Sifrei Devarim Reader

Variantly: "You shall not plow": This tells me only of plowing. Whence do I derive (the same for) threshing and sitting in a wagon (to which they are attached) and going out and directing (them)? It is, therefore, written "together" — in any event. R. Meir exempts sitting in a wagon, (for in that instance he is not doing anything).

Variantly: "together": to exclude a mule. Variantly: "together": to exclude tying a horse to a side or the back of a wagon (to which oxen are hitched).

(Devarim 22:11) "You shall not wear shatnez (a mixture), wool and linen together": I might think, he must not wear shorn wool and flax stalks; it is, therefore, written "shatnez," something that is fulled, spun, and twisted (or woven) (shua, tavi, venoz [acronym of "shatnez"]). R. Shimon b. Elazar says: (He who wears shatnez) is perverse ("naloz") and estranges ("meiliz") his Father in heaven [play on "noz" (woven)]. Felt cloaks (of mixed materials) are forbidden as kilayim (intermixtures). Even though they do not come under "weaving," they do come under "spinning."

"You shall not wear": This tells me only of wearing. Whence do I derive that he may not cover himself with it! From (Vayikra 14:19) "and a garment kilayim shatnez shall not come upon you." I might think that he may not throw a bundle (containing shatnez) over his shoulder (to carry it); it is, therefore, written "You shall not wear." Wearing was included in the general interdict (against shatnez). Why was it singled out (for special mention)? To use it as the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as "wearing" is distinctive in that it is of benefit to the body, so, all that is distinctive (is forbidden by reason of shatnez, to exclude throwing it over one's shoulder).

I might think he may not wear a garment of wool over one of flax, and one of flax over one of wool; it is, therefore, written (woven) "together," but each by itself is permitted.

R. Chananiah b. Gamliel says: Whence is it derived that one may not hatchel strips of wool with strips of flax to belt his thighs even though there is a band of leather separating them? From "together." This is to say that a sack and a basket (joining wool and linen) are considered a union in respect to kilayim.

"wool & linen together": but each by itself is permitted.

(Devarim 22:12) "Fringes (wool and linen together) shall you make for yourself" and "You shall not wear shatnez" were both stated in one pronouncement. (Shemoth 20:8) "Remember (the Sabbath day") and (Devarim 5:12) "Keep (the Sabbath day) were both stated in one pronouncement.

(Shemoth 31:14) "Those who desecrate it (the Sabbath) shall be put to death" and (Bamidbar 28:9) "And on the Sabbath day (you shall sacrifice) two yearling lambs" were both stated in one pronouncement.

(Vayikra 18:11) "The nakedness of your brother's wife you shall not uncover" and (Devarim 25:5) "Her levir (her husband's brother) shall come upon her" were both stated in one pronouncement.

(Bamidbar 36;8) "And every daughter who inherits a portion (in any tribe of the children of Israel") and (Ibid. 9) "And an inheritance shall not revert from one tribe to another" were both stated in one pronouncement

— something that flesh and blood cannot do. And this is the intent of (Psalms 62:12) "One thing has G-d spoken; two things have I heard!"

(Devarim 22:12) "Fringes shall you make for yourself": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Bamidbar 15:38) "and they shall make for themselves tzitzith," I might think that one strand by itself suffices; it is, therefore, written "gedilim" (fringes). How many fringes? Not fewer than three, three fingers long, as per Beth Hilell. Beth Shammai say: Three strands of white and a fourth of tcheleth (purple-blue), four fingers long. "gedilim" are white. Whence do I derive that I add a fourth of tcheleth? From (Ibid.) "and they shall put on the tzitzith of the corner a thread of tcheleth."

The halachah is in accordance with Beth Shammai. When is this so? (that a length of three or four fingers is required)? Ab initio (i.e., when the tzitzith are first inserted), but its remnants and lopped off (threads) may be of any (length).

("on the four corners of your garment": to exclude a garment of three, five, six, seven, or eight corners. Variantly: "gedilim" are white. Whence do I derive that I add a fourth of tcheleth? From (Ibid.) "and they shall put on the tzitzith of the corner a thread of tcheleth.")

(Devarim, Ibid.) "shall you make": and not from what is already made. He may not take threads from the garment and make tzitzith of them. "on the four corners of your garment": to exclude a garment of three, five, six, seven, or eight corners. "corners" to exclude yaga, tichla, tavletikim, takarkim, sadasim, and laburdisim, which are not squared.

