Sifrei Devarim Reader

Variantly: If she went and married another and he had children from her, and then she were widowed or divorced and married this one (to whom she was prohibited by the conditional divorce), would her children by the first not be found to be mamzerim (bastards, the divorce being retroactively invalidated)? — so that this is not krithuth.

"into her hand": This tells me only of "her hand." Whence do I derive (the same for) her garden, her courtyard, and her enclosure? From "and he shall place" — anywhere. If so, why is it written "her hand"? Just as her hand is distinct in being her domain, so all that is thus characterized (is valid for the placing of the get).

"and he shall send her away from his house": He must tell her "This is your get." From here they ruled: If one threw a get to his wife and said "Pick up this writ," or if she found it behind him and read it and found it to be her get, it is not a (valid) get until he says to her "This is your get."

(Devarim 24:2) "And she shall go out of his house": We are hereby taught that the woman leaves the presence of the man (i.e., she leaves the house, not he.)

"and she shall go and she may be to another man": She should not marry in his (the first's) neighborhood.

"another man": Scripture calls him "another," (demonstrating that he is not on a par [morally] with the first, the first having banished "a thing of nakedness" from his home; the second, having admitted her.)

(Ibid. 3) "And if the last man hate her": Scripture apprises us that he is destined to hate her.

"or if the last man die": Scripture apprises us that she is destined to bury him.

If a divorcée (from the second husband) is mentioned (as forbidden to the first,), why mention a widow (as being forbidden to him)? For a divorcée is forbidden to the levir (her second husband's brother [in the event of her second husband's dying without children]) whereas a widow is permitted to the levir (in the above instance).

I might think that even if she had illicit relations with another after she were divorced, she is forbidden to return to him; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 2) "and he shall write her … (3) and she shall go out, etc.": (Only) one who goes out with a get (from a second husband) is forbidden to return to the first, but not one who had illicit relations with another.

And whence is it derived that if one gives a get to his yevamah (in advance of levirate marriage) she may not return to him? From (Ibid. 4) "Her first husband shall not be able, etc." And whence is it derived that if a woman's husband went abroad, and she was told that he died, and she married another — after which he returned (Whence is it derived) that she needs a get from both? From "Her first husband shall not be able … to return to take her to be to him as a wife."

(Ibid.) "after she had been defiled": This tells me only (that this is so) from marriage (with the first) to marriage (with the second). Whence do I derive (the same for) from betrothal to marriage, from marriage to betrothal, from betrothal to betrothal? From "Her first husband shall not be able to take her; "her first to take her," "who had sent her away to take her," "to return to take her."

R. Yossi b. Kipper says in the name of R. Elazar b. Azaryah: From betrothal (to the second) she is permitted (to return to the first); from marriage she is forbidden, it being written "after she has been defiled" (i.e., cohabited with). And the sages say: Both from betrothal and marriage she is forbidden. Why, then, is it written "after she has been defiled"? To include (as forbidden to return to him) a sotah (a woman suspected of adultery) who had secreted herself (with the one she was warned against.)

"for she (a returned divorcée) is an abomination before the L-rd": As it is written (Jeremiah 3:1) "If a man divorces his wife, and she goes and marries another man, can he return to her again?"

"for she is an abomination": R. Yehudah said: She is an abomination, but her child (of the renewed union) is not an abomination.

"And you shall not make sinful the land": Beth-din is hereby being exhorted (to insure that this does not happen).

(Devarim 24:5) "If a man take a new wife": This tells me only of a virgin. Whence do I derive (the same for) a widow and a divorcée? From (Ibid.) "and he shall rejoice his wife" — in any event. If so, why is it written "new"? One who is "new" to him — to exclude a returned divorcée.

"he shall not go out in the army": I might think that he does not go out into the army, but he supplies to it weapons, food, and water; it is, therefore, written "and it shall not impose upon him for any thing." I might think (that it may not impose upon him) even if he built a house and inaugurated it, planted a vineyard and redeemed it, betrothed a woman and took her (viz. Ibid. 20:5-6); it is, therefore, written "upon him." It does not impose upon him, but it does impose upon the aforementioned.

(Devarim 24:6) "One shall not take as a pledge the nether millstone nor the upper millstone": Whence do we derive (the same for) all things (that process food)? From "for it is a soul (i.e., a life) that he takes as a pledge." If so, why mention (only) nether millstone and upper millstone? Just as these are distinct in being implements performing one task, for each of which in itself one is liable, so, one is liable for all such implements.

"for it is a soul that he takes as a pledge": This is the basis (of the prohibition).

