the blood will be atoned unto you."

(Ibid. 9) "And you shall remove the innocent blood from your midst.": Remove the doers of evil from Israel.

(Devarim 21:10) "If you go out to war": Scripture speaks of an optional war (as opposed to a war of mitzvah).

"and the L-rd your G-d delivers him into your hand": If you do as stated herein, in the end, the L-rd your G-d will deliver him into your hand.

"and you capture its captivity": including Canaanites in their midst (even if they be of the seven nations).

(Ibid. 11) "and you see in the captivity": at the time of the captivity.

"of beautiful form": This tells me only of a woman of beautiful form. Whence do I derive that the same applies to an ugly woman? From "and you desire her": even if she is not beautiful. If so, why is it written of beautiful form"? Scripture speaks of the common instance.

"then you may take her for yourself as a wife": and not for his father and not for his son.

(Devarim 21:12): "then you shall bring her inside your house": and not that of another.

"and she shall shave her head and she shall do her nails": R. Eliezer says: She shall cut them. R. Akiva says: She shall let them grow long.

R. Eliezer says: "doing" (i.e., an action) is mentioned in respect to "head," and "doing" is mentioned in respect to "nails." Just as the "doing" in respect to head (i.e., shaving) is removing, so, the "doing" in respect to nails is removing (i.e., cutting).

R. Akiva says: "doing" (i.e., an action) is mentioned in respect to head, and "doing" is mentioned in respect to nails. Just as the "doing" in respect to head (i.e., shaving) makes her unsightly, so, the "doing" in respect to nails (must be something that) makes her unsightly (viz., letting them grow long.) A proof for this: (II Samuel 19:25) "And Mefibosheth the son of Saul came down towards the king. He had not done his feet and he had not done (i.e., trimmed) his mustache."

(Devarim 21:13) "And she shall remove the garment of her captivity from her": We are hereby taught that he removes her alluring clothing and dresses her in widows' weeds; for the Canaanites would dress their daughters enticingly to cause others to stray after them.

"and she shall sit in your house": the house that he frequents, so that he "stumbles" upon her coming and going, and sees her in her ungainliness, and she becomes repulsive to him.

"and she shall mourn her father and her mother": This is to be taken literally. These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Akiva says: "her father and her mother" are idolatry, as it is written (Jeremiah 2:27) "They say to the wood 'You are my father,' and to the stone 'You bore me.'"

"a month of days": thirty days. R. Shimon b. Elazar says: "a month": one (month). "days": two (months). "and after that": three (months, all together), for the "amendment" of the child, to distinguish between the seed of the first and the seed of the second (i.e., It is possible that she was already pregnant by some other man, and we do not know whether this is a nine-month child of the first or a seven-month child of the second. But if he waits three months, this doubt does not exist.)

And why all this? (i.e., Why this separation from cohabitation?) So that the Jewish daughter (i.e., his first wife) rejoice, and this one weep; this one, adorn herself, and this one abase herself.

"and after, you shall come to her": But if he does not do all of the foregoing and he cohabits with her, this is a cohabitation of harlotry.

"and you shall cohabit with her": You have only the mitzvah of cohabitation with her.

"and she shall be to you as a wife": as it is written (Shemoth 21:10) "her food, her clothing, and her (conjugal) time he shall not diminish."

(Devarim, Ibid. 14) "And it shall be, when you do not desire her": Scripture apprises you that you are destined to hate her.

"then you shall send her on her own": but not to the house of her god.

"then you shall send her": with a divorce (a "get"), as per R. Yochanan. "on her own": If she were sick, he must wait until she recovers — a fortiori, for Jewish daughters, who are holy and pure.

"you shall not sell her for money": This tells me only that he may not sell her for money. Whence do I derive that he may not give her away as a gift or as a gratuity? From (the superfluous) "and sell you shall not sell."

"lo tithamer bah": You shall not use her. Variantly: This is an exhortation for (the observance of) everything mentioned in this section.

"after you have afflicted her": even after one act (of cohabitation).

(Devarim 21:15) "If there be to a man two wives": Scripture speaks of women in whom there is "being" (i.e., being as a wife) — to exclude a maidservant and a Canaanite woman, in whom there is no "being" (i.e., with whom marriage does not "take"). The implication is that excluded (from this halachah) are these (above) and those whom he has ravished or seduced, (where there is no "marriage"). It is, therefore, written "loved" and "hated." Is there such a thing as "loved" or "hated" before the L-rd (i.e., as affecting marital status)? It must be (that "hated," then,) refers to ravished or seduced (i.e., "hated" by the L-rd), not in the manner of all the wives (as opposed to "loved," connoting halachically permitted union, [the halachah of non-favoritism obtaining also with sons of rape or seduction]). Whence do we derive (for inclusion in this halachah) (the sons of) a widow (wed) to a high-priest and (the sons of) a divorcée or a chalutzah (a levirate-refused woman, wed) to a regular Cohein (even though these unions are halachically interdicted)? From (the repetition of) "hated" "hated." (I might think that only) these are included, these unions being forbidden by negative commandment (only); but I would not include unions liable to kareth (cutting-off) at the hands of heaven; it is, therefore, written, to negate this assumption, "hated" "hated." I might then think (that also included in the halachah of non-favoritism) are a maidservant and a Canaanite woman; it is, therefore, written "If there be to a man … and they bear to him sons" — Wherever there is "being" (see above), the sons are his (and the halachah of non-favoritism obtains) — excluding the above, where the sons are not (halachically) his, (but the mother's).

