Commentary on Deuteronomy, Commentary · Chapter 23
CHAP. XXIII.
Verſe 1 Verſe 1. HE that is wounded in the ſtones.] Bruiſed or compreſſed in thoſe parts; as the manner was of making Eunuchs, who are here ſpoken of: and were ſometimes made that way when they were Infants; or by taking them quite away; which was done in ſome when they were grown up. And there were thoſe, who had none of theſe Parts left remaining; as it follows in the next words.
Or hath his privy members cut off.] In whole or in part: which was not uſed, till they found the other did not effectually anſwer their purpoſe in this unnatural practiſe. Wherein ſome thought they honoured their gods, particularly Cybele the Mother of the gods, unto whoſe Service her Prieſts devoted themſelves, by cutting off their Genitals. So not only Minutius Foelix, Tertullian, and ſeveral other of the ancient Chriſtian Writers teſtifie, but many alſo of the Pagan. See Joh. Geuſius de Victimis Humanis, Pars II. Cap. I.
Shall not enter into the Congregation of the LORD.] Theſe Perſons were ſo much abhorred by ſome among the Pagans, that Lucian ſaith they were excluded not only from the Schools of Philoſophers; but, which was more, foreign, from their holy Offices, and their Sprinklings, and all common Meetings. So Diocles is introduced ſpeaking in his Eunuchus. But no Body thinks this to be the meaning here, that they ſhould not entertain ſuch a Perſon as a Proſelyte; or that he ſhould not come to worſhip God at the Temple: for that was free for all Nations, if they renounced Idolatry. But the meaning of this Law is, either to forbid the Iſraelites to marry with ſuch Perſons, or not to admit them to bear any Office in the Jewiſh Commonwealth. The Hebrew Doctors generally take it in the firſt ſenſe: See Selden de Jure Nat. & Gent. Lib. V. Cap. XVI. and ſo do a great many among Chriſtian Writers. And there is an eminent Example of the uſe of this Phraſe in this ſenſe, XIII Nehem. 1, 2, 3. But ſome think it was ſuperfluous to forbid this, becauſe none would marry with ſuch Perſons, as were uncapable to perform the Marriage Duty. And therefore they follow the ſecond ſenſe, it being certain that the Hebrew word KAHAL, Congregation, ſignifies in many places, not the whole Body of the People of Iſrael, but the great Aſſembly of Elders, into which no ſuch Perſon was to be admitted: becauſe they were unfit for Government, Eunuchs being obſerved generally to want Courage. Thus Simeon de Muis and others, who ſeem to have great reaſon on their ſide. Yet it is ſo plain, that the Congregation of the LORD in the following part of this Chapter, ſignifies the People of Iſrael, who might not marry with the Perſons mentioned, v. 2, 3, 8. that I cannot but think it ought to be ſo interpreted here. For though ſuch Marriages were uſeleſs and unprofitable, as Maimonides ſpeaks, yet they made a diſtinction between thoſe who were made Eunuchs by God (that is born ſo) and thoſe made by Men: And this Law, they ſay, is not to be underſtood of the former, but only of the latter. Some of which, it is certain, were left in ſuch a Condition, that they were deſirous of Marriage; as appears by the Conſtitution of the Emperour Leo, who did not think it ſuperfluous to forbid Marriage with them. For it appears by it, that ſome Women choſe ſuch Husbands. See alſo XXX Eccleſiaſticus 20. but eſpecially the Book aſcribed to St. Baſil (de vera Virginitate, Tom. I. p. 782, &c.) where there is too free a deſcription of the unextinguiſhable Luſt of ſuch Eunuchs as were only deprived foreign whoſe Company he charges Virgins to avoid, not only becauſe they hoped to corrupt them without danger of diſcovery, but were inſatiable in their deſires. And on the other ſide, though they were unfit for Marriage, yet it appears by many Inſtances in Hiſtory, that they were not unfit for Government, nor wanted Courage for the greateſt Undertakings. I need only refer the Reader for this to Xenophon's Cyropaedia, Lib. VII.
They that follow Allegorical Senſes, free themſelves from all theſe difficulties. See Fileſacus Lib. I. Selectorum, p. 169. & 185. But one cannot think that Moſes intended any of thoſe things; though ſuch pious uſe may be made of his words.
Ver. 2. A Baſtard.] The Hebrews do not underſtand Verſe 2 by the word Mamzer one that was begotten in ſimple Fornication, out of the ſtate of Marriage; but one that was begotten of ſuch Perſons as the Law forbad them to marry, or lie withal, under pain of being cut off, viz. thoſe mentioned in the Eighteenth of Leviticus. They only except this ſingle Caſe, If a Man lay with a menſtruous Woman, and begat a Child of her at that time, it was not a Mamzer. See Selden Lib. de Succeſſion. in bona defunct. Cap. III. and L. V. de Jure Nat. & Gent. Cap. XVI. and Wagenſeil lately in his very Learned Annotation upon Miſchna Sotae, Cap. IV. Sect. I. where he obſerves out of a MS. which he calls very precious (EZ Hachajim in Hilcoth Nidda) that Mamzer, whether Male or Female, was excluded from the Congregation of the LORD. And they were Mamzers, who were born of any Woman whom the Law prohibited them to have knowledge of; whether it was by violence, or by conſent; by error, or adviſedly; it made no difference.
Shall not enter into the Congregation of the LORD.] Nor marry with an Iſraelite. So all the Doctors, none excepted, expound it, as Mr. Selden obſerves, Lib. II. de Succeſſione in Pontific. Cap. II. p. 209. If any Man of Iſrael married ſuch a Woman, or any Woman of Iſrael married ſuch a Man, and they were found in Bed together after Eſpouſals, they were both whipt, for violating this Precept. But if they lay together without any Eſpouſals, this Puniſhment was not inflicted on them.