"who steals a soul of his brothers": and not of gentiles;

"of the children of Israel": to exclude one who is half-slave-half-free.

"and he exploits him": He is not liable until he brings him into his domain. R. Yehudah says: (He is not liable) until he brings him into his domain and uses him, as it is written (Ibid.) "and he exploits him and sells him."

"then he shall die": by the unqualified "execution" of the Torah — strangulation.

("that [kidnapper]": to exclude one who steals one who is half-slave-half-free.)

"the thief": to include as liable one who steals his son and sells him. These are the words of R. Yochanan b. Beroka. And the sages say: One who steals his son and sells him is not liable.

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

(Devarim 24:8) "Be heedful of the plague-spot of leprosy": This is a negative commandment.

"of the plague-spot": This refers to (tearing out) the white hair.

"of leprosy": This refers to the michyah (viz. Vayikra 13:24). This tells me (that he is liable) only for (cutting) all of them. Whence do I derive (the same for) some of them? From "to heed it exceedingly and to do."

This tells me only of plague-spots of men. Whence do I derive (the same for) plague-spots of garments and plague-spots of houses? From "according to all that the Cohanim, the Levites, teach you."

This tells me (of liability) only in the instance of confirmation (of the plague-spot). Whence do I derive (the same for the instance of) quarantine and non-designation of "uncleanliness" (tumah)? From "as I have commanded them."

"so shall you observe to do": You may not do so (i.e., you may not remove a plague-spot deliberately), but you may tie the (shoe) thong around your foot, and you may place the (carrying) pole on your back, and if it is thereby removed, it is removed (and there is no liability).

(Devarim 24:9) "Remember what the L-rd your G-d did to Miriam": What does this have to do with what precedes (i.e., plague-spots)? To teach that plague-spots come only because of slander, (Miriam having slandered Moses regarding the "Kushite woman" that he had taken). Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If Miriam, who had not spoken in public of Moses, and only for his benefit, and in praise of the L-rd, and to the end of the propagation of the world, was thus punished (with leprosy), then all who speak in denigration of their neighbor in public, how much more so!

"when you left Egypt": the time of your redemption, and all was stopped because of her, whereby we are apprised that all of that time when the standards of the tribes traveled, they did so only when Miriam preceded them, viz. (Michah 6:4) "And I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam."

(Devarim 24:10) "When your neighbor is indebted to you, any kind of debt, do not enter his house to claim his pledge." "When your neighbor is indebted to you": This tells me only of a loan. Whence do I derive (the same for) a laborer's wages and store-credit? From "any kind of debt."

"do not enter his house": I might think that he could not take a pledge from inside (his house), but that he may do so from (the debtor's possessions) outside; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 11) "and the man who is indebted to you shall bring out to you the pledge outside. I might think that he could enter inside (and wait for the debtor to give him the pledge); it is, therefore, written "Outside shall you stand."

"Outside shall you stand and the man" includes the messenger of beth-din.

(Devarim 24:12) "And if he is a poor man, you shall not lie down with his pledge." This tells me only of a poor man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a rich man? From "And if a man" (— any man). If so, why is it written "poor"? I hasten to exact payment for (such abuse of) a poor man more than for that of a rich man.

"you shall not lie down with his pledge": You shall not lie down with his pledge in your possession.

(Ibid. 13) "Return shall you return to him the pledge when the sun sets": And elsewhere (Shemoth 22:25) "until the sun sets (in the daytime) shall you return it to him." We are hereby taught that he returns to him what is used during the day in the daytime, and what is used at night, in the evening — a mattress in the evening and a plow in the daytime, and not the reverse.

"and he shall bless you": We are hereby taught that he is commanded to bless you. I might think that if he blessed you, you will be blessed; and if not, not. It is, therefore, written "and for you it will be righteousness before the L-rd your G-d."

We are hereby taught that righteousness ascends before the throne of glory, as it is written (Psalms 85:14) "His righteousness shall go before Him and shall set his steps on the path."

(Devarim 24:14) "You shall not oppress a hired laborer": But it is already written (Vayikra 19:13) "You shall not oppress your neighbor and you shall not rob, etc." We are hereby taught that one who holds back the wages of a hired man transgresses five negative commandments (including the two above) and one positive commandment: (Vayikra 19:13) "There shall not abide with you the wages of a hired man," (Devarim, Ibid.) "You shall not oppress a poor hired laborer," (Ibid. 15) "In his day shall you give his wage" (the positive commandment), and (Ibid.) "and the sun shall not go down upon it."

