Sifrei Devarim Reader

(Devarim, Ibid.) "on the way": at the time of your being tossed about.

"when you came out of Egypt": at the time of your redemption.

"and that he hired against you Bilaam the son of Be'or": (this being the "Because" of Bilaam).

(Devarim, Ibid. 6) "And the L-rd your G-d did not desire to heed Bilaam … and He turned the curse into a blessing for you" — whereby we are taught that the curser is cursed. Why? "For the L-rd your G-d loved you."

(Devarim 23:7) "Do not seek their peace and their good all of your days, forever": Because it is written (Ibid. 20:10) "and you shall call out to it (a besieged city) for peace," I might think that the same should be done with them (Amon and Moav); it is, therefore, written "Do not seek their peace."

And because it is written (Ibid. 23:17) "… where it is good for him (an escaped servant); you shall not oppress him," I might think that the same holds true with them; it is, therefore, written "and (do not seek) their good."

(Devarim 23:8) "You shall not despise an Edomi": Why? (Ibid.) "because he is your brother": Great is brotherhood.

"You shall not despise an Egyptian": Why? (Ibid.) "because you were a stranger in his land." R. Elazar b. Azaryah said: The Egyptians accepted Israel only for their own benefit, notwithstanding which the L-rd stipulated reward for them (here). Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If one did not intend another's benefit and benefited him nonetheless, Scripture considers it as if he had benefited him, then one who intends to benefit him, how much more so!

R. Shimon says: The Egyptians drowned Israel in the sea, and the Edomites accosted Israel with the sword, yet Scripture forbade their entrance (into Israel) only until three generations. The Amonites and the Moavites, because they took counsel to cause Israel to sin, Scripture forbade their entry forever! — to teach that it is worse to cause a man to sin than to kill him. For one who kills a man removes him only from this world, whereas one who causes him to sin removes him from both this world and the world to come.

(Devarim 23:9) "The banim which will be born to them, the third generation shall come for them into the congregation of the L-rd": "banim" (lit.,) "sons," and not daughters. These are the words of R. Shimon. And the sages say: "which will be born to them": to include the daughters.

R. Shimon said (to them:) What I am saying follows a fortiori, viz. If where Scripture forbade the males (from entry) forever (i.e., in the instance of Amon and Moav), it permitted the daughters immediately, then, where it forbade the males only until three generations (i.e., in the instance of an Edomi), how much more so should the females be permitted immediately! They responded: If you are stating a halachah, we will accept it; if you are ratiocinating, we can answer you. R. Shimon: I am stating a halachah, and the verse supports me — "banim" (sons), and not "banoth" (daughters).

"the third generation": I might think that both the second and the third generation are forbidden; it is, therefore, written "the third generation (shall come for them into the congregation of the L-rd.") R. Yehudah said: Minyamin, an Egyptian proselyte, was a friend of mine of the disciples of R. Akiva, and he said to me: I am an Egyptian proselyte married to an Egyptian proselytess, and I am going to marry my son to the daughter of an Egyptian proselytess, so that my grandson will be fit to enter the congregation (of Israel) in fulfillment of "the third generation shall come, etc."

(Devarim 23:10) "When you go out, an encampment against your enemies, then you shall guard yourself against every evil thing." "when you go out, an encampment": When you go out, go out in an encampment (i.e., en masse).

"against your enemies": (Keep it in mind that you are going out) against your enemies, (and act accordingly).

"then you shall guard yourself against every evil thing": I might think that this refers to (the need for circumspection vis-à-vis) cleanliness, uncleanliness, and tithes; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 15) "and He shall not see in you a thing of nakedness" (ervah). This tells me only of "ervah." Whence is included (in the need for circumspection) idolatry, bloodshed, and blasphemy? From "then you shall guard yourself against every evil thing." Just as "ervah" is distinct in that it is something for which the Canaanites were exiled and because of which the Shechinah is removed, so, all such things (are included).

"evil thing" ("davar") includes even slander ("dibbur ra").

(Devarim 23:11) "If there be among you": and not among gentiles;

"who shall not be clean because of a nocturnal accident": This tells me only of a nocturnal accident (i.e., emission). Whence do I derive (the same for) a diurnal accident? From "who shall not be clean" — in any event. Why, then, is it written "a nocturnal accident"? Scripture speaks of the common instance.