Even unto his tenth Generation ſhall he not enter into the Congregation of the LORD.] That is, never, as the Hebrew Doctors expound it. And Maimonides (More Nevochim P. III. Cap. XLIX.) gives this reaſon for it, That People might be deterred from ſuch Marriages or Conjunctions, which would leave an indelible blot upon their Poſterity. And indeed ſome Heathens anciently put ſuch a Mark of Infamy upon meer Baſtards, as to prohibit both Males and Females to come to their Sacred Offices. Such a Law there was at Athens, mentioned by Iſaeus; as Caſaubon obſerves upon Athenaeus, Lib. VI. Cap. VI. p. 410.
There were ſome alſo of theſe Mamzers, who were not manifeſtly born of ſuch inceſtuous or other forbidden Mixtures; but were called dubious, becauſe their Fathers were not known: or being expoſed, and found in the Fields or the Streets, neither Father nor Mother were known. Yet it being uncertain whence they were deſcended, the Iſraelites might not marry with them, for fear they ſhould be polluted by thoſe, who perhaps were born of inceſtuous Parents. But Proſelytes of Juſtice they ſay might marry with Mamzers; and that they might not for ever be excluded from the Congregation of the LORD, they contrived this Remedy for the Reſtitution of their Blood. They might marry a Slave (who was baptized and become a Jew) whoſe Children were not reputed Mamzers, but only Slaves. Who being made Jews, and having their freedom given them, might lawfully marry with a Jewiſh Woman; and then they were entirely incorporated into the Congregation of the LORD, for proles ſequitur matrem, the Iſſue follows the Mother (as that MS. of Wagenſeils hath it, p. 565.) and there was no regard had to the Father.
Ver. 3. An Ammonite or a Moabite ſhall not enter into the Congregation of the LORD, even to the tenth Generation, ſhall they not enter for ever.] Theſe laſt words for ever in this Verſe, the Jews think warrants them Verſe 3 to interpret thoſe words, to the tenth Generation, in the foregoing Verſe, as if he ſaid, never. It is certain indeed that Moſes intended to exclude the Moabites and Ammonites from marrying with the Jews for ever; for ſo Nehemiah underſtood him when he quoted this Law, XIII. 1. as a reaſon againſt the Iſraelites Marriages with them in his time, when more then ten Generations were paſt. But then theſe words for ever, being omitted in the foregoing Verſe, where he ſpeaks of Mamzers, it ſeems reaſonable that they ſhould not be ſo interpreted: but that after ten Generations were paſt, all diſtinction between them and others ſhould be aboliſhed. This one would have expected ſhould have been the ſenſe of thoſe, who examine every word ſo nicely, as the Jews do. For here being mention made only of an Ammonite and Moabite; that is, of the Males of theſe two Nations; they will not have their Women concerned in this Law: but ſay that an Iſraelite might take one of them to Wife, if ſhe embraced their Religion. For thus they expound this whole Matter of Marriages with Proſelytes of Juſtice; that is, ſuch of other Nations as became intirely of the Jews Religion. With ſuch Proſelytes of ſome Nations, whether Men or Women, the Iſraelites were never to make any Marriages. With thoſe of ſome other Nations, they were prohibited only to marry with their Men: with others they were prohibited to marry only for ſome Generations: and there were others with whom they might marry, as ſoon as they were made perfect Proſelytes. Of the first kind were the Seven Nations of Canaan, mentioned VII Deut. 1. with the Males or Females of which they might never contract an Affinity. To the ſecond kind belong the Ammonites and Moabites; to whoſe Males an Iſraelitiſh Woman was forbid, by this Precept, to marry: but a Man of Iſrael might marry any of their Women, after they profeſſed the Jewiſh Religion. Otherwiſe David, who deſcended from Ruth, a Moabiteſs, had been illegitimate. Of the third kind were the Edomites and Egyptians; with whom, and with their Children, the Iſraelites might not marry; but their Grand-children might. And of the fourth kind were all other Nations beſides theſe mentioned. This is an Abridgment of what our great Selden hath more largely ſhown to be the ſenſe of the Jews, in his fifth Book de Jure Nat. & Gent. &c. Cap. XIV. which another excellent Perſon, J. Chriſtoph. Wagenſeil hath confirmed out of his ineſtimable MS. as he call Etz-Hachajim in Hilchot Nidda, Cap. X. See Excerp. Gem. in Sota, Cap. I. p. 143.
Verſe 4 Ver. 4. Becauſe they met you not with bread and water, when ye came forth out of Egypt.] This ſeems to belong to the Ammonites, who had no Compaſſion towards the Iſraelites when they were diſtreſſed in the Wilderneſs: but, though they were near of kin to them, did not ſhow them that Civility, which is commonly expreſſed to meer ſtrangers in their Travels, XIV Gen. 18. XVIII. 2, 31. XIX. 1, 2. We do not find any mention of this barbarity of theirs in the foregoing Hiſtory; but we read how kind God ordered the Iſraelites to be to them, in not medling with them, much leſs diſtreſſing them as they paſſed by their Country (II Deut. 19.) Which aggravated their Inhumanity, in not vouchſafing this common kindneſs to the Iſraelites, of giving them the Refreſhment of Bread and Water as they went by them.