"for he is poor and to it he lifts his soul." This tells me only of one who is poor. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who is rich? This tells me only of labor that he does "with his soul" (i.e., in which he risks his life). Whence do I derive the same for labor that he does not do "with his soul," such as that of a weaver or a carder? From (Vayikra 19:13) "You shall not oppress your neighbor … and "there shall not abide with you overnight the wages of a hired man" — in any event. If so, why is it written (Devarim, Ibid. 14) "poor and impoverished"? I hasten to exact payment for (such abuse of) one who is poor and impoverished more than for that of other men.

(Ibid.) "of your brothers": and not of others (i.e., gentiles).

"in your gates": a ger toshav (a "sojourning" proselyte). This tells me only of the hire of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) the hire of beasts and utensils? From "in your land" — all that is in your land. We are hereby taught that all are subject to the above interdicts. R. Yossi b. R. Judah says: A ger toshav is subsumed in "In his day shall you give his wage," but not in "There shall not abide with you." Beasts and utensils are subsumed only in "You shall not hold back."

(Devarim 24:15) "In his day shall you give his wage": Whence is it derived that a hired day-laborer claims (his wages) the entire night, and a hired night-laborer claims the entire day? From (respectively) "The wage of a hired (day-) laborer shall not abide with you until morning," and "the sun shall not go down upon it" (the wage of a hired night-laborer).

"for he is poor and to it he lifts his soul": to exclude (from the interdict) an instance in which it was mutually agreed (that he be paid later).

"and to it he lifts his soul": For why did he ascend the incline and risk his life if not that you should give him his wage in the daytime? If so, why is it written (lit.,) "and to it he 'takes' his soul"? To teach that if one holds back a hired laborer's wage, it is reckoned to him as if he took his soul.

"that he not call against you to the L-rd": I might think that he is commanded not to call; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 15:9) "and he shall call out against you" I might then think that he is commanded to call; it is, therefore, written (here) "that he not call out against you to the L-rd." I might think that if he calls, "there will be in you a sin," and if not, not; it is, therefore, written "and there will be in you a sin" — in any event. If so, why is it written "and he shall call out against you"? I hasten to exact payment for one who calls more than for one who does not call.

(Devarim 24:16) "Fathers shall not be put to death by cause of sons": What is Scripture coming to teach us? That fathers shall not be put to death because of (the sins of) the sons, and sons, because of (the sins of) the fathers? This is written (Ibid.) "Every man for his own sin shall be put to death." The intent is rather that fathers shall not be put to death by the testimony of sons, and sons, by the testimony of fathers.

"and sons": to include the kin (as invalid for such testimony.) They are: his brothers, the brothers of his father and the brothers of his mother, the husband of his sister, the husband of his father's sister, the husband of his mother's sister, his father-in-law, and his brother-in-law.

"Every man for his own sin shall be put to death (by beth-din)": Adults die for their own sins; minors (sometimes) die (at the hands of Heaven) for the sins of their fathers.

(Devarim 24:17) "You shall not pervert the judgment of a stranger and an orphan": What is the intent of this? Is it not already written (Ibid. 16:19) "You shall not pervert judgment"? Its intent is to teach that one who perverts the judgment of a stranger transgresses two negative commandments.

"and you shall not take as a pledge the garment of a widow": whether poor or rich. And even (if she were as rich) as Marta b. Baithus.

R. Shimon says: The things that you take as a pledge and return (at given times), you may not take from a widow, so that you not frequent her house and impute a bad name to her.

(Devarim 24:19) "When you reap your harvest in the field, if you forget a sheaf in the field, do not return to take it": to exclude its being reaped by robbers, ravaged by ants, or broken by the wind or by beasts.

"your harvest": to exclude that which appertains to the Temple and to gentiles — whence they ruled: A gentile who reaped his field and then became a convert is exempt from leket, shikchah, and peah. R. Yehudah makes him liable for shikchah; for shikchah obtains only at the time of sheaving, (at which time he was a Jew.)

R. Yossi Haglili says: (It is written) "When you reap your harvest in your field and you forget a sheaf": Wherever your reaping obtains, shikchah ("forgetting") obtains in the sheaves; wherever your reaping does not obtain, shikchah does not obtain in the sheaves — which is to say that if the Temple reaped (the field) and an Israelite bought it, he is exempt (from shikchah); if a gentile reaped (the field) and an Israelite bought it, he is exempt.

"in your field": excluding (from shikchah) one who makes sheaves in his neighbor's field. These are the words of R. Meir; the sages rule it liable (for shikchah).