R. Shimon says (on "the loved one and the hated one"): Scripture hereby apprises us that he is destined to hate her (the captive woman) and love another.

"and they bear him sons": to exclude (from the halachah of bechor) an instance where we are in doubt (as to whether the son is a nine-month birth to the [possible] first [man who cohabited with her]), or a seven-month birth to the second.

"and they bear": I might think, from the place of "bearing," to exclude a (son born by) Caesarean section; it is, therefore, written "sons" (in any event).

"two wives": This tells me only of two. Whence do I derive (that the same applies) even if they are more? From "wives" (in any event).

This tells me that the double share of the bechor (the first-born) applies only if there are many wives, some loved and some hated. Whence do I derive (that the same applies) even if all are loved or all hated? From "and they bear him sons, the loved one and the hated one," (the implication being) even if all are loved or all hated.

This tells me only if there are many and all are loved or hated. Whence do I derive (that the same applies) even if there are only two? From "two wives".

Whence do I derive (that the same applies) even if there is only one wife (who bears two sons) and she is loved or hated? From (the repetition) "loved" "loved," "hated" "hated."

Is there such a thing as "loved" or "hated" before the L-rd (i.e., as affecting marital status)? It must be (that "hated," then,) refers to ravished or seduced (i.e., "hated" by the L-rd), not in the manner of all the wives (as opposed to "loved," connoting halachically permitted union, [the halachah of non-favoritism obtaining also with sons of rape or seduction]). Whence do we derive (for inclusion in this halachah) (the sons of) a widow (wed) to a high-priest and (the sons of) a divorcée or a chalutzah (a levirate-refused woman, wed) to a regular Cohein (even though these unions are halachically interdicted)? From (the repetition of) "hated" "hated."

(I might think that only) these are included, these unions being forbidden by negative commandment (only); but I would not include unions liable to kareth (cutting-off) at the hands of heaven; it is, therefore, written, to negate this assumption, "hated" "hated."

I might then think (that also included in the halachah of non-favoritism) are a maidservant and a Canaanite woman; it is, therefore, written "If there be to a man … and they bear to him sons" — Wherever there is "being" (see above), the sons are his (and the halachah of non-favoritism obtains) — excluding the above, where the sons are not (halachically) his, (but the mother's).

"And they bear him sons": Where the sons are his, excluding these who are not his sons.

Variantly: "and they bear him sons": Sons come under this ordinance (of bechor) and not daughters. Because we find that daughters divide the inheritance where there are no brothers, (viz. Bamidbar 27:8), we might think that this ordinance obtains with them (as well as with sons); it is, therefore, written "and they bear him sons" — Sons come under this ordinance and not daughters.

"and the first-born son be the hated one's": and not a tumtum (one whose sex is concealed) or a hermaphrodite.

"and the first-born": and not one whose first-born status is in doubt.

"the hated one's": i.e., even though the first-born son be the hated one's. Variantly: Scripture apprises you that the first-born son shall be the hated one's.

(Devarim 21:16) "Then it shall be on the day that he causes his sons to inherit": Inheritances are adjudicated in the daytime and not at night.

"what there shall be to him": We are hereby taught that the son inherits what is anticipated as well as what is on hand.

"he shall not grant primogeniture": We are hereby taught that he is not permitted to grant it. I might think that he is not permitted to do so, but if he did so, it stands; it is, therefore, written "he shall not be able to grant primogeniture," (the implication being that) if he does, it shall not stand.

"… over the face of the son of the hated one": We are hereby taught that if his head or most of it emerged live (from the womb), he negates the next birth as a first-born.

"...in disregard of the son of the unloved one who is older": Although the older is of the unloved one.

(Devarim 21:17) "But the first-born, the son of the hated one, shall he recognize": He shall cause him to be recognized by others — whence R. Yehudah ruled: A man is believed to say: This is my first-born son. And just as he is believed to say: This is my first-born son, he is believed to say: This is the son of a chalutzah (a woman taken in levirate marriage); this is the son of a divorcée. The sages say: He is not believed.

"to give him a double portion": A double portion of what each brother receives? Or a double portion of the entire property? You reason thus: Just as he inherits with one brother, and he inherits with five, then just as when he inherits with one he inherits a double portion of one, so, when he inherits with five, he inherits a double portion of one.

