Sifrei Devarim Reader

R. Shimon says: From its place (i.e., from the place where Scripture makes him liable to kareth), it is to be inferred (that once he is smitten he is exempt from kareth), it being written (Vayikra 18:29) "For all who commit any of these abominations (in illicit relations) — the souls that do it are to be cut off (i.e., kareth) from their people," and (Ibid. 18:5) "And you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which, if a man do, he shall live by them," (— followed by (6) "A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh you shall not come near to uncover nakedness.")

From this ("he shall live by them") we infer that if one sits (passively) and does not commit transgression, (in this instance, the kareth transgression of illicit relations), he receives the reward of one who (actively) performs a mitzvah ([How much more so is the smitten one exempt from kareth!)].

(R. Shimon Berebbi says: If one who keeps from (eating) blood, which a man's soul despises, is rewarded — then, if he separates himself from theft and illicit relations, for which he lusts and which he desires — how much more so will he merit reward for himself and for his succeeding generations until the end of all the generations!)

R. Yehudah says: It is written (Psalms 18:1-5) "Who will sojourn in Your tent? —- one who walks in innocence and works righteousness … who has no slander on his tongue … who despises the shameful one … who does not lend his money on interest." And elsewhere it is written (Ezekiel 18:15) "And if a man would be a tzaddik — he did not eat of (the idolatries of) the mountains, and he did not lift his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, and he did not defile his neighbor's wife, and he did not come near a niddah, etc. … (Ibid. 9) he is a tzaddik; he will live!" Now what did this man do, (aside from what he did not do)? We are hereby apprised that if one sits (passively) and does not transgress, he is given the reward of the doer of a mitzvah. R. Shimon Berebbi says: If one who keeps from (eating) blood, which a man's soul despises, is rewarded — then, if he separates himself from theft and illicit relations, for which he lusts and which he desires — how much more so will he merit (reward) for himself and for his (succeeding) generations until the end of all the generations!

(Devarim 25:4) "You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing": This tells me only of an ox. Whence do I derive (the same for) an animal and a bird? From "in its threshing" (i.e., the threshing is the critical factor). If so, why is it written "ox"? You may not muzzle an ox, but you may "muzzle" a man (i.e., if you keep him from eating while working, you do not receive stripes, as you do for muzzling an ox.)

"in its threshing": This tells me only of its threshing. Whence do I derive (the same for) other labors? From "you shall not muzzle" — in any event. If so, why is it written "in its threshing"? Just as threshing is distinct in appertaining to what is the growth of the soil, uprooted from the ground, at the end of its processing, from which a laborer may eat while working in it — so, all thus characterized (is subsumed.)

R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: Just as threshing is distinct in that one works at it with his hands and feet, (so, all thus characterized is subsumed) — to exclude what is worked at with his hands and not with his feet or vice versa.

(Devarim 25:5) "When brothers dwell together and one of them dies, and he has no son, the wife of the dead one shall not be outside to a strange man. Her levir (her husband's brother) shall come upon her and he shall take her for himself as a wife, and he shall have her in levirate marriage (yibum)."

"When brothers dwell together": to exclude a brother who was not in his world (i.e., who was not concurrently alive). From here they ruled: If there were two brothers and one of them died and another one was born, after which the second brother performed yibum with the wife of the first, after which he died, then the first wife (i.e., the wife of the brother who died first) is exempt (from yibum) by reason of her being "the wife of his brother who was not in his world," and the second wife (i.e., the wife of the second brother) by reason of her being her (the first wife's) tzarah (co-wife). "together": in inheritance — to exclude maternal brothers.

Because we find in arayoth (illicit relations) that a maternal brother is equated with a paternal brother, I might think that here, too, this is so. It is, therefore, written "together" (in inheritance), to exclude his maternal brother.

"and one of them dies": This tells me (that yibum obtains) only where there are two brothers and one of them dies. Whence do I derive (that yibum obtains) even if they are many and they die (that yibum obtains with the remaining brothers)? From "and if there die … of them." If so, why is it written "one"?