R. Elliezer b. Yaakov says: Whence is it derived that one should not place tzitzith in the middle of the garment, but on the edge? From "on the four corners of your garment."

"wherewith you cover yourself": to exclude a duster, which does not cover his head and most of his body.

(Devarim 22:13) "If a man take a wife, and he come upon her, and he hate her": R. Yehudah says: If he cohabits with her, he receives stripes (for libeling her [viz. Devarim 22:14]); if not, he does not receive stripes.

R. Yishmael says: Come and see what hatred causes. It leads to slander (viz. Ibid. 14, "And he libel her and give out about her an evil name.")

From here it is derived: If a man transgresses a "light" mitzvah, he is destined to transgress a "grave" mitzvah. If he transgresses (Vayikra 19:18) "and you shall love your neighbor as yourself," he is destined to transgress (Ibid.) "You shall not take revenge … and you shall not bear a grudge," and (Ibid. 17) "You shall not hate your brother" and (Ibid. 25:36) "And your brother shall live with you" — until he comes to the spilling of blood. This is the intent of "If a man take a wife, etc."

(Ibid.) "If he libel her": I might think, even if he said to her "You spoiled my meal," when she did not; it is, therefore, written (here) "libel," and further, (Ibid. 17) "libel," as an identity (gezeirah shavah). Just as "libel" there is a claim of (non-) virginity, so, "libel" here is a claim of (non-) virginity. — But perhaps just as "libel" there involves the site of virginity, so, here, too, it involves the site of virginity. Whence do I derive (the same for) a different act of coitus (i.e., not in the site of virginity)? From "and he give out above her an evil name."

(Ibid.) "and he say": We are hereby taught that the plaintiff has the first word.

"This woman": We are hereby taught that he states his case only while she is standing. ("This woman) I took and I drew near to her": and there are witnesses that she was adulterous in her father's house (i.e., during her betrothal).

What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 20:10) "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife" — whether witnesses testify in the house of her husband that she committed adultery (while yet) in her father's house (i.e., while she was betrothed), or whether they testified in her father's house that she committed adultery in her father's house, I would think that she is executed at the gate of that city (viz. Devarim 22:24), Scripture (here) excludes (from "the gate of the city") the instance of witnesses testifying in the house of her husband that she committed adultery in the house of her father, (and indicates [viz. Ibid. 21]) that she is executed at "the door of her father's house." This is the intent of "If a man take a wife."

(R. Yishmael says: Come and see what hatred causes. It leads to slander.)

(Ibid. 15) "Then the father of the maiden and her mother shall take (and they shall bring out the virgin signs of the maiden"): This tells me only of one who has a father and a mother. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who has a father but not a mother, or one who has a mother but no father, or one who has neither father nor mother? From "and they shall bring out the virgin signs of the maiden" — in any event. If so, why is it written "the father of the maiden and her mother"? "They (in the event of her being found guilty) who nurtured evil growths, let them come and be shown their growths!"

(Ibid. 16) "And the father of the maiden shall say to the elders": We are hereby taught that the woman (herself) is not permitted to speak (in refutation) before her husband.

"My daughter did I give to this man as a wife": We are hereby taught that the father has a right to betroth his daughter (who is) a minor.

"And now he has made a libelous accusation...and these are the signs of my daughter's virginity": So we have witnesses who contradict his [the husband's] witnesses.

R' Yehuda says: He is not held culpable unless he has cohabited.

(This teaches that the defendant has the first word.)

(Devarim 22:17) "And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city": They must clarify the matter as a (new) garment. The witnesses for both husband and father must clarify the matter before the elders of the city. This is one of the things that R. Yishmael was wont to expound as a mashal (a metaphor). Similarly, (Shemoth 22:2) "If the sun shone upon him": Now is it upon him alone that the sun shines? What, then, is the intent of "If the sun shone upon him"? Just as the sun is "peace" for the world, here, too, if he (the one threatened with robbery) knows that he (the robber) is "at peace" with him (and will not kill him if he resists, [as in the instance of a father robbing a son]) and he (the son) kills him, he is liable (for murder). Similarly, (Ibid. 21:19) "If he arise and walk outside on his crutch" — on his own power.

And thus: "And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city" — If the witnesses of the husband were (clearly) found to be zomemin (scheming witnesses), etc.