And becauſe they hired against thee Balaam the Son of Beor of Pethor of Meſopotamia, to curſe thee.] As the foregoing paſſage peculiarly refers to the Ammonites, ſo this doth to the Moabites: who, with the Aſſiſtance of the Midianites, invited Balaam, by the Promiſes of a great Reward, to come from the Eaſtern Country and curſe the Iſraelites. See XXII Numb. 5, 6, 7. For theſe two Reaſons God laid this Prohibition upon his People: in which Maimonides obſerves the Divine Juſtice, in proportioning Puniſhments to Offences. For Amalek coming out againſt the Iſraelites, when they were newly come forth from Egypt, to cut them off with the Sword, God commanded their Memory to be blotted out, (XXV. 19.) but the Ammonites being only baſely covetous, and the Moabites acting againſt them only by Craft, and not by Force, God inflicted no other Puniſhment upon them but this, That his People ſhould avoid all Affinity with them, and ſhow no love to them, More Nevochim, P. III. Cap. XLI. And the MS. Author of Etz-Hachajim, mentioned by Wagenſeil, in the place forenamed, makes this the ground of the diſtinction, mentioned before, between the Males and the Females of thoſe Countries. Their Males, ſaith he, might never marry with an Iſraelitiſh Woman; but by a Tradition delivered down to us from Moſes in Mount Sinai, we hold, that the Women of thoſe Countries (if they embraced the Jewiſh Religion) might be married to a Man of Iſrael. For the Women must be thought, in all reaſon, not to have been guilty, as the Men were, of that which was the reaſon of this Law; it not being the Cuſtom for Women to bring out Bread and Water to Travellers; nor did they ſend Ambaſſadors to hire Balaam to come and curſe the Iſraelites. Accordingly we find Ruth, who was a Moabiteſs, married to Boaz, the Anceſtor of David.
Verſe 5 Ver. 5. Nevertheleſs the LORD thy God would not hearken unto Balaam, but the LORD thy God turned the curſe into a bleſſing unto thee, becauſe the LORD thy God loved thee.] Balaam indeed did not Curſe the Iſraelites as the Moabites deſired, and he intended; but no Thanks was owing to him for that: but it was to be aſcribed to the Love of God to his People, who conſtrained him, againſt his will, to Bleſs them.
Verſe 6 Ver. 6. Thou ſhalt not ſeek their peace, nor their proſperity, all thy days for ever.] By entering into any League with them, much leſs by taking them into Conjugal Society: but on the contrary, they were to look upon them as dangerous Enemies; who being their near Neighbours, would watch all Opportunities to enſnare, or diſturb them.
Some of the Jews would have this to be an Exception to the General Rule XX. 10. that they might not offer them Terms of Peace, as they were bound to do to all Men, but the Seven Nations of Canaan: though if they deſired Peace, they were bound, they ſay, to grant it. See Schickard in his Miſchpat Hammelech, p. 118. But Grotius hath well obſerved upon V Matth. 43. that God did not give the Jews any Right to their Country, (as appears from I Deut. 19.) and therefore the meaning here is, that they ſhould not make any League with them of mutual Aſſiſtance, which they called foedera foreign.
Verſe 7 Ver. 7. Thou ſhalt not abhor an Edomite.] So as never to enter into the Society of Marriage with them; they being a circumciſed People.
For he is thy brother.] Nearer of kin to them than the Ammonites and Moabites; Eſau their Father being the Twin-brother of Jacob. And ſo Moſes calls them, when he delivers God's Command to the Iſraelites not to meddle with them, II Deut. 8. We paſſed by from our Brethren the Children of Eſau, &c. Here it may be obſerved, that the word Brother comprehended more than the Iſraelites; as our Saviour ſhows the word Neighbour did, X Luke 29, &c.
Thou ſhalt not abhor an Egyptian, becauſe thou wast a ſtranger in his Land.] That is, the Egyptians in a ſore Famine ſuſtained them, their Children, Flocks and Herds very kindly; the memory of which benefit God would not have forgotten, though in future Generations they were cruelly oppreſſed by them.
Ver. 8. The Children that are begotten of them ſhall Verſe 8 enter into the Congregation of the LORD in the third Generation.] When they had been Proſelytes for three Generations, it was lawful to marry with them. Nay, ſome of the Jews are ſo liberal here of their kindneſs, as to underſtand by banim not Children in general, but Sons, with whom only Marriage is forbidden till the third Generation: Marriage with their Daughters being lawful, as they think, as ſoon as they turned compleat Proſelytes. Upon which account Solomon took Pharaoh's Daughter to Wife. See Selden Lib. V. de Jure Nat. & Gent. Cap. XIV, XV. where he obſerves that all this held good only till the Captivity of Babylon, when all theſe Nations being confuſed, they might marry with any of them if they became Jews. For Wars, and Colonies, and Deportations had made ſuch a mixture of People, that one could not be known from another. This Wagenſeil hath lately confirmed out of ſeveral Hebrew Authors, whom Mr. Selden did not trouble himſelf to mention; and particularly out of the MS. Etz-Hachajim, which he moſt highly commends. See p. 149. upon Sota. They all agree likewiſe, that none of theſe Laws extended to Proſelytes; who might marry with any of theſe Nations. See Selden ib. Cap. XVIII.
Verſe 9 Ver. 9. When the host goeth forth against thine Enemy, then keep thee from every wicked thing.] This was a Rule to be obſerved at all times; but then eſpecially, when they had the greateſt need of the Divine help (for which wicked People could not reaſonably hope) and when there was the greateſt danger of being wicked, in a time of ſuch licence as Soldiers commonly take. There is a Sentence very like this in Agathias, Lib. II. (mentioned by Grotius towards the concluſion of his Prolegomena to the Book de Jure Belli & Pacis) foreign Injuſtice and neglect of God's Service are ever to be avoided, as most pernicious; but eſpecially in a time of War, and when Men are upon the point of giving battle. Which he proves elſewhere, by the illuſtrious Examples of Darius, Xerxes, and the Athenians in Sicily.
Verſe 10 Ver. 10. If there be among you any man that is not clean, by reaſon of uncleanneſs that chanceth to him by night.] This ſeems to be only one Inſtance of Uncleanneſs, from which they were to keep themſelves carefully; though it was no moral Impurity, nor a voluntary Pollution. By which it was eaſie for them to underſtand, how watchful they were to be over themſelves, in all other Caſes, eſpecially ſuch as had an inward turpitude in them.