"then he shall go outside the camp" — this is a positive commandment;

"he shall not come into the midst of the camp" — this is a negative commandment. R. Shimon Hatemani says: "then he shall go outside the camp" — this is the Levite camp; "he shall not come into the midst of the camp" — this is the camp of the Shechinah.

(Devarim 21:12) "And it shall be towards evening that he shall wash himself with water": This teaches us that a seminal emission exempts a zivah (seminal) discharge within the same twenty-four hour period (from the requirement of cleansing, the verse implying that whatever intervenes, he will be clean in the evening.)

"and when the sun sets": The (non-) setting of the sun prevents him from entering the camp.

(Devarim 23:13) "And a yad shall there be for you outside the camp": "yad" signifies a place, as it is written (I Samuel 15:12) "and he has set himself up a yad," and (Bamidbar 2:17) "every man in his yad by their flags."

"and you shall go out there outside": and not in the camp.

(Ibid. 14) "And a spade shall there be for you among your implements (azenecha)": "azenecha" is the place of your weapons ("zaynecha").

"and it shall be when you sit outside": (One should ease himself) sitting, not standing.

"and you shall dig with it": I might think he digs with one and covers with another; it is, therefore, written "and you shall turn back and you shall cover, etc.": (which implies that he covers with the same spade).

R. Yishmael says: Whence is it derived that one should not turn his back towards the encampment (in easing himself)? From "and you shall turn back and cover your excrement," (which indicates that he was facing the encampment beforehand).

(Devarim 23:15) "For the L-rd your G-d walks in the midst of your camp … And let your camp be holy": Make it holy — whence it was ruled: One should not recite the Shema near the washers' dippings, nor should he enter a bathhouse or a tannery with scrolls or tefillin in his hand.

"to save you and to deliver your foes before you": If you do all that is stated herein, in the end He will save you and deliver your foes into your hand.

("And let your camp be holy": Sanctify it. From here it was taught that a person should not enter the Temple Mount with his walking-stick, shoes, or dust on his feet.)

"that He not see in you a thing of nakedness and turn away from you" — whence it is seen that ervah (illicit relations) causes the Shechinah to depart.

(Devarim 23:16) "Do not deliver a servant to his master": From here they ruled: If one sells his servant to an idolator or to one outside of Eretz Yisrael, he goes free.

"who shall escape to you from his master": to include a ger toshav ("a sojourning stranger," a gentile who takes it upon himself not to serve idolatry and to heed the seen Noachide laws)

[If he leaves the gentiles and comes to Eretz Yisrael, do not return him to them.] (Ibid. 17) "With you shall he dwell" — in the city itself.

"in your midst" — and not in an outlying district. "in the place that he chooses" — where he can find sustenance.

"in your gates" — and not in Jerusalem. "in one of your gates" — and not in exile from city to city.

"where it is good for him" — from an inferior location to a superior one.

(Devarim 23:18) "There shall be no harlot from the daughters of Israel": You (beth-din) are exhorted (to keep harlotry) from the daughters of Israel, but you are not thus exhorted vis-à-vis gentile women. "and there shall be no harlot form the sons of Israel": You are exhorted vis-à-vis the sons of Israel, but not vis-à-vis Canaanite men. Why mention both kadesh (a male harlot [homosexuality]) and kedeshah (a female harlot). If you (beth-din) are exhorted vis-à-vis a kedeshah — of lesser stringency — in Israel; how much more so are you thus exhorted vis-à-vis a kadesh, (who is subject to the death penalty)! Or, conversely, if you are not exhorted vis-à-vis a Canaanite kadesh — of greater stringency, then how much more so are you not thus exhorted vis-à-vis a Canaanite kedeshah! (Why, then, must both be mentioned?) Both are necessary. For if only kedeshah were mentioned and not kadesh, I would say: You are exhorted vis-à-vis a kadesh — of greater stringency — in Israel; but you are not thus exhorted vis-à-vis a kedeshah — of lesser stringency. Or, you are not exhorted vis-à-vis a kedeshah — of lesser stringency — among the Canaanites; but you are exhorted vis-à-vis a kadesh — of greater stringency among the Canaanites. It is, therefore, written "There shall be no harlots from the daughters of Israel, and there shall be no harlots from the sons of Israel" — and you are not thus exhorted vis-à-vis the Canaanites.