Yibum obtains with the wife of one of them and not with the "wife" of two (see what follows). From here they ruled: If three brothers were married to three unrelated women, and one of them died, and the second made a ma'amar (betrothal of his yevamah by writ or money — short of cohabitation), and he, too, died, then she (the yevamah of the first,) receives chalitzah (yibum release), but not yibum, it being written "and one of them dies" — She who is linked to only one yavam (undergoes yibum), but not she who is linked to two, (as in the above instance, where the woman is linked to the remaining brother by the yibum tie and to the ma'amar brother by the ma'amar tie.)

"the wife of the dead one shall not be outside to a strange man": What is the intent of this? Because it was ruled: Yibum obtains with the wife of one but not with the "wife" of two (see above), I might think that she (the woman in the above instance) is (entirely) exempt. It is, therefore, written "the wife of the dead one shall not be outside to a strange man." What is to be done?

She undergoes chalitzah (yibum release) but not yibum. If one gives a get (to his yevamah), he forbids her to himself and to his brothers. I might think that she is (entirely) exempt, and that this follows, viz.: If chalitzah, which does not exempt a woman (from the marriage tie) exempts her from the yibum tie, then get, which does exempt a woman (from the marriage tie), how much more so should it exempt her from the yibum tie!

It is, therefore, written "the wife of the dead one shall not be outside to a strange man" — except by chalitzah. If one makes a ma'amar in his yevamah, he acquires her for himself and forbids her to the brothers. I might think that the ma'amar consummates the union. It is, therefore, written "her yavam shall come upon her" — Cohabitation consummates, and not ma'amar.

"her yavam shall come upon her": whether unwittingly, (thinking her to be a different woman), wantonly, (intending illicit intercourse), constrainedly, or wittingly — even if she is unwitting and he wanton or he unwitting and she wanton, (he acquires her as a wife).

(Instead bf being written) "and he shall take" (it is written) "and he shall take her"; (instead of) "and he shall perform yibum," (it is written) "and he shall perform yibum (with) her" — to exclude (from yibum) co-wives (tzaroth) and arayoth (illicit relations) — whence it was ruled: Fifteen women exempt (from yibum) their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives, etc.

(Devarim 25:6) "And it shall be, the first-born that she bears shall be invested in the name of his dead brother": I might think that if his (the dead brother's) name were Yossi, he (the child) should be called Yossi, or (if his name were) Yochanan, the child should be called Yochanan; it is, therefore, written "in the name of his (the yavam's) dead brother" and not "in the name of the dead brother of his (the child's) father." [(The "first-born," then, in this instance, is an epithet for the yavam.)] If so, why is it written "the first-born" (instead of "the yavam")? To indicate that it is a mitzvah for the oldest brother to perform the yibum.

"that she bears": to exclude (from yibum) a woman who cannot bear.

(The yavam) "shall be invested in the name of his dead brother": for inheritance (i.e., he receives his dead brother's share as well as his own.) It is written here "in the name of his brother," and, elsewhere (Bereshith 48:6) "in the name of their brothers (Ephraim and Menasheh) shall they be called in (taking) their inheritance." Just as there, the reference is to taking inheritance, so, here.

"his dead brother": Because it is stated elsewhere that the wife of one undergoes yibum and not the wife of two, whence do I derive that if the first brother died, the second performs yibum; if the second died, the third performs yibum? From (the repetition of) "dead" (verse 5) - "dead" (here).

"and his name will not be wiped out in Israel": to exclude (from yibum) the wife of one who is impotent, whose name is already "wiped out."

(Ibid. 7) "And if the man shall not desire to take his yevamah": and not "if the L-rd shall not desire her.": (From this) I would exclude (from chalitzah [yibum release]) those arayoth which are liable to judicial death penalties, but I would not exclude those which are liable (only) to kareth; it is, therefore, written "He does not desire to have me in yibum," and not "the L-rd does not desire her."

