Sifrei Devarim Reader

(Devarim 21:21) "Then all the people of his city shall stone him": Now do all the people of his city stone him? The intent is, rather, in the presence of all the people of his city.

"with stones": I might think, with many stones; it is, therefore, written "with a stone." I might think with one stone; it is, therefore, written "with stones." How so? If he does not die with the first stone, he is dispatched with a second.

R. Yossi said: Now is this one stoned because he ate a tartimar of flesh and drank half a log of wine? Rather, the Torah probed to the "end" of this one, and said: "Let him die innocent, and let him not die guilty." For the death of the wicked is beneficial for them and beneficial for the world. What is bad for the righteous is bad for them and bad for the world. Wine and sleep for the wicked is good for them and good for the world; for the wicked, bad for them and bad for the world. Quiet for the wicked is bad for them and bad for the world; for the righteous, good for them and good for the world. The father of this one desired a yefath toar (a woman of beautiful form), and he brought the Satan into his house and his son became a sorer umoreh, whose end is to die a violent death, it being written (following) "And if there be in a man a sin whose judgment is death, then he shall be put to death."

"and you shall remove the evil": Remove the doers of evil from Israel.

(Devarim 21:22) "And if there be in a man a sin whose judgment is death, then he shall be put to death, and you shall hang him on a tree.": A man is hanged (i.e., suspended after death) and not a woman. R. Eliezer says: A woman, too, is hanged.

R. Eliezer said to them: Didn't Shimon b. Shetach hang women in Ashkelon? They answered; He hanged eighty women and (even though) two are not to be judged on one day, but "the times required it." (Here, too, [vis-à-vis hanging] the times required it.) [A man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked. R. Yehudah says: Both a man and a woman (are stoned naked.) But a man is hanged with his face towards the people and his back towards the tree; and a woman, with her face towards the tree and her back towards the people. A man is covered one section (his genitals) in front, and a woman, two sections — one in front and one behind, because she is all ervah (illicit nakedness).]

"and you shall hang him": I might think that all who are stoned are hanged (i.e., suspended thereafter); it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 21:23) "for (the penalty for) the cursing of G-d is hanging" (after stoning). After Scripture included (all capital offenses) and then excluded (i.e., limited it to the cursing of G-d [megadef]), we derive it (the exclusion) from megadef, viz.: Just as megadef is distinct in that it constitutes rebellion against G-d, and it is subject to hanging, so, all who rebel against G-d are hanged.

R. Eliezer says: Just as megadef is distinct in that he is stoned, so, all who are stoned are hanged (afterwards). I might think that he is to be hanged while alive; it is, therefore, written "then he shall be put to death" (and, only afterwards, "and you shall hang him.").

"and you shall hang him": "him," without his garments (i.e., naked). "him," and not scheming witnesses against him (viz. Devarim 19:19). "him": We are hereby taught that two are not judged (for such an offense) on one day.

"and you shall hang him on eitz" [("eitz" can mean either wood or tree)]: "eitz" that is not rooted (i.e., wood), and not "eitz" that is rooted (i.e., a tree). — But perhaps it means "eitz" that is rooted! — It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 23) "but you shall bury it" — what lacks only burial, to exclude that (a rooted eitz), which lacks cutting and burial.

Whence is it derived that if one allows his dead one (i.e., one that he must bury) to remain overnight, he transgresses a negative commandment? From (Ibid.) "You shall not leave his body overnight on eitz." If he left it overnight for his honor, i.e., to bring a casket or shrouds, I might think he transgresses; it is, therefore, written "on the eitz" — Just as the eitz is demeaning to him, so, all that is demeaning to him (is forbidden, to exclude the above).

"You shall not leave his body overnight on the eitz" — a negative commandment. "but bury shall you bury it" — a positive commandment. What is to be done? We wait until it gets dark; then he is suspended from the eitz and then he is taken down. If not, he is in transgression of "You shall not leave his body overnight on the eitz."

"for the cursing of G-d is suspended": That is, why is he being suspended? Because he cursed the L-rd and desecrated the Name.

A man is stoned naked, but a woman is not stoned naked. R. Yehudah says: Both a man and a woman (are stoned naked.) But a man is hanged with his face towards the people and his back towards the tree; and a woman, with her face towards the tree and her back towards the people. A man is covered one section (his genitals) in front, and a woman, two sections — one in front and one behind, because she is all ervah (illicit nakedness).

"and you shall not make unclean your earth, which the L-rd your G-d gives you as an inheritance": Beth-din is being exhorted hereby.