R. Eliezer says: The words ("and they shall spread the garment") are to be taken literally (as signifying the nuptial garment).

(Devarim 22:18) "Then the elders of the city shall take the man and chastise him.": "the man": and not a minor.

(Ibid. 19) "And they shall punish him": with money (i.e., they shall fine him)

"and they shall give it to the father of the na'arah (a maiden, from twelve to twelve and a half), and not to the father of the bogereth (a mature maid, after twelve and a half).

"and they shall give it to the father of the na'arah": and not to the father of a convert, whose conception was not in holiness and whose birth was in holiness, (there being no "fatherhood" to a gentile). She does not receive the hundred shekels.

"for he has given out an evil name about a virgin of Israel": He has given out an evil name not only about her alone, but about all the virgins of Israel.

"and to him shall she be as a wife." We are hereby taught that he must "quaff his bitter cup" — even if she be lame or blind or covered with boils. If there were in her a thing of zimah (obscenity) or if she were not fit to marry into Israel, I might think that he were permitted to keep her as a wife; it is, therefore, written "and to him shall she be as a wife" — (connoting) a woman who is (halachically) fit for him (as a wife).

"He shall not be able to send her away all of his days": even after a long passage of time.

(Devarim 22:20) "And if the matter were true — if virginity were not found in the maiden": This tells me only of natural coitus. Whence do I derive the same for unnatural coitus? From "And if the matter were true."

"if virginity were not found in the maiden": i.e., if there were no witnesses to refute the witnesses of the husband.

(Ibid. 21) "Then they shall take out the maiden to the door of her father's house." This tells me only of her having a father and a door of her father's house. Whence do I derive (the same for) a maiden who lacks either one? From "Then they shall take out the maiden" (to be stoned) — in any event.

(Devarim 22:21) "and the men of her city shall stone her": Now do all the men of her city stone her? (The intent is that she shall be stoned) in the presence of all the men of her city.

"with stones": I might think with many stones; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 20:27) "with a stone." If "with a stone," I might think even with one stone. It is, therefore, written "with stones." Say, then, (that the meaning is) if she does not die with the first stone, she dies with the second.

"for she has done a vile thing in Israel": She has vilified not only herself, but all the virgins of Israel.

"to harlotize the house of her father." It is written here, "her father," and, elsewhere (Ibid. 21:9), "And the (betrothed or married) daughter of a Cohein, if she profane herself through fornication, she profanes her father": Just as there, (Scripture speaks of) harlotry in the context of marriage (and not in that of a single girl); here, too, harlotry in the context of marriage.

(Devarim 22:22) "If there be found (by witnesses) a man lying with a woman cohabited with by a husband": including one who was cohabited with in her father's house": i.e., while betrothed (and not yet married). Variantly: "cohabited with by a husband": R. Yishmael says: Scripture comes to teach us about a yevamah (a woman awaiting levirate marriage) that one who lives with her is not liable (to the death penalty) until he (the yavam) cohabits with her.

"then they shall die": by the unqualified death penalty of the Torah — strangulation.

"also both of them": and not one who performs acts of arousal (without intercourse).

"also both of them": to include those who (might) cohabit with her after them.

"the man who lay with the woman" — though she be a minor;

"and the woman": even though she cohabited with a minor.

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

(Devarim 22:23) "If there be a na'arah, a virgin, betrothed": We are hereby taught that he is not liable (to stoning) unless she be a na'arah (and not a bogereth [viz. #238]), a virgin, and betrothed to a man (and not married).

"and a man find her in the city": If she had not gone about in the city, this would not have befallen her

— "The breach beckons to the thief." "and lie with her": any kind of intercourse (natural or unnatural).

(Ibid. 24) "Then you shall take out both of them to the gate of that city": to the gate where she was found and not to the gate where she was judged.

"and you shall stone them with stones": I might think with many stones; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 20:27) "with a stone." If "with a stone," I might think even with one stone. It is, therefore, written "with stones." Say, then (that the meaning is) if they do not die with the first stone, they die with the second.

"the maiden because (lit., "by word of") she did not cry out": What is the intent of "by word of": to include her who transgressed willfully as requiring (for stoning) the forewarning of witnesses (i.e., because of her violation of the word of warning).

"and the man, because (i.e., "by word of") he afflicted his neighbor's wife": What is the intent of "by word of"? By forewarning.