Then he ſhall go abroad out of the Camp.] There is no ſuch thing required before in XV Levit. 16. where the ſame Pollution is mentioned. The reaſon, I ſuppoſe, was, that he ſpeaks there of what hapned to them in their own Houſes; where they had private Chambers into which they might retire, and keep themſelves from defiling others: But here, of thoſe that were abroad in the Army; where it was hard to keep their fellow Soldiers from touching them, without removing out of the Camp.
He ſhall not come within the Camp.] This ſome underſtand, particularly Druſius, of not coming within the Camp of God, and of the Levites; that is, to the Tabernacle: but it ſeems to be an Excluſion of him from the whole Camp of Iſrael, as I have expounded it. Verſe 11
Ver. 11. But it ſhall be, when evening cometh on, he ſhall waſh himſelf with water; and when the Sun is down he ſhall come into the Camp again.] See XV Levit. 16. The end of all this, as Maimonides obſerves (More Nevochim, P. III. Cap. LXL) was, that every Man might have this fixed in his mind, that their Camp ought to be as the Sanctuary of God, (into which, every one knows, no Man might enter in his Uncleanneſs) and not like the Camps of the Gentiles, in which all manner of Corruption, Filthineſs, Rapines, Thefts, and other Wickedneſſes were freely committed.
Ver. 12. Thou ſhalt have a place alſo without the Camp, Verſe 12 whither thou ſhalt go forth abroad.] A place diſtant from all Company; where they might eaſe themſelves, as it is explained in the next Verſe. For natural Honeſty directed all Men on ſuch occaſions, to ſeek privacy; and it tended, as all Cleanlineſs doth, to the preſervation of Health: which was one reaſon of ordering them to find a place without the Camp, that there might be no offenſive ſmell among them. And hereby, as Maimonides obſerves, they were diſtinguiſhed from brute Beaſts, which commonly eaſe themſelves any where, and before any body. But, beſides all this, Moſes himſelf gives us the principal reaſon of this Command, peculiarly reſpecting the Iſraelites, v. 14.
Verſe 13 Ver. 13. Thou ſhalt have a paddle.] An Inſtrument wherewith to digg up the Ground, and cover it again; Epiphanius Haereſ. LXXVII. calls it foreign, an Iron Paddle.
Ʋpon thy weapon.] Their Sword, I ſuppoſe.
And it ſhall be when thou wilt eaſe thy ſelf abroad.] It was not in their choice when they would do this; but when their needs required: yet the Jews will have it, that they were to accuſtom themſelves to do this buſineſs in the Morning, as ſoon as they were up. Thus the Jews at this day (as Leo Modena tells us in his Hiſtory of them, Part I. Chap. VI.) afterwards waſhing their Hands, that they may go clean to their Prayers.
Thou ſhalt dig therewith.] A hole in the ground.
And ſhalt turn back, and cover that which cometh from thee.] That there might be no appearance, nor ſcent of it remaining. This is ſtill practiſed by the Carribians; among whom there is never any ſuch thing as Ordure ſeen. So the Authors of the Hiſtory of the Carriby Iſlands tell us, Book II. Chap. XIV. Where they obſerve alſo out of Busbequius, that the Turks uſe the ſame Cleanlineſs in their Camps; making an hole with a piece of Iron, wherein they bury their Excrements. And in this matter the Eſſens were extreamly ſuperſtitious; for, as Joſephus relates, they would not eaſe themſelves at all on the Sabbath day; becauſe they lookt upon it as a labour to dig in the earth, and Excrements not fit to be ſeen on that day.
Ver. 14. For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy Camp.] At this time the Ark, which was the Token of the Divine Preſence, was ſettled in the midſt of their Camp; and whitherſoever they moved, Verſe 14 was carried along with them: two Standards going before, and two following, and the Ark between them in the midſt, as appears from the Tenth of Numbers. It is likely alſo that it was carried in after times, in the midſt of them, when they went to War; as ſome think it was when they went againſt the Midianites, XXXI Numb. 6. and when they encompaſſed Jericho. Now this Preſence of God among them, was the reaſon why no Uncleanneſs, though in it ſelf natural, might be found in their Camp; but out of reverence to the Divine Majeſty, which dwelt between the Cherubims over the Ark, be removed afar off. And by ſuch Actions as theſe, Maimonides well obſerves, God intended to ſtrengthen and confirm the Faith of the Soldiers, that God dwelling among them, would go along with them, and fight for them againſt their Enemies, as it here follows, More Nevochim P. III. Cap. XLI. And thus Abarbinel diſcourſes upon theſe words; The Camps of the Iſraelites ought to be holy; having a ſpecial Providence of God among them. For they do not make War by meer Humane Power and Courage; but by the Power of God and of his Spirit, on which they depend for deliverance from all evil, and victory over their Enemies, &c.
To deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee.] This is the conſtant ſenſe of this Phraſe, Of God's being in the midst of them, to defend, protect, and deliver them from all evil, as I obſerved before. See VII Deut. 21. III Joſh. 10. XLVI Pſal. 6. III Zachar. 15. Now this Cleanlineſs being commanded with reſpect to the Divine Preſence, which dwelt among them, the Jews are ſtrangely miſtaken in uſing ſuch Superſtitions as they do in every place, when they have no ſuch Preſence of the Divine Majeſty in the midſt of them. See Schickard in Miſchpat Hammelech, Cap. V. Theorem. XVIII. p. 144, &c.
Therefore ſhall thy Camp be holy.] Free from all manner of Defilements; though they be only of this ſort.