(Devarim 22:1) "You shall not see (the ox of your brothers or his lamb straying and [you shall] ignore them. Return shall you return them to your brother." "You shall not see": I might think, even if he were a mil away; it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 23:4) "If you encounter (the ox of your foe, etc.") If "If you encounter," I might think, literally; it is, therefore, written "You shall not see." How is this to be resolved? The sages estimated one-seventh of a mil, a ris.

"You shall not see the ox of your brother": a negative commandment. And elsewhere it is written "If you encounter" — a positive commandment — whence we derive that (in the event of non-compliance) he transgresses a positive and a negative commandment.

"the ox of your brother": This tells me only of "the ox of your brother." Whence do I derive (as included in the mitzvah) the ox of your foe? From (Ibid.) "the ox of your foe" (i.e., in any event). If so, why is it written (here) "your brother"? Scripture (there) speaks only anent the evil inclination (i.e., Restore not only the ox of your brother, but even the ox of your foe — above the protestations of your evil inclination.)

"or his lamb straying": in the manner of strays. From here it was ruled; What is considered a lost object? If one found an ass or a cow grazing on the road, this is not a lost object. If he found an ox with its load overturned or a cow running in the vineyards, that is a lost object.

"and (you shall) ignore": Sometimes you do ignore (a lost object), and sometimes you do not ignore. How so? If he were a Cohein and the object were in the cemetery, (which a Cohein is forbidden to enter), or if he were an elder (i.e., a Torah scholar) and it were beneath his dignity (to retrieve it), or if his labor (to retrieve it) were greater than that of his neighbor, he is exempt (from retrieving it). This is the intent of "and you ignore" — Sometimes you do ignore and sometimes you do not.

"return shall you return them": If he returned it (the animal), and it ran away; returned it and it ran away — even four or five times — he must continue returning it, it being written "Return shall you return them." If he returned it to a place where it could be seen (by the owner), he need not deal with it. If it were stolen or lost, he is responsible for it — until he returns it to his (the owner's) domain, it being written "to your brother."

(Devarim 22:2) "And if your brother is not near to you, and you do not know him, etc." "And if your brother is not near": I might think (that the halachah obtains) only if he is not near. Whence do I derive (that it obtains even) if he is far? From "And if your brother is not near to you." This tells me only of one who is far or near, when he knows. Whence do we derive (that the same obtains with) one whom he does not know? From "and you do not know him."

"then you shall gather it": a lost object which is "gathered": to include what is broken. "and it shall be with you": in your domain.

"until your brother inquires concerning it": Would it enter your mind to give it to him without his giving identifying signs? Why, then, is it written "until your brother inquires concerning it"? (The meaning must be, then,) "until you make inquiry concerning your brother" (to ascertain) whether or not he is a deceiver, (this being a possible construction of the words in the Hebrew.)

"and you shall return it to him": Consider how to return it to him. He may not feed "a calf to a calf, a foal to a foal" (i.e., he may not sell one of the animals in his keeping to feed the others.) And any animal which can work and eat (i.e., an animal whose work is worth the cost of its food), such as an ass or a cow, let it work and eat. "and you shall return it (also readable as "him") to him": He himself must be returned to him (if he is lost).

(Devarim 22:3) "And thus shall you do with his ass": It works and it eats.

"and thus shall you do with his garment": A garment is shaken out once in thirty days. He spreads it out for its need (i.e., to preserve it), but not for his honor.

Vessels of silver and copper — he uses them for their need, but (he must take care) not to rub them out.

Vessels of wood — he uses them so that they do not mold.

"And thus shall you do with his ass and thus shall you do with his garment": This tells me of these only. Whence do I derive (the same for) other lost objects? From (Ibid.) "and thus shall you do with every lost object of your brother." If so, why is "garment" singled out? Is it not included with all the rest? To serve as the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as a garment is characterized by possessing (identifying) signs and claimants, thus all objects that are thus characterized (must, if found, be publicized for the owners to come forward).

"which shall go lost from him": to exclude (an object worth) less than a perutah, (whose loss he is not conscious of.) R. Yehudah says: "and you find it": to exclude (an object worth) less than a perutah.

"You shall not be able to ignore": This renders "ignoring" transgression of a negative commandment.

(Devarim 22:4) "You shall not see the ass of your brother or his ox fallen on the way and ignore them; lift up shall you lift up with him." "You shall not see the ass of your brother": This is a negative commandment. And elsewhere it is written (Shemoth 23:5) "If you see, etc.": That is a positive commandment.