(Ibid. 25) "And if in the field the man find the betrothed maiden and lie with her": to exclude an instance where one holds her and the other lies with her, (in which instance there is no death penalty.) These are the words of R. Yehudah.

"then the man who lay with her shall be put to death (by stoning) alone: the first, by stoning, (because he violated a virgin); the second, (if there is one,) by strangulation. These are the words of Rebbi.

(Devarim 22:26) "But to the maiden you shall not do a thing. The maiden does not have a sin of death": We are hereby taught that Scripture exempts her from the death penalty. Whence is it derived that it exempts her from an offering as well? From "a sin (of death"). Whence is it derived that she is exempt from stripes as well? From "a sin of death," (stripes being in place of death.) We are hereby taught that she is exempt from all the punishments in the Torah. "For as a man would rise up against his neighbor and slay him, so is this thing": Now what do we learn from (this comparison to) a slayer? It (the instance of the slayer) comes (seemingly) to teach (us something about the betrothed maiden), but emerges as "learning" (something from that instance), viz.: Slayer is hereby being likened to betrothed maiden, viz.: Just as a betrothed maiden may be saved by killing the pursuer, so a man may be saved by killing the one who would slay him.

This tells me only of such an instance. Whence do I derive (the same for) one pursuing a male (to sodomize him) or pursuing one of those (cohabitation with whom is) punishable by kareth (cutting-off) or judicial death penalty? From "so is this thing." I might think (that the same applies to one pursuing a beast (to sodomize it) or one who would desecrate the Sabbath or serve idolatry; it is, therefore written "this (thing"). This is subject to stoning, but not the aforementioned.

(Ibid. 27) "For in the field did he find her": I might think that in the city she is liable, and in the field, not; it is, therefore, written "she cried out and no one could save her," (the implication being that if one could save her and she did not cry out she is liable.) If she has no (potential) "savers," both in the city and in the field, she is not liable; if she has "savers," both in the city and in the field, she is liable.

"she cried out": to exclude her saying "Let him be (i.e., do not kill him)." These are the words of R. Yehudah. "and no one could save her": The implication is that if he could save her, he does so in any manner that he can, (including killing him.)

Version 1: (See translator's note below)) Version 2: (Devarim 22:28) "If a man find a maiden, a virgin": (Translator's note: The Zera Avraham writes: "Anyone who looks into this section will conclude with justice that it (the transcription) is extremely corrupt and cannot be explained at all." I humbly and respectfully submit. My translation resumes after the dots.) … "a virgin": to exclude one who has been cohabited with, whom he gives nothing. This tells me only of one who has been cohabited with. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who has lost her virginity through some accident? From (Shemoth 22:16) "the virgins" — to exclude the above. (Devarim, Ibid.) "who was not betrothed": to exclude one who was betrothed and divorced (i.e., A maiden who was betrothed and divorced receives the fine, and it belongs to her and not to her father, it being written "who was not betrothed … then he shall give to her father," the implication being that if she had been betrothed and divorced it belongs to her.) R. Akiva says: (The fine belongs to her father) even if she were widowed or divorced. And this follows, viz.: Since her betrothal money and her penalty money revert to her father, just as her betrothal money (reverts to him) even if she were betrothed and divorced, so, her penalty money (reverts to him) even if she were betrothed and divorced. If so, what is the intent of "who was not betrothed"? It is mufneh (free for interpretation) for purposes of comparison and identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: It is written here "who was not betrothed" and elsewhere (Shemoth 22:15) "who was not betrothed." Just as here fifty, so, there, fifty; and just as there, shekels, so, here, shekels.

"and he lie with her": any lying, (natural or unnatural).

(Devarim 22:29) "Then the man who lies with her": "the man," and not the minor.

"to the father of the na'arah" (and not to the father of the bogereth).

"and to him shall she be as a wife": We are hereby taught that he must "quaff his bitter cup" — even if she be lame or blind or covered with boils. If there were in her a thing of zimah (obscenity) or if she were not fit to marry into Israel, I might think that he were permitted to keep her as a wife; it is, therefore, written "and to him shall she be as a wife" — (connoting) a woman who is (halachically) fit for him (as a wife).

"because he afflicted her": to include an orphaned girl (as receiving the fine). From here they ruled: An orphaned girl who was widowed or divorced, the ravisher is liable (for the penalty); the enticer is exempt.

"he shall not be able to send her away all of his days": but she may be released from the levirate bond.