That he ſee no unclean thing in thee.] In theſe words, ſaith Maimonides (in the place before-named) he deters them from Fornication; which is far worſe than the fore-mentioned Uncleanneſs; but too common among the Soldiers, when they are abſent from their own homes. And therefore that he might keep them from ſuch Impurities, he commands them ſuch Actions (he means covering their Ordure) as might call to their minds the glorious Majeſty of God, which dwelt among them. But though the Hebrew word, which we here tranſlate unclean thing, properly ſignifies nakedneſs, and all thoſe impure Mixtures mentioned in the Eighteenth of Leviticus; and therefore by Maimonides particularly applied to ſuch Uncleanneſs; yet Mr. Selden hath well obſerved, that it ſignifies all manner of Filthineſs; and therefore is well ſo tranſlated by us, both here and in the next Chapter, where he ſpeaks of the Matter of Divorce. And ſo it is uſed by the Prophet Nahum III. 5. (to name no more) where the nakedneſs of Niniveh, which God ſaith he would ſhew to all Nations, ſignifies all the Murders, Robberies, Deceit, and other great Wickedneſſes, which abounded in that City. See Ʋxor. Hebr. Lib. III. Cap. XXIII. And thus Abarbinel here extends it, to all the horrid Sins which were uſually committed in the Camps of Idolaters.
And turn away from thee.] As Princes are wont to do, when they ſee any thing offenſive to them. And the meaning is, he would not deliver them from their Enemies, (as he promiſed before) but give them up into their hands. I conclude all this matter with the words of R. Zacharias in Pirke Eliezer, Cap. XLIV. The Pillar of the Cloud (in which the Glory of the LORD dwelt) incompaſſed the Camps of Iſrael round about; and made them like a City girt about with a wall, that no Enemy might aſſault them. But this Cloud threw all Ʋncleanneſs out of the Camps of Iſrael, for they were holy: and he quotes this place for it.
Ver. 15. Thou ſhalt not deliver unto his maſter, the Verſe 15 ſervant which is eſcaped from his maſter unto thee.] The Hebrew Doctors underſtand this of a Servant of another Nation, who was become a Jew. Whom his Maſter, if he went to dwell out of Judaea, might not carry along with him againſt his will: and if he fled from him, when he had carried him, he might not be delivered to him, but ſuffered to dwell in the Land of Iſrael. Which they underſtand alſo of a Servant, that fled from his Maſter out of any of the Countries of the Gentiles, into the Land of Iſrael: which was to be a ſafe Refuge to him. See Selden Lib. VI. de Jure Nat. & Gent. juxta Diſcipl. Hebr. Cap. VIII. p. 711.
Ver. 16. He ſhall dwell with thee, even among you.] Verſe 16 Having embraced the Jewiſh Religion.
In the place which he ſhall chuſe, in one of thy Gates where it liketh him best.] He was not to be abridged of his Liberty; but permitted to ſettle himſelf where he pleaſed, in any part of their Country.
Thou ſhalt not oppreſs him.] For there was an expreſs Law againſt all manner of Injuries, or Hardſhips, put upon Strangers, XIX Levit. 33, 34.
Ver. 17. There ſhall be no whore of the daughters of Iſrael, nor a Sodomite of the Sons of Iſrael.] Or, a Whremonger of the Sons of Iſrael; as the laſt part Verſe 17 of the Verſe may be tranſlated, with the ſame reaſon that the foregoing words are tranſlated, no Whore of the Daughters of Iſrael. So Bonſrerius truly obſerves, and ſo the Vulgar Latin and the Seventy tranſlate it; and ſeveral other Verſions mentioned by Mr. Selden, Lib. III. Ʋxor. Hebr. Cap. XXIII. p. 487. Which ſort of Perſons Moſes would not have to be tolerated among the Iſraelites, as they were among the Egyptians: many of which, if we may believe Sextus Empiricus, were ſo far from thinking it a Reproach for Women to proſtitute themſelves, that they lookt upon it as honourable and gloried in it, foreign, &c. foreign, &c. Lib. III. Pyr. Hypot. Cap. XXIV. p. 152.
And great reaſon there was for this Prohibition, becauſe by Whoredom Families are confounded and deſtroyed, as Maimonides obſerves; and their Iſſue are lookt upon by all Men as Aliens: ſo that none will own them as their kindred, and their Neighbours become Strangers to them; than which nothing can be worſe, for them and for their Parents. For which cauſe, ſaith he, all publick Stews were diſallowed among the Iſraelites; who had this benefit by it among others, that many brawls and quarrels, fightings and bloodſhed were prevented; which frequently happened when ſeveral Men were aſſembled at the ſame time, contending for the ſame Woman. For ſo the Scripture ſaith, V Jeremiah 7. They aſſemble by troops in the harlots houſes. For the preventing of theſe, and ſuch like Miſchiefs, and that the diſtinction of Families might be preſerved, both Whores and Whoremongers are here condemned: and no other Conjunction permitted, but with a Man's own Wife, publickly married. For if a private Marriage had been ſufficient, many would have kept Women in their Houſes as their Whores, and pretended they were their Wives. Therefore after a Man had privately eſpouſed a Woman, he was bound publickly to keep his Wedding. Thus that great Man More Nevochim, P. III. Cap. XLIX. and ſee Selden, Lib. V. de Jure Nat. & Gent. juxta Diſc. Hebr. Cap. IV. p. 554.