(Devarim 24:19) "if you forget a sheaf in the field": and not a heap of sheaves. I might think (that shikchah obtains) even if he forgot more than two sheaves; it is, therefore, written "to the stranger, (one), to the orphan and to the widow shall it be," (orphan and widow being regarded as one unit). From here they ruled: Two sheaves are shikchah; three are not shikchah. Two piles of olives and carobs are shikchah; three are not shikchah. Two berries (fallen at a time) are peret (viz. Vayikra 19:10); three are not peret.

"in the field": to exclude (from shikchah) what is hidden (in the ground). These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages say: "in the field": to include (as shikchah) what is hidden. "in the field": to include standing grain. For (if it were not written "in the field") it would follow (that standing grain was not shikchah), viz.: If a sheaf, where the "power" of the poor man is wanting (i.e., he does not receive a sheaf), he does receive shikchah (i.e., if it is forgotten, it belongs to the poor man), then standing grain, where the "power" of the poor man is strong, (i.e., he does receive leket and peah from it), how much more so should he receive shikchah from it! — (No,) this (i.e., that it is subject to shikchah) may be so with a (remembered) sheaf, which does not "save" (from shikchah) a (forgotten) sheaf (lying near it) or (forgotten) standing grain.

But would you say the same (that it is subject to shikchah) for (remembered) standing grain, which does "save" (from shikchah) a (forgotten) sheaf and forgotten standing grain (that are near it)? (It must, therefore, be written "in the field" to include standing grain as subject to shikchah.)

"do not return to take it": to exclude (from shikchah) the heads of rows. From here they ruled: The heads of rows — the sheaf adjoining it indicates their status (vis-à-vis shikchah). And if he forgot a sheaf that he had taken hold of to take to the city, they agree that this is not shikchah. If a sheaf were forgotten by the owner, but not by the workers, or vice versa; or if the poor stood before it or covered it with straw, it is not shikchah.

"do not return to take it": all as one. And what capacity must it have (to render it subject to shikchah)? The sages estimated: less than two sa'ah. From here they ruled: If they forgot a sheaf of two sa'ah, this is not shikchah. (If they forgot), two sheaves containing two sa'ah between them, R. Gamliel said: They are the owner's; the sages say they belong to the poor. R. Gamliel asked them: If there are more sheaves, is the power of the owner increased or decreased? They: It is increased. R. Gamliel: If they forgot one sheaf containing two sa'ah, it is not shikchah, how much more so, if they forgot two sheaves containing two sa'ah! They: No, this is so for one sa'ah, which is like a pile. Would you say the same for two, which are like bunches!

"do not return to take it": From here R. Yishmael ruled: An ear of the harvest whose head reaches up to the standing grain — If it were harvested together with the standing grain, it belongs to the owner, (the fact of its being thus harvested indicating it not to have been forgotten), and if not, it belongs to the poor (as shikchah). And if it is in doubt (safek [as to whether it was harvested together with the standing grain]), it belongs to the owner. For the burden of the proof is upon him who would remove it from the owner's domain. And whence is it derived that a safek of leket is leket, a safek of shikchah is shikchah, a safek of peah is peah? From "to the stranger, to the orphan, and to the widow shall it be."

R. Elazar b. Azaryah said: Whence is it derived that if one dropped a sela from his hand and a poor man found it and fed himself with it, it is accounted by Scripture as if he had given it to him? From "to the stranger, to the orphan, and to the widow shall it be, so that the L-rd your G-d will bless you." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If one did not give, but gave (through shikchah), Scripture accounts it to him as if he had (intentionally) given, (to wit: "so that the L-rd your G-d will bless you"), then one who intends to give and does give, how great must be his reward!

(Devarim 24:20) "When you beat your olive tree, you shall not cut off (lo tefa'er) after you": The early settlers would beat their olive trees and act magnanimously (with what was left on them). "your olive trees": to exclude (from peah) those of gentiles.

"your olive trees": to exclude those of the Temple. "

lo tefa'er": You shall not "lord it" over the poor man — whence they ruled: One who does not allow the poor to pick (the gleanings) or allows one but not another, or helps one of them (to pick) is robbing from the poor. And concerning such as this it is written (Proverbs 22:28) "Do not remove the bounds of yore."

"after you": We are hereby taught that shikchah obtains with an olive tree.

"after you": We are hereby taught that peah obtains with an olive tree.

"to the stranger, to the orphan and to the widow shall it be": It is written here "stranger, orphan," and above (19) "stranger, orphan." Just as there (to render it subject to shikchah) its capacity must be less than two sa'ah, so, here. From here it was ruled: An olive tree which contains two sa'ah and which was forgotten is not subject to shikchah. An olive tree standing between (any two of) three rows (of olive trees) separated by a plot of two malbenim (six hand-breadths) from one another is not shikchah.