This tells me only of "the ass of your brother." Whence do I derive (the same for) the ass of your foe? From (Shemoth 23:5) "the ass of your foe." If so, why is it written (here) "your brother"? Scripture (there) speaks anent the evil inclination (i.e., Assist not only the ass of your brother, but even the ass of your foe — against the protestations of your evil inclination.)

"on the way": and not in the stall — whence it was ruled: If it were found (fallen) in the stall, the obligation does not obtain; if in the public thoroughfare, it does.

"and (you shall) ignore them": Sometimes you do ignore them and sometimes you do not ignore them. How so? If he were a Cohein and it were in the cemetery, (which a Cohein is forbidden to enter), or if he were an elder and it were beneath his dignity, or if his labor were greater than that of his neighbor, he is exempt, it being written "and you ignore": Sometimes you do ignore and sometimes you do not. (See #222).

"lift up shall you lift up": If he righted it, and it fell; righted it, and it fell — even four or five times — he must continue righting it, it being written "lift up shall you lift up." If the owner left (his fallen animal), sat down, and said to him: Since you have a mitzvah to unload, unload, he is exempt from doing so, it being written with him" (the owner). I might think that this were so even if he (the owner) were old or afflicted with boils; it is, therefore, written "lift up shall you lift up" (i.e., even in the latter instance).

(Devarim 22:5) "A man's vestment shall not be upon a woman": What does Scripture come to teach us? If that she should not wear colored clothing, is it not written (Ibid.) "for the abomination, etc."? And this is not an abomination. It means, rather, that a woman should not wear what a man wears and go among the men (for licentious purposes), and a man should not wear colored clothing and go among the women.

R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: Whence is it derived that a woman may not go out with armor to war? From "A man's vestment shall not be upon a woman." And whence is it derived that a man may not adorn himself with the adornments of women? From (Ibid.) "and a man shall not wear a woman's garment." For the abomination of the L-rd your G-d are all who do these"

"It goes by five epithets: "cherem" (banned), "toevah" (abomination), "sanui (detested), "meshukatz" (revolting), "avel" (wrong).

(Devarim 22:6) "If there chance before you a bird's nest": to exclude what is normally found there.

From "fledglings or eggs," I would understand: the minimum of "fledglings" — two; the minimum of eggs — two. If there were only one fledgling or one egg, whence do I derive that he must still send away the mother bird? From "nest" — in any event.

"bird": Scripture speaks of a clean bird. — But perhaps it speaks of an unclean bird too? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 14:11) "Every clean bird you may eat": This is a prototype, viz.: Wherever "bird" is mentioned in Scripture, a clean bird is understood (unless specified otherwise). … I might think to exclude (from the mitzvah) geese or hens that nested in an orchard; it is, therefore, written "before you," (and these are considered "before you").

This tells me (that the mitzvah obtains) only in the private domain. Whence do I derive (the same for) the public domain? From "on the way."

Whence do I derive (that the mitzvah obtains with a nest found) on trees? From "on any tree."

Whence do I derive (the same for a nest found) on the ground? From "or on the ground." "on the way": What is the intent of this? Just as the "way" is not "in your hand" (i.e., at your disposal), so (the mitzvah obtains with) all that is not "in your hand" — whence they ruled: Doves of a dove-cote and doves of a loft and birds that nested in jars or in towers, and geese and hens that nested in an orchard and rebelled (i.e., flew away) are subject to the mitzvah of sending away. (Birds that) nested in the house and Herodian doves, which are thoroughly domesticated, are not subject to the mitzvah, (being considered "in your hand.")

"and the mother-bird lying on the fledglings": Just as fledglings are alive, so the eggs must be viable — to exclude winnowed (non-viable) eggs. And just as eggs require the mother-bird, so, fledglings (to be subsumed in the mitzvah) must require the mother-bird, to exclude those that are able to fly.

"and the mother-bird lying": when she is lying on them — to exclude her flying over them. I might think (that the mitzvah does not obtain) even if her wings (in her flying) touch them; it is, therefore, written "and the mother-bird lying on the fledglings — even if she is not (in "tight" bodily contact) with them.

I might think that an unclean bird lying on the eggs of a clean bird, or a clean bird lying on the eggs of an unclean bird were subject to the mitzvah; it is, therefore, written "the mother-bird lying on the fledglings — all must be of the same kind (i.e., clean birds).

"You shall not take the mother-bird together with the young": From (Vayikra 14:4) "And he (the Cohein) shall take for the one (i.e., the leper) to be cleansed two live clean birds," I might think that he should take them to cleanse a leper; it is, therefore, written "You shall not take" — even to cleanse the leper.