How much more abominable then were ſuch Perſons, as proſtituted their Bodies, in honour of Venus and of Priapus, and ſuch like filthy Deities: Of which ſort there were both Males and Females, conſecrated to ſuch impure Services. And this was practiſed even in the days of Moſes; as appears from the Hiſtory of thoſe who committed Fornication with the Daughters of Moab, who expoſed themſelves in honour of Baal-Peor: for their lying with them was accounted Idolatry. And ſuch there were at laſt among the Iſraelites, as appears from 1 Kings XIV. 24. 2 Kings XXIII. where we read that the Houſes of the Sodomites (as we tranſlate it) were by the Houſe of the LORD. Which ſhows they were not vulgar, but conſecrated Sodomites, or Whoremongers. I need not mention the Heathen Writers, who tell us this was a piece of Religion among them. See our Learned Dr. Spencer, Lib. II. de Leg. Hebr. Ritual. Cap. XXII. and Heideggerus in his Hiſtor. Patriarch. Exercit. I. Sect. XI. where he obſerves a great many very learned Men, underſtand this very place, not meerly of Vulgar Whores; but of ſuch as I have mentioned. Which were famous in ancient times among the Phaenicians, Babylonians, and other Nations, whom Strabo calls foreign, Lib. VIII. Geograph. where he ſaith (pag. 378.) that at Corinth there was a Temple ſo richly endowed, that it maintained foreign, above a thouſand of theſe conſecrated Whores: whom both Men and Women had dedicated to the goddeſs, foreign, for Sea-faring Men (who arrived in great numbers at this Port) parted with their Money eaſily. And Lib. XII. ſpeaking of Comana, he ſaith, There were a multitude of Women there, foreign, who maintained themſelves by proſtituting their Bodies; and moſt of them were foreign Sacred Perſons: this City being a little Corinth, to which great numbers of People reſorted at their Feſtivals, foreign becauſe of the multitude of Harlots which were here ſacred to Venus, p. 559. And the like account we find in Athenaeus, Lib. XIII. Deipnoſ. Cap. VI. where he ſaith, They that went to pray there, were wont for the obtaining their Petitions, to add that they would bring ſome Women to be devoted unto Venus; as Xenophon, the Corinthian did, when he returned Conqueror from the Olympicks.
Verſe 18 Ver. 18. Thou ſhalt not bring the price of a whore.] If ſuch Perſons, as are mentioned in the foregoing Verſe, offered unto God what they had got by proſtituting their Bodies, it was not to be accepted, but rejected as abominable. For this was a Cuſtom among the Idolatrous Nations, as appears by a great many of their Writers; who tell us they were wont to dedicate ſome part of that which they received for the uſe of their Bodies, at the Temples of their pretended Deities. Particularly Herodotus mentions it, as done among the ancient Babylonians, Lib. I. p. 199. Which explains what we read in VI Barnch 42, 43. where ſee Grotius his Annotations.
Nor the price of a dog into the houſe of the LORD thy God.] There was a peculiar reaſon for this beſides the vileneſs of this Creature, (which Maimonides only mentions, More Nevochim, P. III. Cap. XLVI.) which was, as Bochartus, and ſome other great Men think, becauſe a Dog was highly honoured among the Egyptians, from whom the Iſraelites were lately come. For Nile was wont to overflow and inrich their Country, at the riſing of the Dog-ſtar: and a Dog was the Symbol of one of their principal Deities, called Anubis, who was repreſented with a Head like that of a Dog. See Hierozoicon. P. I. Lib. II. Cap. LVI. p. 690, &c. If we can think this vile Idolatry was ſo ancient as the days of Moſes, which it is certain prevailed afterward, this may paſs for a very likely reaſon, why God would not accept ſo much as the price for which a Dog was ſold, or exchanged; for ſo the LXX. expounds it: As for example, If a Man gave a Lamb for a fine Dog, God would not have that Lamb offered at his Altar; as Maimonides explains it.
For any Vow.] There was the greateſt Obligation lay upon Men to make good their Vows, wherewith upon any occaſion, they had bound themſelves; but God would have them diſcharged from ſuch vile Oblations as theſe.
For even both theſe are abomination unto the LORD thy God.] It is hard to give an account why theſe two (the price of a Whore and of a Dog) are aſſociated in the ſame Law; unleſs it be in oppoſition to ſome ſuch Rites as thoſe before-mentioned among the Egyptians. Who, in after times, it is certain, had ſuch Harlots Sacred to Iſis, as many think are ſpoken of in the beginning of this Verſe; and a Dog was no where elſe Sacred as a Symbol of Anubis or Mercury. Though this may be ſaid, with ſome probability, that theſe two are joyned together, becauſe a Whore and a Dog are both alike impudent. Joſephus thinks that the price of a Dog here mentioned, was Money given foreign for the Lone of a good Dog to breed withal, as Mr. Selden obſerves in his Hiſtory of Tythes, p. 57. where he notes alſo that the Jews would not admit the Tenths of Uſury, or of War to be offered. But the Talmudiſts expound it quite otherwiſe, as I have done, for the Price of a Dog, either ſold or exchanged for ſome other thing; which the ſame great Man approves of as the truer Interpretation, Lib. V. de Jure Nat. & Gent. Cap. IV. p. 557.
Verſe 19 Ver. 19. Thou ſhalt not lend upon uſury to thy brother.] i. e. Unto an Iſraelite. See XXII Exod. 25. XXV Levit. 36.
Ʋſury of money, uſury of victuals, uſury of any thing that is lent upon uſury.] Here the word Neſech is uſed for all ſort of Uſury; whether that which was made by the Lone of Money, called here Neſech Ceſeph, or that which was made by the Lone of Food and ſuch like things, called Neſech Okel. But commonly there are two words uſed to expreſs this matter, viz. Neſech, Uſury, and Tarbith, which we tranſlate Increaſe. Which are not two kinds of Uſury, one more griping, the other more moderate, as ſome have conceived; for the ſame Uſury is called Neſech, with reſpect to the Debtor, to whom it is grievous, and Tarbith with reſpect to the Creditor, to whom it is beneficial. See Salmaſius in his Book de Ʋſuris, Cap. VII. p. 188. Yet there is ſome difference between Neſech and Tarbith: elſe one cannot tell why they are ſo often both mentioned in the ſame place. And Neſech properly ſignifies the Intereſt, as we ſpeak, which was paid for Money; and Tarbith the Intereſt of Corn, and other Fruits of the Earth; as the ſame Author ſhows in that Book, Cap. XX. p. 614, &c. And in the next Book de Modo Ʋſurarum, he ſhows that as the LXX. and R. Levi ben Gerſom thus underſtood the difference, ſo do the ancient Fathers, particularly Origen, and St. Hierom, Cap. VIII. p. 320, &c.
Ver. 20. Ʋnto a ſtranger.] One that was not an Verſe 20 Iſraelite, whether he dwelt out of their Land, or in it; if he were not a Proſelyte to the Law: of whom they might not take any Uſury, but uſe him as a Brother.