(Devarim 23:1) "A man shall not take the wife of his father": From here they ruled: A man may marry the ravished of one's father and the enticed of his father. R. Yehudah forbids the ravished of his father and the enticed of his father, it being written "A man shall not take the wife of his father."

(Devarim 23:2) "A petzua dakah and a kruth shafchah shall not come into the congregation of the L-rd.": What is a "petzua dakah"? One whose testicles have been injured ("niftzeu") — even one of them. This tells me only of the whole of it. Whence do I derive (the same for) even part of it? From dakah (lit., "crushed," but not entirely).

R. Yishmael the son of R. Yochanan b. Beroka said: I heard in Kerem Beyavneh that a man who has only one (testicle) is a saris chamah (a eunuch from the time of seeing the sun. i.e., one born without visible testicles. [This has various halachic implications.]) What is the difference between a petzua dakah and a kruth shafchah? A petzuah dakah can recover (from the injury); a kruth shafchah cannot. This is one of the "halachoth" of doctors.

"into the congregation of the L-rd": the congregation of Cohanim, the congregation of Levites, the congregation of Israelites, and the congregation of proselytes.

The sages say: There are only three. (He omits the congregation of proselytes.)

(Devarim 23:3) "A mamzer may not come into the congregation of the L-rd." ("mamzer" =) "mum zar" ("a foreign blemish" [i.e., a blemish resulting from "foreign" (i.e., non-permitted) relationships]), whether a man or a woman.

Who is a "mamzer"? All kin who are subsumed in "may not come." These are the words of R. Akiva. For it is written (Ibid. 1) "A man shall not take the wife of his father and he shall not uncover the lap of his father … (3) "A mamzer may not come, etc." Just as "the wife of his father" is distinct in being kin and subsumed in "may not come," and the child is a mamzer, so, in all who are thus characterized, the child is a mamzer.

Shimon Hatemani says: All who are liable to kareth (cutting-off) at the hands of heaven — the child is a mamzer, it being written "A man shall not take the wife of his father … A mamzer may not come, etc." Just as "the wife of his father" is distinct in being liable to kareth at the hands of heaven and the child is a mamzer, so, in all who are thus characterized, the child is a mamzer.

R. Yehoshua says: All who are liable to judicial death penalty — the child is a mamzer, it being written "A man shall not take the wife of his father … A mamzer may not come, etc." Just as "the wife of his father" is distinct in being subject to judicial death penalty and the child is a mamzer, so, in all who are thus characterized, the child is a mamzer.

"even the tenth generation": It is written here "the tenth generation," and below (4) (in respect to an Amoni and a Moavi) "the tenth generation." Just as "the tenth generation" there is for all time, so, "the tenth generation" here.

(Devarim 23:4) "An Amoni and a Moavi shall not come into the congregation of the L-rd": Scripture speaks of males and not of females, it being written "Amoni" (masculine), and not "Amonith" (feminine); "Moavi," and not "Moavith."

For it would follow: If (in the instance of) "mamzer," whereof it is not stated "for all time," women are equated with men, then Amonim and Moavim, whereof it is stated "for all time," how much more so should men be equated with women! Or, conversely: If Amonim and Moavim, whereof it is stated "for all time," women are not equated with men, then mamzer, whereof it is not stated "for all time," how much more so should women not be equated with men! It is, therefore, written "mamzer" — "mum zar," both men and women.

Now that Scripture has included and excluded, you must revert to the first line of reasoning, viz.: If "mamzer," whereof it is not stated "for all time," women are equated with men, then Amonim and Moavim, whereof it is stated "for all time," how much more so should men be equated with women! It is, therefore, written "Amoni," and not "Amonith." These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says (Ibid. 23:5) "Because they did not greet you with bread and with water." Whose custom is it to greet? Men and not women, (women normally being in the home.)

(Ibid. 4) "even the tenth generation shall not come": If it is written "for all time," why need it be written "the tenth generation"? It is mufneh (free for interpretation) for purposes of comparison and identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: It is written here (in respect to Amoni and Moavi) "the tenth generation," and there (in respect to mamzer) "the tenth generation." Just as here, "for all time," so, there, for all time.

(Devarim 23:5) "Because they did not greet you with bread and with water": Not only because of this, but also because of the counsel (of hiring Bilaam against you [Ibid.]), viz. (Michah 6:5) "My people, hear now, what Balak king of Moav counseled, etc."