"to take his yevamah": What is the intent of this? (Why not just "to take her"?) Because it is written (6) "and it shall be the bechor that she shall bear," I might think to exclude (from chalitzah) a woman who can no longer bear, and an old woman, and (the tzarah of) a woman incapable of conception, and a minor who is not yet able to bear; it is, therefore, written (here, twice) "his yevamah," "his yevamah" to include (the above as requiring chalitzah).

"then his yevamah shall go up to the gate (of beth-din) and to the elders": It is a mitzvah for the beth-din to preside in the heights of the city and to be composed of elders."

"My yavam does not desire to invest for his brother a name in Israel": R. Yehudah says: It is written here "name," and elsewhere (in connection with the daughters of Tzelafchad, Bamidbar 27:4) "name." Just as "name" there refers to seed, so, "name" here — to exclude (from chalitzah) a castrate, who, even if he wanted to perpetuate a "name" for his brother, could not.

"in Israel": and not among converts — whence it was ruled: Two brothers, converts, whose conception was not in holiness and whose birth was in holiness, are exempt from chalitzah and from yibum, it being written "in Israel," and not among converts.

"My yavam does not desire," and not "the L-rd does not desire" (by reason of arayoth).

(Devarim 25:18) "Then the elders of his city shall call to him": It is a mitzvah for the elders of his city and not for their messengers.

"and they shall speak to him": as befits him. So that if he were young, and she, old, or he, old, and she, young, they tell him: "What do you want with a young girl?" or "What do you want with an old woman? Find someone like yourself and don't bring strife into your household!"

"then he shall stand up and he shall say: I did not desire to take her": We are hereby apprised that he says his words only while standing.

"I did not desire to take her": and not that the L-rd did not desire her (by reason of arayoth).

(Devarim 25:9) "Then his yevamah shall draw near to him before the eyes of the elders": We are hereby taught that she goes after him to the elders. "before the eyes of the elders … and she shall spit": spittle that is visible to the eyes of the elders.

"and she shall remove his shoe": This tells me only of his shoe (i.e., a shoe that he owns). Whence do I derive (that chalitzah is valid with) anyone's shoe? From (the repetition of) "shoe" (here), "shoe" (verse 10) — in any event. If so, why is it written "and she shall remove his shoe"? To exclude as valid for chalitzah (a shoe) so large that he cannot walk in it or one so small that it does not cover most of his foot, or one that lacks a heel.

"from his foot": From here they ruled: (If she removed the shoe) from the knee-joint down (in the case of one whose foot was amputated), the chalitzah is valid. "his foot": It is written here "his foot," and elsewhere (Vayikra 14:18). Just as there the right (foot is specifically indicated), here, too, the right (foot is intended).

"and she shall spit in his face": I might think "in his face," literally; it is, therefore, written "before the eyes of the elders" (so that "in his face" is understood as "before him.")

"and she shall answer and she shall say": "answering" is written here and elsewhere (Ibid. 27:14). Just as there, in the holy tongue, so, here.

"Thus shall it be done with the man": From here it was ruled: If she removed the shoe and spat, but did not recite (the prescribed formula), the chalitzah is valid. If she recited and spat but did not remove the shoe, the chalitzah is invalid. If she removed the shoe and recited but did not spit — R. Eliezer says: The chalitzah is invalid; R. Akiva says: The chalitzah is valid. R. Eliezer said to him. (It is written) "Thus shall it be done" — Everything which is an act is a categorical requirement. R. Akiva: Is that a proof? It is written "with the man" — Everything that is done with the man (such as the removal of the shoe) is a categorical requirement.

"who would not build the house of his brother" — who would not build and who is not destined to build (i.e., Once he did not build it, he may build it no more.) (Ibid. 25:10) "And his name shall be called in Israel 'the house (of him) chalutz hana'al' ('whose shoe was removed')":

"in Israel": Why is this written here? Is it not already written elsewhere? (Ibid. 7) — That excludes converts (from yibum), this excludes a beth-din of converts (from officiating at chalitzah.)