Thou mayest lend upon uſury.] Some of the Jews would have this to be an Affirmative Precept, obligeing them to take Uſury of a Gentile, if they lent him any Money. For this Maimonides quotes a paſſage out of Siphri; which others ſay he miſtook. See J. Wagenſeil in his Annotations upon Lipmans Carmen Memoriale, p. 598. where he ſhows that he was of this cruel Opinion. But this is not the common ſenſe of the Jews: and their Wiſe-men have been ſo modeſt alſo, as to decree, That though the Law did here permit them to take Uſury of a Gentile, yet they were not to practiſe it, unleſs it were, that they might provide for themſelves, that they might live more ſafely among the Gentiles. And they add this reaſon for this limitation; leſt the Jews by this way of Commerce and Traffick, ſhould grow too familiar with the Gentiles, and learn their manners. Only Men that ſtudied the Law, and thereby were out of danger of being inticed to their Religion, might freely lend them Money upon Uſury; for this very end, as they think, that they might make a gain of it, and inrich themſelves. See Selden Lib. VI. de Jure Nat. & Gent. Cap. X. where he obſerves that the Mahometans forbid Uſury only among themſelves, not to Strangers. Which Salmaſius ſhows is thus limited in the Alcoran, by theſe words in their own Territories. That is, if Mahometans live among Chriſtians, they may take Uſury of them, but of Chriſtians who live among them, they may not take any, no more than of a Muſſilman, as they call themſelves.
But unto thy brother thou ſhalt not lend upon uſury.] He repeats this again, that they might not fail to be kind one to another in this matter. And the Author of Etz-Hachajim mentioned by Wagenſeil, ſaith, according to their ancient Doctors, this is ſix times forbidden in the Law, not to take Uſury of their Brethren, p. 601. upon Sota. And indeed, as there was nothing more rational than this, that their Neighbours making great gain by Merchandize (ſuch as the Sidonians, Tyrians, and thoſe that lived upon the Red-Sea, and the Egyptians) they ſhould not borrow Money of the Iſraelites for nothing; ſo it was no leſs reaſonable, the Iſraelites themſelves, whoſe chiefeſt Profit was by Husbandry and Breeding of Cattle, ſhould have Money lent them freely by one another, without any Intereſt; their Land not being a Country of Traffick, whereby Money might be improved, as in other Countries. For by the Laws of other Nations (as Grotius obſerves on VI Luke 35.) that Uſury was odious which was practiſed upon Husbandmen. Abarbinel alſo is ſo tender in this point, as to ſay, that Uſury hath ſomething in it ſo unequal (at leaſt as it is commonly practiſed) that God did not permit the Iſraelites to exerciſe it among all their Neighbours, but only upon thoſe of the Seven Nations of Canaan. And thus far he is in the right, that every one who was not a Jew, was not to be deemed a Stranger. An Edomite, for inſtance, is called their Brother in the ſeventh verſe of this Chapter; and therefore this Precept, Thou ſhalt not lend upon Ʋſury to thy Brother, is to be extended to Edomites. In like manner, ſaith he, neither do the Iſhmaelites come under the name of Strangers, nor other People, but thoſe of the Seven Nations. And this Opinion Leo Modena follows in his Hiſtory of the preſent Jews, Part. II. Cap. V. where he ſaith by the word Stranger in this place, none other can be meant, but only thoſe Seven Nations, from whom God commanded them to take away even their Lives. And that it is only their preſent diſtreſs, in which they have no other way of livelyhood left, that makes them think it lawful to lend upon Ʋſury to thoſe among whom they live. In which I think he is miſtaken: though this Doctrine is better natured, than that of ſome of the Jews, who are ſo full of hatred to us Chriſtians, whom they call Edomites, that they deprive us (as Wagenſeil obſerves in the place above-named) of the name of Brethren; and think it lawful to oppreſs us with Uſury. Of which number are R. Bechai, and the Author of the old Nitzacon, ſet forth by Wagenſeil (ancienter than that of Lipman's ſet forth by Theodorick Hackspan) who was ſo full of Malignity, that he ſhut his Eyes againſt the Light which he plainly ſaw. For he could not deny that the Edomites were their Brethren; and conſequently that Moſes required the Jews not to take Uſury of them; and that it was anciently unlawful. But then he pretends, that they forfeited this Priviledge, by not coming to help to preſerve Jeruſalem and the Temple from being deſtroyed; yea, by rejoycing at their ruin. And fearing this would not ſatisfie, he hath deviſed this juſtification of their Uſury, that the Edomites have made themſelves Strangers by the neglect of Circumciſion. See p. 139.
That the LORD thy God may bleſs thee in all that thou ſettest thine hand unto, in the Land whither thou goest to poſſeſs it.] Charity to their poor Brethren, had many Promiſes of a great Reward: and this Law was made peculiarly for the Relief of ſuch Perſons; as appears by thoſe places before-mentioned, both in Exodus and in Leviticus. It extended indeed to all; but chiefly was intended, as a Proviſion for the Poor and Needy: whom they were not to neglect; for God ordered them all to live together as Brethren, Children of the ſame Father: and indeed they were all, Rich and Poor, deſcended from one and the ſame Original. And therefore he deſigned there ſhould be no indifferent Perſon unrelieved among this People, upon whom he had heaped ſo many Bleſſings; and delivering them from the Slavery of Egypt, had planted them in the good Land promiſed to their Fathers. To which purpoſe all thoſe Precepts were given, which require them to lend gratuitouſly to their poor Brother; to reſtore the Pledge left with them; to leave the Corners of their Fields unreaped; not to gather the Gleanings of the Harveſt, and Vintage; to obſerve the Year of Releaſe and of Jubilee; and ſuch like peculiar Proviſions for the Comfort of the Poorer ſort, that they might ſhare in the happineſs which God beſtowed upon his Elect People.