"You shall not take the mother-bird": a negative commandment. "Send, shall you send away the mother-bird": This is a positive commandment. If he sent her away and she returned — even four or five times — he is obligated to continue sending her, it being written "Send shall you send." But if he sent her and she returned to his hand, he is exempt from sending her again....

(Geese and hens that rebelled (i.e. flew away) and nested in an orchard — must be sent. If they nested in a house — one is exempt from sending.

"fledglings or eggs,": I would understand: the minimum of "fledglings" — two; the minimum of eggs — two. Fledglings have a purpose and eggs have a purpose, to exclude dead fledglings and winnowed (non-viable) eggs, for these have no benefit. If there is only one chick or one egg in the nest, he must send, for it states "if there chance before you a bird's nest" - in any event.)

"on the way in any tree or on the ground": on the way is in public property, excluding if they were tied up.

[Variantly: "Send": Scripture speaks of a clean bird. — But perhaps it speaks of an unclean bird too? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 14:11) "Every clean bird you may eat": This is a prototype, viz.: Wherever "bird" is mentioned in Scripture, a clean bird is understood (unless specified otherwise) as R' Yoshia has stated. If after sending he turned his face away from it he is exempt from sending further.]

(Devarim 22:7) "Send, shall you send away the mother-bird": This is a positive commandment. If he sent her away and she returned — even four or five times — he is obligated to continue sending her, it being written "Send shall you send." But if he sent her and she returned to his hand, he is exempt from sending her again. "Send shall you send the mother-bird": Scripture speaks of (sending away) females and not males.

A male partridge (which is wont to hatch the eggs of other birds) — R. Eliezer says: It is subject to being sent away, it being written "Send shall you send." The sages say: It is exempt, it being written "the mother-bird" — to exclude the male partridge.

If one takes the mother-bird together with the young, (transgressing a negative commandment) — R. Yehudah says: He is lashed and does not send it away. The sages say: He sends it away and does not get lashes. This is the rule: All negative commandments annexed to positive commandments are not liable to stripes, (awaiting the fulfillment of the positive commandment). "You shall not take" — even to cleanse the leper. (Ibid. 7) "so that it shall be good for you and you prolong days": Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If of a (monetarily) negligible mitzvah, (the expense involved in its performance) being no more than an issar, the Torah writes "so that it shall be good for you and you shall prolong days," how much more so is this true of the "formidable" mitzvoth of the Torah! (Ibid. 8).

"If you build a new house, you shall make a railing for your roof": This tells me only of "building." Whence do I derive (the same for) acquiring, inheriting, and receiving as a gift? From (Ibid.) "and you shall not place blood in your house" — in any event.

"a house": This tells me only of a house. Whence do I derive (the same for) a straw-bin, a cattle-shed, and a store-house? From "If you build."

In that case I might think (that also included) is the building of a gateway, a portico, or a porch; it is, therefore, written "a house." Just as a "house" is characterized by being subject to occupancy (so, all that are similarly characterized are subsumed in the halachah) — to exclude the aforementioned, which are not thus characterized.

"you shall make a railing for your roof": This tells me only of a roof. Whence do I derive the same (i.e., the need for protective safeguards) for holes, pits, caves, and ditches? From "and you shall not place blood in your house" (i.e., in the domain of your house. If so, why is "roof" mentioned? To exclude a ramp (and the like).

"a new house": Rebbi says: From the time of its "newness" (i.e., even before it is inhabited), make a railing for it. "a house": to exclude an ulam (an entrance hall). How (high a railing is required for) a place (where one keeps) his rolling machine? Three hand-breadths. For the part used for walking about? Ten hand-breadths.

"you shall make a railing for your roof": a positive commandment. "and you shall not place blood in your house": a negative commandment.

(Ibid.) "when the faller falls from it": He was destined to fall from the six days of creation, but "merit is channeled (via the Heavenly ordinance) through the meritorious, and guilt through the guilty" (so that he who is guilty of not building the railing bears the guilt of the fall).

"when the faller falls from it": "from it," and not within it. (How so?) If the public thoroughfare were ten hand-breadths above his roof, (and he fell from there upon it, the owner of the house is) not liable, it being written "from it (the roof), and not within it.

R. Yishmael says: Scripture comes to teach you how he is judged, viz. (Koheleth 9:12) "For a man does not know his time, like fishes that are caught in a flimsy net and like birds that are caught in the snare. Like them men are snared in a time of evil (i.e., when their evil is visited upon them), when it falls upon them suddenly."