(Devarim 23:19) "You shall not bring the hire of a prostitute and the exchange of a dog into the house of the L-rd your G-d for every vow": "You shall not bring the hire of a prostitute": This tells me of the hire of a prostitute. Whence do we derive (the same for) the hire of all of the arayoth (illicit relations)? From "for the abomination" — in any event. And which is "the hire of a prostitute"? Saying to a prostitute "Take this (lamb) for your hire" — even (if he sent her) one hundred, they are all forbidden. If one says to his neighbor: Take this lamb and let your (Canaanite) maidservant lie with my (unmarried Hebrew) manservant — Rebbi says: This is not hire; the sages say: It is hire.

"and the exchange of a dog": What is "the exchange of a dog"? Saying to one's neighbor: Take this lamb for this dog, (in which instance the lamb may not be dedicated to the Temple). I might think that if he walked it (i.e., the beast given as a harlot's hire) into the azarah (the Temple court), he is liable, it is, therefore written "for the abomination of the L-rd." It is written here "abomination," and elsewhere (relative to the interdict against sacrificing blemished animals) (Ibid. 17:1) "abomination." Just as there, sacrifice (is interdicted), so, here, sacrifice (and not merely entry is interdicted).

"for every vow": to exclude what has already been vowed. "for every vow": to include (the harlot's hire as interdicted even for) a bamah (a temporary altar).

"into the house of the L-rd your G-d" to exclude (from the interdict) the bullock of the sin-offering, (i.e., the red heifer, which is not brought into the Temple, but is slaughtered outside the encampment [viz. Bamidbar 19:3]). These are the words of R. Eliezer. The sages say: to include (as interdicted) gold-foil (for the Temple).

"for every vow": to include (as interdicted) (even) a bird. For I would think: If sacrificial offerings, which are invalidated by blemishes, are not subject to "hire" and "exchange," then birds, which are not invalidated by blemishes — how much more so should they not be subject to "hire" and "exchange." It is, therefore, written "for every vow," to include birds. I might think that (also interdicted is) the hire (that he gives the harlot) for abstention (from remunerative labor for the time period required for the act); it is, therefore, written "for the abomination of the L-rd" (i.e., the hire forbidden is that for the act itself).

"the very two (the hire of a prostitute and the exchange of a dog)": two and not four (i.e., the hire of a dog and the exchange of a prostitute are permitted) "the very two of them" — they (are interdicted) and not their offspring.

(Devarim 23:20) "You shall not give interest to your brother": This tells me only of the borrower (that he should not give interest.) Whence do I derive (the same for) the lender (that he should not take interest)? From (Vayikra 25:36) "You shall not take from him interest."

(Vayikra 25:37: "Your money you shall not give him on interest, and on increase you shall not give your food."): From "your money," I derive: your money, but not that of others (i.e., gentiles); "your food," but not that of others. — But perhaps (the inference should be) "your money," but not that of ma'aser (the tithe); "your food," but not that of beasts! — (No, for "interest of money" (Devarim, Ibid.) includes money of ma'aser (as interdicted); "interest of food" includes food of beasts. This tells me only of interest of money and interest of food (as interdicted). Whence do I derive the same for any kind of interest? From (Ibid.) "interest of anything that can be (construed as) interest."

R. Shimon says: Whence is it derived that he (the lender) should not tell him (the borrower): Go and greet that man, or: Find out if that man has come from his place? From "interest of any thing ("devar," like "dibbur" [speech]).

(Devarim 23:21) "To the stranger shall you give interest, but to your brother shall you not give interest": "to the stranger shall you give interest" — a positive commandment; "but to your brother shall you not give interest — a negative commandment.

R. Gamliel says: What is the intent of "but to your brother shall you not give interest"? It is already written (Ibid. 20) "You shall not give interest to your brother" — There is antecedent interest and supervening interest. How so? If he thought to borrow from him and sent him (a gift), thinking "So that he lend me," this is antecedent interest. If he borrowed from him and returned his money and sent him (a gift), thinking "For his money that was 'idle' with me," this is supervening interest.

"so that the L-rd your G-d will bless you in all to which you put your hands": Scripture "established" for him a blessing in all the sending forth of his hands.

"on the land whither you are coming to inherit it": in reward for your coming, you will inherit.

(Devarim 23:22) "If you make a vow to the L-rd, you shall not delay to pay it": It is written here "a vow," and elsewhere (Vayikra 7:16) "a vow." Just as there, "a vow or a pledge (nedavah)," so, here, a vow or a pledge. And just as with the vow here, "you shall not delay to pay it," so, with the vow there, you shall not delay to pay it.