"the house chalutz hana'al": It is a mitzvah for the judges (to say this), and not for the disciples. R. Yehudah says: It is a mitzvah for all those standing there to say "chalutz hana'al, chalutz hana'al." R. Yehudah said: Once we were sitting before R. Tarfon (at a chalitzah) and he said to us: All of your answer "chalutz hana'al, chalutz hana'al."

(Devarim 25:11) "If men strive together": Peace does not proceed from strife, as it is written (Bereshith 13:7) "And there was a quarrel between the herdsmen of Avram's cattle and the herdsmen of Lot's cattle." What is it that caused Lot to part from Avram? A quarrel. And thus is it written (Ibid. 1) "If there be a quarrel among men, etc." What caused this one to receive stripes (viz. Ibid. 2)? A quarrel.

"If men strive together": This tells me only of (a quarrel between)men. Whence do I derive (the same for) (a quarrel between) a man and a woman or (between) one woman and another? From "together" — in any event.

"a man and his brother": to exclude slaves, who have no "brotherhood." These are the words of R. Yehudah.

"and the wife of the one draw near to rescue her husband … and she send forth her hand and seize his privy parts": Rebbi says: Because we find among the mazzikin (those who cause injury) in the Torah that non-intent (to injure) is equated with intent (vis-à-vis liability for payment), I might think that here, too, it is so; it is, therefore, written "and the wife of one draw near, etc." (connoting intent). I might think that (she is not liable) unless her intent is to shame him; it is, therefore, written "and she seize." From "and she send forth her hand," do I not know that she seizes? What, then, is the intent of "and she seize"? To teach that if her intent were to injure and not to shame she is likewise liable.

"his privy parts": This tells me only of his privy parts. Whence do I derive (the same for her seizing) anything which places his life in danger? From "and she seize" — in any event.

(Devarim 25:12) "Then you shall cut off her hand": We are hereby taught that you are obligated to rescue him (from her). Whence is it derived that if you are not able to rescue him by (cutting off) her hand, you must rescue him by her soul (i.e., by killing her)? From "you shall have no pity."

R. Yehudah says: It is written here "you shall have no pity," and elsewhere (Ibid. 19:21) "You shall have no pity." Just as there, monetary compensation (is indicated), here, too, monetary compensation (is understood).

(Devarim 25:13) "There shall not be unto you in your pocket a stone and a stone, great and small": I might think that one should not make a litra, a half-litra, or a quarter-litra weight; it is, therefore, written "great and small" — a great weight which "falsifies" the small, i.e., he should not take with the great weight and return with the small, (giving the impression that he is using the same weight).

R. Akiva says: Whence is it derived that one should not keep a sela less than (the value of a shekel, or a dinar less than (the value of) a tarfik? From "There shall not be unto you." (Ibid. 14) "There shall not be unto you in your house a measure and a measure, great and small":

R. Yossi Berebbi says: If you have fulfilled (Ibid. 15) "A whole and just stone," then (Ibid.) "there shall be unto you" (i.e., you will prosper). And if you have transgressed (Ibid. 13) "A stone and a stone," then (Ibid.) "there shall not be unto you."

(Ibid. 14) "There shall not be unto you in your house a measure and a measure": I might think that one should not make a measure of a kav, a tarkav, a half-tarkav, and a quarter tarkav; it is, therefore, written "great and small" — a great which "falsifies" the small, i.e., he should not take (merchandise) with the great and return with the small, (giving the impression that he is using the same measure).

R. Akiva says: Whence is it derived that one should not keep an imperfect measure for use in his own home? From "There shall not be unto you in your house."

And whence is it derived that one should not be precise (in weighing) in a place where an "extra" is generally given (to the customer), and that one should not give an "extra" in a place where it is customary to be precise? From (Ibid. 15) "a just stone shall there be unto you."