A house which is not four by four hand-breadths (because it is not considered "a house") is exempt from a railing, a mezuzah and an eruv (a halachic device of "amalgamation" for Sabbaths and festivals); and it is not made an ibbur (an "outskirt") of a city (for purposes of such amalgamation), and it does not render food tevel (untithed) for purposes of tithing, and it is not allocated four ells (in a courtyard.) If one makes a vow (not to benefit) from a house, he may sit in it, and it is not subject to plague-spot uncleanliness, and it is not irredeemably sold vis-à-vis the Jubilee year, and he is not returned to from the battlefield (viz. Devarim 20:5).

(Devarim 22:9) "You shall not sow your vineyard with mixed seed": [I might think that he may not sow one (variety) by itself and another by itself; it is, therefore, written "kilayim" (mixed seed), but each by itself is permitted. Variantly:] "kilayim": Why is this needed? Is it not already written (Vayikra 19:19) "You shall not sow your field kilayim"? To impose liability for both "vineyard" and "field." We are hereby taught that one who sows kilayim in a vineyard transgresses two negative commandments.

This tells me only of a full-grown vineyard. Whence do I derive (the same for) one with a few fruitful vines? From ("the produce of) the vineyard" — any vineyard. If one trains a grapevine onto seeds, even for (a distance of) one hundred ells, the grapevine is forbidden. This (verse) tells me (that it is forbidden) only in a fruitful vineyard. Whence do I derive (the same for) one that is not fruitful? From "the vineyard" — in any event. This tells me only of your vineyard. Whence do I derive (the same for) the vineyard of others? According to R. Yossi, from "the vineyard" — in any event. "lest tikdash the fullness of the seed": lest there be forbidden.

And whence is it derived that it is forbidden to benefit from vineyard kilayim? It is written here "kodesh" (i.e., "tikdash"), and elsewhere, "kodesh," (Vayikra 5:15 "and he sin unwittingly [by deriving benefit] from the holy tings ["kodshei"] of the L-rd.") Just as there, derivation of benefit is being forbidden, here, too, derivation of benefit is being forbidden.

"lest there be rejected the fullness of the seed … and the produce of the vineyard." When is the produce rejected? When it takes root. And grapes? When they become like the 'white (egyptian) bean'. "which you shall sow": This tells me only of what he himself sows. Whence do I derive (as likewise interdicted) what his neighbor sows (in the former's field) and which he would like to sustain? From "the seed" — in any event.

"which you shall sow": to exclude seed which entered (unintentionally) along with fertilizer or with water, or seed which he sowed and which was blown in by the wind. I might think that also excluded is seed blown in by the help of the wind, (the sower intending this to happen); it is, therefore, written "the seed," (in which the aforementioned instance is subsumed).

If one sustains thorns in a vineyard, R. Eliezer says he is in transgression of kilayim, it being written "which you sow." The sages say: "the seed" excludes the sustaining of thorns in a vineyard.

"and produce of the vineyard": When is the produce rejected? When it takes root. And grapes? When they become like the 'white (egyptian) bean'.

This (verse) tells me (that it is forbidden) only in a fruitful vineyard. Whence do I derive (the same for) one that is not fruitful? From "the vineyard" — in any event. This tells me only of your vineyard. Whence do I derive (the same for) the vineyard of others? According to R. Yossi, from "the vineyard" — in any event.

If one trains a grapevine onto seeds, even for (a distance of) one one square ell, the grapevine is forbidden.

I might think that he may not sow one (variety) by itself and another by itself; it is, therefore, written "together", but each by itself is permitted.

(Variantly:) "Kilayim":To impose liability for both "vineyard" and "field."

Variantly: "lest tikdash the fullness of the seed": lest there be forbidden, as R' Yehuda has said.

"which you shall sow": This tells me only of what he himself sows. Whence do I derive what his neighbor sows (in the former's field) and which he would like to sustain? From "which you shall sow" — in any event.

(Devarim 22:10) "You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together": I might think, never, but (Shemoth 23:12) "so that there rest (from labor) your ox and your ass" indicates that labor is being referred to. If so, why is "together" written? For I might think that only ox and ass are intended. Whence do I derive (the same for) other beasts and for animals and birds? From "together" — in any event (i.e., it is not the type of animal, but labor that is the criterion). If so, why is it written "with an ox and an ass"? To teach that you may not plow with an ox and an ass, but you may plow with a man and an ass (i.e., by some arrangement where the man directs the animal in its plowing.)