"for the L-rd your G-d": This refers to monies, assessments, devotions, and consecrations, (in respect to all of which it is written "to the L-rd.")

"to pay it": it and not its substitute (i.e., if the original were lost, he does not transgress "You shall not delay" with its substitute until three festivals have passed for the substitute.)

"for require shall He require it": These are sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings.

"the L-rd your G-d": These are charities, tithes, first-born (bechor), and the Pesach offering.

"of you": This refers to leket, shikchah, and peah.

"and it will be a sin in you": "in you," and not in your offering (i.e., the offering is kasher even if delayed.)

(Devarim 23:23) "But if you forbear to vow, it will not be a sin in you": R. Meir says: It is better not to vow than to vow and pay. Better than both (i.e., to vow and not to pay and to vow and to pay) is not to vow at all. R. Yehudah says: Better than both (i.e., to vow and not to pay and not to vow at all) is to vow and to pay. (Ibid. 24) "What issues from your lips shall you keep and you shall do":

"What issues from your lips" — a positive commandment.

"and you shall do": This is an exhortation to beth-din to make you do (what you have vowed).

"to the L-rd your G-d": These are sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings;

"that you spoke": These are consecrations for Temple maintenance;

(Devarim 23:25) "If you come into the vineyard of your neighbor, you may eat grapes so as to satisfy your soul": "If you come into the vineyard of your neighbor": I might think (that the verse speaks of) any man (who enters the vineyard); it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "but into your vessel you shall not pace them." (You shall place them, however,) into the vessels of the owner, (for whom you are working).

"your neighbor": but not a gentile. "your neighbor": but not the Temple.

"you may eat," but not suck (out the wine and discard the rest, [for this would result in his eating a greater number of grapes]).

"grapes": and not figs — whence it was ruled: If he were working with (i.e., picking) grapes, he should not eat figs; if he were working with figs, he should not eat grapes. But he should restrain himself until he reaches the choice ones (and then eat).

R. Elazar b. Chasma says: Whence is it derived that a worker may not eat more than his wage? From "so as to sate your soul." And the sages say: "so as to sate," which implies that a worker may eat even more than his wage.

"but into your vessel you may not place them": when you are placing them into the vessel of the owner.

(Devarim 23:6) "If you come into the standing corn of your neighbor": I might think (that the verse speaks of) any man (who passes the standing corn); it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "but you shall not lift a sickle" — when you are lifting a sickle (as a worker) upon your neighbor's standing corn.

"your neighbor": but not a gentile. "your neighbor": but not the Temple.

"you may pluck the ears with your hand": but you may not cut them with the sickle.

"but you shall not lift a sickle" (for yourself, even) when you lift a sickle upon the standing corn of your neighbor.

(Devarim 24:1) "If a man take a woman": We are hereby taught that a woman is acquired (as a wife) by money. For (without this verse) it would follow otherwise, viz.: If a Hebrew handmaid, who is not acquired by cohabitation is acquired by money, then a woman, who is acquired by cohabitation, how much more so should she be acquired by money! — (No,) this is refuted by the instance of a yevamah (leviratess), who is acquired by cohabitation, but is not acquired by money. Do not wonder, then, if a woman, who, though she is acquired by cohabitation were not to be acquired by money. It must, therefore, be written "If a man take a woman," to teach that a woman is acquired by money.

"and he cohabit with her." We are hereby taught that a woman is acquired by cohabitation. For (without this verse) it would follow otherwise, viz.: If a yevamah, who is not acquired by money, is acquired by cohabitation, then a woman, who is acquired by money, how much more so should she be acquired by cohabitation! — (No,) this is refuted by the instance of a Hebrew handmaid, who is acquired by money, but is not acquired by cohabitation. Do not wonder, then, if a woman, who, though she is acquired by money, were not to be acquired by cohabitation. It must, therefore, be written "and he cohabit with her," to teach that a woman is acquired by cohabitation.

And whence is it derived that she is also acquired by a writ (shtar)? It follows, viz.: If money, which does not release (a woman from marriage), acquires, then shtar (a writ [of divorce]), which does release a woman, how much more so should it acquire! (No,) this may be true of money, which acquires hekdesh (consecrated property) and second tithe, but not with shtar, which does not acquire hekdesh and second tithe. It must, therefore, be written (Ibid.) "then he shall write for her a scroll of divorce, and he shall place it into her hand, and he shall send her from his house. This one's coming in (to marriage) is compared to her going out (viz. Ibid. 2). Just as her going out is with a shtar (i.e., a get), so, her coming in.