And whence is it derived that if one said, in a place where it is customary to give an extra: I shall be precise (and deduct the amount of the "extra" from the price); or, in a place where it is customary to be precise: I shall give him an "extra" and deduct something from the price or add something to the price — Whence is it derived that he is not heeded? From "A whole and just stone shall there be unto you." And whence is it derived that (grain) is not heaped where it is the practice to strike it, and that it is not struck where it is the practice to heap it? From "a just ephah (measure) shall there be unto you." And whence is it derived that if one said, in a place where it is generally struck: I shall heap it and add to the price; or, in a place where it is generally heaped: I shall strike it and deduct from the price — Whence is it derived that he is not heeded? From "a whole and just measure shall there be unto you."

Variantly: "and just shall there be unto you": From here it was ruled: The wholesaler should clean the vessels once in thirty days, and the private person, once a year, (so that past adhesions not falsify the weight.) R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: Just the opposite. A shopkeeper cleans his measure twice a week (For a shopkeeper is not required to "drip" three drops as a wholesaler and a homemaker are, and residue remains in the vessel and sticks to it), and he wipes his weights (i.e., he cleans the stones of his scales with which he measures wet things) once a week. And he cleans his scales for every weighing.

"shall there be unto you": Appoint a market commissioner to this end. R. Elazar b. Chananiah b. Chizkiah b. Gurion says: It is written (Ezekiel 46:11) ("the meal-offering,) an ephah (measure) for a bull and an ephah for a ram." Now is the measure for a bull and a ram and a sheep the same? We are hereby apprised that both the large ephah and the small ephah are called "ephah."

(Devarim 21:15) "so that your days be prolonged": This is one of all the mitzvoth of the Torah, whose reward is "at its side." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If (honesty in the weighing of) a dried fig, a hundred of which can easily be bought for an Italian issar, is rewarded by length of days, then other mitzvoth, which entail far greater cost, how much more so!

(Ibid. 16) "For the abomination of the L-rd your G-d, etc." I might think that he is not liable until he transgresses all of them; it is, therefore, written "all who do these," (connoting) even one of them.

"all who do wrong": From here they ruled: Fruits should not be intermixed, not even new ones with old ones, not even (to be sold) a sa'ah for a dinar when they are worth a dinar and a treisith. He should not intermix them and sell them a sa'ah for a dinar.

"all who do wrong": It goes by five appellations: "wrong," "hated," "abhorrent," "banned," "abomination."

(Devarim 25:17) "Remember what Amalek did to you on the way when you went out of Egypt." "Remember": I might think (that remembrance) with the heart (is intended). But (19) "Do not forget" speaks of heart-forgetfulness. How, then, am I to understand "Remember"? (As referring to "remembrance") with the mouth.

"on the way": at the time of your being tossed about.

"when you went out of Egypt": at the time of your redemption. What is said (of that time)? (Shemoth 15:14) "Peoples heard and they trembled," but this one (Amalek) — (Devarim, Ibid. 18) "and he did not fear G-d."

(Ibid.) "who met you upon the way": This connotes: He waylaid you.

"and he cut off from you all who straggled behind you": We are hereby taught that he killed only those who dropped off from the ways of the L-rd and dropped from under the wings of the Shechinah.

"and you were faint and weary": Israel; "and did not fear the L-rd": Amalek.

(Ibid. 19) "And it shall be, when the L-rd your G-d gives you repose from all your enemies roundabout": so that they no longer band against you.

"in the land that the L-rd your G-d gives to you as an inheritance": In reward for this mitzvah, you will inherit the land.

"Wipe out the remembrance of Amalek from under the heavens": And thus is it written (Shemoth 17:14) "For I shall utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under the heavens." That there be neither child nor grandchild (left of) Amalek under the heavens. And (Ibid. 16) "For a hand (in oath) upon the throne of the L-rd — The L-rd will war against Amalek from generation to generation!" The L-rd had sworn upon His throne of glory: He will leave over neither child or grandchild of Amalek, neither camel not ass — so that they not say: "This is a camel of Amalek." "Do not forget"" in your heart.