Ver. 21. When thou ſhalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God.] In a thing lawful and poſſible; and by a Perſon who had power to make it, and was not ſubject to the Authority of another, who had power to Verſe 21 make it void. See XXX Numb. 2.
Thou ſhalt not ſlack to pay it.] Leſt they ſhould prove leſs able, and ſo be unwilling to perform what they had vowed; or ſhould perhaps forget it. If they loſt the thing they vowed, whilſt they delayed, they were bound to give the value of it. Which was one difference between a Vow, and a Free-will-offering; that in the latter caſe, (as Maimonides ſaith) if that which he deſigned was ſtoll'n or died, he was not bound to make reparation. The ſame Author applies this to a Vow a Man made of giving an Alms to a poor Body, ſuppoſe a Shekel; which he was to beſtow immediately, if any poor Body was at hand. If not, he was to ſeparate it, and lay it by till he met with one, &c. Cap. VIII. de Donis Pauperum, Sect. 1.
For the LORD will ſurely require it of thee.] Demand that which thou haſt made to be his own.
And it would be ſin in thee.] Be puniſhed, by God's juſt Judgment upon thee, for the wrong thou haſt done him.
Ver. 22. But if thou ſhalt forbear to vow, it ſhall be no Verſe 22 ſin in thee.] God was ſo very merciful, as Maimonides obſerves, that if a Man was not able to offer him an Ox, or a Lamb, he accepted of Turtles and young Pigeons, of which there was great plenty in that Country. And if this was beyond his Ability, but he had a deſire to teſtifie his Affection to God by a Free-will-offering, he was pleaſed to accept an Oblation of Bread baked in an Oven, or Pan, or any other uſual way. And if this was too heavy, he accepted of bare flour, without putting him to the charge of baking it. For he would have Men to be eaſie in his Service, and all their Offerings to be free and cheerful; and therefore tells them here, that if they vowed nothing at all to him, he would not take it ill of them, nor impute it to them as a ſin, More Nevochim, P. III. Cap. XLVI.
Verſe 23 Ver. 23. That which is gone out of thy mouth thou ſhalt keep and perform, even a Free-will-offering, according as thou hast vowed, &c.] This was to make them conſider well before-hand, what their Ability was; and not raſhly reſolve and promiſe any thing: for though they were not bound to vow the ſmalleſt matter, yet having once vowed, they were no longer free, but bound to make it good, though it proved very chargeable to them. Yet there is a Traditional Doctrine among them practiſed at this day, That if any Man or Woman make a Vow, which afterward they wiſh unmade, and it be not to the prejudice of any third Perſon that it ſhould be broken, in this caſe they may go to a Rabbine, or to any other three Men, who hearing their Reaſons why they repent of having made ſuch a Vow, and judging them good, they may free them from their Obligation; ſaying to ſuch a Perſon thrice, Be thou abſolved from this Vow, &c. and ſo he is diſcharged. Thus Leo Modena in his Hiſtory of the preſent Jews, Part II. Chap. IV.
Verſe 24 Ver. 24. When thou comest into thy neighbours vineyard, then thou mayeſt eat grapes thy fill, at thine own pleaſure.] This the Hebrew Doctors take to be a Law made in favour of poor Labourers, who were hired to work in their Vineyards, in the time of Vintage. Whom the Owners might not hinder from eating as many Grapes as they pleaſed (and the ſame held good in Olives, Figs, Dates, and all other Fruit) as long as they were at work; but not after they had done working. And if their Maſters would not ſuffer them ſo to do, they were to be ſcourged with forty ſtripes ſave one: for it was not reaſonable to deny them this liberty, when the very Oxen were not to be muzzled, whilſt they trod out the Corn. See Selden Lib. VI. de Jure Nat. & Gent. Cap. 2. p. 670. Which muſt be confeſſed to be as good a natured Law, as that of Plato's was harſh and unnatural, which enacted a Servant ſhould receive as many Stripes, as he eat Grapes or Figs. See Euſebius Lib. XIII. Praepar. Evangel. Cap. ult.
But I ſee no reaſon at all to reſtrain this Indulgence only to Hirelings, of whom there is no mention at all in this Law: and therefore Joſephus ſeems to me to have juſtly enlarged this Benefit (Lib. IV. Archaeol. Cap. VIII.) to all Travellers on the High-way, though they were not Iſraelites (to whom, and to Proſelytes of Juſtice alone, the Jews conſine this Priviledge) but meer Strangers of any other Nation, who had occaſion to paſs by a Vineyard, and needed a Refreſhment. Which Permiſſion may ſeem to have great Inconvenience, if not Miſchief in it, becauſe they might tread down the Vines, and make great waſte among the Grapes. Therefore by coming into their Neighbour's Vineyard, is not meant, going into every part of it, with a liberty to pick out the beſt Grapes; but only ſtepping aſide out of their way, into the Skirts of the Vineyard, which lay near the Rode, and ſatisfying their hunger, without entering further into the Vineyard. This made it no Damage to the Owners, conſidering the great plenty of Fruit in that Country.
Chapter XXIV.But thou ſhalt not put any in thy veſſel.] They were only to eat for their preſent neceſſity or delight, but not to carry any away with them, for the benefit of others, or their own Refreſhment at another time. And therefore might not put any in their Pouches, or their Garments, or Boſoms; or ſo much as carry away in their Hands what they could not eat.
Verſe 25 Ver. 25. When thou comest into the ſtanding Corn of thy neighbours, thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand.] As the Diſciples of our Saviour did, when they walked through the Corn, XII Matth. 1. which they might have juſtified by the ſtricteſt Rules of the Phariſaical Doctors, who granted this Priviledge unto Jews, but not unto Gentiles.
But thou ſhalt not move a ſickle into thy neighbour's ſtanding Corn.] They might not cut down any Corn, but only pluck with their Hands as much as was neceſſary to ſatisfie their hunger, or for their pleaſure.