(Devarim 24:1) "and it shall be, if she does not find favor in his eyes, for he found in her a thing of nakedness, (then he shall write her a scroll of divorce.") Beth Shammai say: A man should not divorce his wife unless he find in her a thing of nakedness (i.e., that she had fornicated). And Beth Hillel say: Even if she spoiled his meal, it being written "for he found in her a thing of nakedness."

Said Beth Hillel to Beth Shammai: But is it not written "a thing"? Beth Shammai: But is it not written "nakedness"? Beth Hillel: If it were written "nakedness," but not "a thing," I would say, because of nakedness she is divorced, but because of "a thing" she is not divorced. It is, therefore, written "a thing … (2) and she shall go out of his house."

And if it were written "a thing," and it were not written "nakedness," I would say: If she is divorced because of "a thing," she is permitted to remarry, but if she is divorced because of nakedness, she is not permitted to remarry. And do not wonder at this, for if she is forbidden (by the divorce) from one who was permitted to her, should she not be forbidden to one (i.e., a new husband), who was forbidden to her? It must, therefore, be written "… nakedness … and she shall go out of his house and she may be to another man."

R. Akiva says: (He may divorce her) even if he finds another more beautiful than she, it being written "if she does not find favor in his eyes."

"then he shall write to her": in her name — whence they ruled. Any get not written in the name of that woman is invalid. How so? If one passed by in the marketplace and heard a scribe saying "This man divorces this woman from this place," and he said "That's my name and that's the name of my wife," it is invalid as a get. More so — If he wrote (a get) to divorce his wife, and he changed his mind, and a man of his city found it and said "That's my name and that's the name of my wife," it is invalid as a get. More so, if he had two wives with the same name, if he wrote it to divorce the tall one, he may not use it to divorce the short one. More so, if he told the scribe to write it, thinking "I will use it to divorce whichever I wish," it is invalid as a get.

"then he shall write": This tells me only of ink. Whence do I derive (as also permitted) dye, rock-lichen, resin, and vitriol? From "then he shall write" — with anything.

"a scroll": This tells me only of a scroll. Whence do I derive (as also permitted) reed, nut, olive, and carob stalks? From "and he shall place it into her hand" — in any event. If so, why is it written "a scroll"? Just as a scroll is characterized by (relative) permanence, so, all things that are thus characterized (are permitted for the writing of a get) — to exclude those things which are not thus characterized. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: Just as a scroll is characterized by being unrooted to the ground, so, all things that are thus characterized (are permitted for the writing of a get) — to exclude those things which are not thus characterized.

"a scroll of 'krithuth'": something that cuts off completely — whence it is ruled: If one says to his wife: Here is your get on condition that you never again go to your father's house; on condition that you never again drink wine — this is not krithuth (in that there is no stage in which complete severance is effected.) (If he says:) on condition that you do not go to your father's house until thirty days from now; on condition that you do not drink wine, until thirty days from now — it is krithuth. If one divorces his wife and says "You are permitted to everyone except so-and-so" — R. Eliezer permits it and the sages forbid it. After the death of R. Eliezer, four elders entered to dispute his words: R. Tarfon, R. Yossi Haglili, R. Elazar b. Azaryah, and R. Akiva.

R. Tarfon opened and said: If she went and married the brother of the man to whom she had been forbidden (by the get), and he died without children, how could she become the yevamah of his brother? Would he (her first husband) not be making a condition against what is written in the Torah (i.e., the mitzvah of yibum)? And if anyone makes a condition against what is written in the Torah, his condition is not valid — so that this is not krithuth.

R. Yossi Haglili said: Where do we find in the Torah that she is permitted to one and forbidden to another? But if she is permitted to one, she is permitted to all men, and if she is forbidden to one, she is forbidden to all men — so that this is not krithuth.

R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: "Krithuth" — something that severs (completely) between himself and her. R. Yossi said: I subscribe to the words of R. Elazar b. Azaryah.

R. Akiva says: On what basis was the Torah stringent vis-à-vis (forbidding) a divorcée to a Cohein or a married woman to all men? (It must be that the ban against) a married woman is more stringent than that of a divorcée (to a Cohein). Now if a divorcée, of lesser stringency, is forbidden (to one who was once permitted to her), then a married woman, of greater stringency, how much more so should she be forbidden (to one who was once permitted to her [if her divorce is only conditional])? — so that this is not krithuth.