(Devarim 26:1) "And it shall be when you come to the land": Perform the mitzvah mentioned herein, in whose merit you are entering the land.

"the land which the L-rd your G-d gives to you": R. Shimon says: This excludes (from the mitzvah of bikkurim) the land across the Jordan, which they took for themselves.

"and you shall inherit it and dwell in it: As a reward for inheriting it (by driving out the nations) you shall dwell in it.

(Ibid. 2) "Then you shall take of the first of all the fruits of the earth": I might think that all the fruits are subject to the mitzvah of bikkurim; it is, therefore, written "of the first," and not all of the first. And I still would not know which are subject and which are not. I, therefore, reason: Communal bikkurim (the omer and the two breads) are mentioned elsewhere (viz. Vayikra 23:17), and individual bikkurim are mentioned here. Just as the communal meal-offerings, mentioned elsewhere (wheat and barley) are from the seven species, so, the individual offerings, mentioned here, are from the seven species. — But why not say: Just as there, (only) wheat and barley (are mentioned), here, too, wheat and barley! Whence are the others (of the seven species) to be derived? It is, therefore, written (Shemoth 34:26) "the bikkurim of your land," to include (all of the seven species mentioned in praise of your land). Since Scripture includes (i.e., all of the seven species) and excludes (five of them [in the instance of communal bikkurim]), you revert to the original (reasoning), viz.: Individual bikkurim are mentioned here, and communal bikkurim are mentioned elsewhere. Just as the communal bikkurim (wheat and barley) are of the seven species mentioned in praise of the land, so, the individual bikkurim are of the seven species mentioned in praise of the land. And they are (Ibid. 8:8) ("a land of) wheat, barley, grapevine, fig, and pomegranate, a land of olive-oil and honey."

"of the first": even one cluster, even one fig, (there being no minimum requirement.)

"of all the fruits": You bring fruits as bikkurim, but not wine and oil. It he brought grapes and trod them (into wine), whence is it derived that it is valid? From "that you bring" (in any event).

"that you bring from your land": so long as they are found on the face of the land. I might think he may bring them before Shavuoth, it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 23:16) "And the feast of the harvest (Shavuoth) of the first-fruits of your work." From when do you bring? From Shavuoth until Channukah. I might think that you recite (the bikkurim formula) whenever you bring them; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 26:11) "and you shall rejoice": There is recitation only at the time of rejoicing, which implies: From Shavuoth until Succoth, one brings and recites; from Succoth until Channukah, one brings but does not recite. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: He brings and recites.

If "from your land," I might think (that he may bring bikkurim) even if he plants in his (field) and engrafts into (another) individual's (field); or if (he plants) in a public field and engrafts from a public field; or from an individual's (field) into his own; or if he plants in his own and he engrafts into his own, with a public road or a private road intervening. It is, therefore, written (Shemoth 23:19) "the first-fruits or your soil" — All of the growths must be from your soil. For the same reason tenant-farmers, renters, holders of confiscated land, and robbers (of land) do not bring first-fruits.

(Devarim 26:2) "And you shall put (them) in a basket": We are hereby apprised that they require (being handed to the Cohein in) a vessel.

"and you shall go to the place wherein the L-rd your G-d chooses to repose His name": This refers to (the sanctuary of) Shiloh and to the Temple. From here it was ruled: If the bikkurim were stolen or lost (on the way to the Temple), he must make restoration (for he has not yet "gone to the place"). If they became unclean in the azarah (the Temple court), he scatters them and does not recite the formula, (not being obliged to make restoration, for he has "gone to the place.")

(Ibid. 3) "And you shall come to the Cohein that shall be in those days": R. Yossi said: Would it enter your mind that you should go to a Cohein that is not "in your days"! — (The intent is) to apprise us that the only criterion is a Cohein in your days (i.e., do not attempt to recapture the Cohanim of the past). And thus is it written (Koheleth 7:10) "Do not say: 'How was it that former times were better than these?'"

(Devarim 26:2) "and you shall say to him": that you are not ungrateful for (His) good.