Or, go in this direction: Since he inherits with one and he inherits with five, then just as when he inherits with one, he inherits a double portion of all the property, so, when he inherits with five, he inherits a double portion of all the property. It is, therefore, written "then it shall be on the day that he causes his sons to inherit." "inheritance to sons" (and not "inheritance of property") is repeated.

After we learn that inheritance to sons is to be emphasized, we perforce must follow the first approach, viz.: Since he inherits with one (son) and he inherits with five, then just as when he inherits with one, he receives a double portion of one, so, when he inherits with five, he receives a double portion of one. And it is written (I Chronicles 5:1) "And the sons of Reuven, the first-born of Israel (i.e., Jacob).

For he was the bechor, but when he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph." And it is written (Ibid. 2) "For Judah prevailed over his brothers (to inherit the kingship) and the ruler was to come from him, and the bechorah (the status of first-born) was given to Joseph." And it is written (Bereshith 48:22) "And I (Jacob) have given to you (Joseph) an additional portion over your brothers."

Since we find that the bechorah went to Joseph, and the bechorah is for all generations, then just as we find that the bechorah for Joseph was a double portion of one (son), so, the bechorah for all generations is a double portion of one.

"a double portion" in all that is found with him": We are hereby taught the bechor does not take a double portion of what is anticipated as he does of what is on hand.

"for he is the first of his (the father's) strength": and (the criterion for bechorah is) not the first of her (the mother's) strength.

"his is the judgment of the bechorah": We are hereby taught that the double portion of the bechorah can (if necessary) be appropriated by the courts.

(Devarim 21:18) "If there be to a man a son (who goes astray"): and not if there be to a son (one who has not reached the state of manhood) a son.

"a son": and not a man (one who has reached the state of manhood.) A minor is exempt, for he is not obligated in (the observance of) mitzvoth.

"sorer" ("who turns astray") "umoreh" ("and who teaches"): two times. He turns astray from the Torah, and he teaches himself a "different way" (viz. Ibid. 20) "he gluts and he guzzles."

(Variantly: Just because he used his father's money he must die?! Only he is judged based on his future behavior - better he die while [relatively] innocent and not for more severe sins. His father desired a captive woman and brought the devil into his home and caused his son to be rebellious. The result will be that he will kill him in an unnatural way, as it states (v. 22) "And if there be in a man a sin whose judgment is death, then he shall be put to death...").

Variantly: "sorer": against the words of his father, "umoreh": against the words of his mother. "sorer": against the words of the Torah; "umoreh": against the words of the prophets. "sorer": against the words of witnesses; "umoreh": against the words of judges.

R. Yashiah said: Three things were told to me by R. Zeira in the name of the men of Jerusalem: A sotah (a woman suspected of infidelity) — if her husband wishes to forgive her, he may do so. A sorer umoreh — if his father and mother wish to forgive him, they may do so. An elder who rebels against beth-din — if his colleagues wish to forgive him, they may do so.

And when I came and presented this to R. Yehudah b. Betheira, with two he agreed, and with one he did not agree. With (what was stated concerning) sorer umoreh, and with sotah, he agreed. With a rebellious elder, he did not agree — so as not to multiply dissension in Israel.

"not heeding the voice of his father and the voice of his mother": I might think (that this applies) even if his father and mother told him to light a candle and he refused; it is, therefore, written "not heeding" here —"not heeding" elsewhere (Ibid. 20) as an identity (gezeirah shavah). Just as "not heeding" there — "sorer umoreh … glutting and guzzling," so, "not heeding" here" — "sorer umoreh," glutting and guzzling. "glutting and guzzling": R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: He is not liable (for this) until he steals (what he consumes) from his father and from his mother.

"And he does not listen to them": This teaches that he is flogged in the presence of three.

(Devarim 21:19) "Then his father and mother shall take hold of him": We are hereby taught that he is not liable unless he has a father and a mother. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: If his mother were not fit for (i.e., similar to) his father, he does not become a sorer umoreh.

"and they shall take him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place": This is a mitzvah, (but not categorical).

"This, our son," who received stripes before you — whereby we are taught that if one of them died, he is not stoned.

(Ibid. 20) "And they shall say to the elders of his city": If one of them (either his father or his mother) had a severed hand, or were lame or mute of deaf or blind, he does not become a sorer umoreh, it being written "and they shall seize him" — and not if their hand were severed; "and they shall take him out" — and not if they were lame; "and they shall say" — and not if they were mute; "this, our son" — and not if they were blind;" "not heeding our voice" — and not if they were deaf, (in which case they could not hear his refusal to heed them.) They warn him before three (judges) and administer stripes. If he reverted to his wrong, he is judged by twenty-three, but he is not stoned unless there be among them the first three, it being written "This, our son," who received stripes before you — whereby we are taught that if one of them died, he is not stoned. "glutting and guzzling": glutting flesh and guzzling wine. Even though there is no proof for this, there is intimation of it in (Proverbs 23:20) "Do not be among the guzzlers of wine, among the glutters of flesh for themselves" and in (Ibid. 21) "For the guzzler and the glutter will be poor, and the slumberer will wear tatters."