(Devarim 24:21) "When you cut your vineyard, do not glean it after you": From here R. Eliezer ruled: A vineyard which is all oleloth (gleanings) belongs to the owner. R. Akiva says: It belongs to the poor, it being written (Vayikra 19:10) "And you shall not glean your vineyard."

"do not glean it": Which are "gleanings"? Those which have neither "arm" nor "dripping." If they have "arm" but not "dripping" or "dripping," but not "arm," they belong to the owner; if not, they belong to the poor. ("do not glean it) after you": whence we derive that they are subject to shikchah.

"after you": whence we derive that they are subject to peah. From here they ruled: What is shikchah in an arbor? All that he cannot stretch out his hand for and take. And in runners (grapes growing in a row on isolated vines), whatever he passes by.

"to the stranger, to the orphan, and to the widow shall it be": It is written here "stranger," "orphan," and elsewhere (Ibid. 19) "stranger," "orphan." Just as there (it is shikchah) only when it contains less than two sa'ah, so, here.

(Devarim 25:1) "If there be a quarrel among men": Peace cannot result from a quarrel. And thus is it written (Bereshith 13:17) "And there was a quarrel between the herdsmen of Abraham's cattle and those of Lot's cattle." What is it that caused Lot to separate from that tzaddik (Abraham)? A quarrel. Here, too, what is it that caused this one to receive stripes (in beth-din)? [see verse 2]) A quarrel.

"among men": Whence do I derive (the same for) women (quarreling with each other), or a woman quarreling with a man? From "and they (men or women) shall draw near to judgment."

"and they vindicate the righteous one and incriminate the wicked one": I might think that all the wicked receive stripes; it is, therefore, written (verse 2) "Then it shall be, if liable to stripes is the wicked one" — Sometimes he does receive stripes; sometimes not. But I still would not know which acts receive stripes; it is, therefore, written (verse 4) "You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing." Just as muzzling is distinct in being a negative commandment, transgression of which is subject to stripes, so, transgression of all negative commandments is subject to stripes. I might then think that all negative commandments linked to (remedial) positive commandments are (also) subject to stripes. It is, therefore, written "You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing." Just as muzzling is distinct in being unlinked to a (remedial) positive commandment, transgression of which is subject to stripes, so transgression of all negative commandments unlinked to (remedial) positive commandments is subject to stripes. R. Shimon says: "and they vindicate the righteous one": Vindicate him so that he not receive stripes.

(Ibid. 2) "then the judge shall bend him down": whence we derive that he is not smitten standing.

"and he shall smite him before him according to his wickedness in number.": one-third (the number of stripes) in front, and two-thirds on his back.

"before him": He smites him with his eyes upon him and not upon something else. I might think that he is smitten and put to death or that he is smitten and pays; it is, therefore, written "according to his (one) wickedness" — he is not (both) smitten and put to death; he is not smitten and made to pay.

(Ibid. 3) "Forty shall he smite him": I might think "forty," literally; it is, therefore, written "in number. Forty" — a number that is close to forty (i.e., thirty-nine). R. Yehudah says: Forty, literally. And where is he smitten (the other two-thirds)? Between his shoulders. "shall he smite him": and not the ground (together with him).

"shall he smite him": and not his garment. "shall he smite him": Two are not smitten as one.

"and not more": If he does smite more, he transgresses a negative commandment. This tells me only of his going beyond the Torah's number (i.e., thirty-nine). Whence do we derive (the same for his going beyond) the court's assessment (of how many he can bear)? From "and not more. Lest he smite him more" — in any event.

"a great blow": This tells me only of a great blow (as being forbidden). Whence do I derive (the same for) a negligible one? From ("lest he smite him more) than these." If so, why is it written "a great blow"? To teach that the first ones are great blows (i.e., given with all his strength.)

"and he be demeaned" — whence they ruled that if he was soiled either by excrement or urine (while being smitten), he is exempt (from the remaining stripes). R. Yehudah said: a man, by excrement; a woman, by urine.

"your brother": We are hereby taught that all those liable to kareth (cutting off), who receive stripes, are absolved from their kareth, it being written "and your brother be demeaned before your eyes" — Once he has been smitten," regard him as your brother.

R. Chanina b. Gamla says: The entire day Scripture calls him "wicked," viz. (Ibid. 2) "Then it shall be, if liable to stripes is the wicked one." But once he has been smitten Scripture calls him "your brother," viz.: "and your brother be demeaned." Now if a man commits one transgression, his soul is taken from him (i.e., he receives kareth), then, if he does one mitzvah (after being smitten), how much more so (is it to be inferred that) his soul is restored to him.