Commentary on Deuteronomy, Commentary · Chapter 22
CHAP. XXII.
Verſe 1. THou ſhalt not ſee thy brother's Ox, or his Verſe 1 Sheep go aſtray, and hide thy ſelf from them.] They were not to turn away their Face, as if they did not ſee them, and ſo neglect them. And by Brother is to be underſtood, not only an Iſraelite, but any Man that lived among them: this being a matter of common right, and extended to their Enemies, as well as their Friends, XXIII Exod. 4.
Thou ſhalt in any caſe bring them again to thy brother.] Not meerly give notice to the Owner, where he ſaw them, but take care himſelf to bring them back, that they might not go further aſtray, and perhaps be quite loſt, before the Owner could have notice of them. This, and many that follow, are Precepts of Humanity, and Care of each others welfare; without which Society could not be preſerved.
Ver. 2. And if thy brother be not nigh thee, or thou Verſe 2 know him not, then thou ſhalt bring it to thine own houſe.] And preſerve it there, till he could ſend to him, or find who the Owner was.
And it ſhall be with thee, until thy brother ſeek after it.] He was to give notice, by the publick Crier, that ſuch a Beaſt was with him, and that, as the Jews ſay, three or four times; that the Owner might ſeek after it. But here they are pleaſed to make a diſtinction; that they were to do this, if there were Marks upon the Beaſt; but if there were none, they were not bound to cry it: which doth not ſeem to be reaſonable. See Selden Lib. VI. de Jure Nat. & Gent. Cap. IV.
And thou ſhalt reſtore it to him again.] He paying the Charges of keeping it, from the time it was brought to his Houſe, till its being reſtored. But if no Body could prove a right in the Beaſts that were loſt, they became his who found them, and he might lawfully keep them: for no other Owner appearing, they were his that was in preſent poſſeſſion of them. Who did very piouſly, if he gave the value of them to the Poor, (and ſo the Law was in many places▪) but he was an honeſt Owner of them, if he kept them to himſelf: As Grotius obſerves, Lib. II. de Jure Belli & Pacis, Cap. X. Sect. XI.
Verſe 3 Ver. 3. In like manner ſhalt thou do with his Aſs, and ſo ſhalt thou do with his raiment, and with all loſt things, &c.] In all other Caſes of like Nature, the ſame Law was to be obſerved.
Thou mayest not hide thy ſelf.] Paſs them by with neglect, or pretend they did not ſee them.
Verſe 4 Ver. 4. Thou ſhalt not ſee thy brothers Aſs, or his Ox fall down by the way, and hide thy ſelf from them.] Turn away, as if they did not ſee the danger they were in.
Thou ſhalt ſurely help him to lift them up again.] This hath been explained upon XXIII Exod. 5. I ſhall only add here, a famous Example of this ſort of Piety, in Alphonſus King of Naples: who travelling upon the Road, attended by a great number of Courtiers, and ſeeing a poor Aſs with a burden fall'n into a deep Slough, (when all that went before him paſſed by, without any regard) when he came to the place ſtopt, and went himſelf to the Driver, and lent him Aſſiſtance to help the Aſs out of the Dirt. So David Chytraeus upon this place.
Ver. 5. The woman ſhall not wear that which pertaineth Verſe 5 unto a man, neither ſhall a man put on a womans garment: for all that do ſo are abomination unto the LORD thy God.] The laſt words of this place plainly indicate, that it was an idolatrous Cuſtom, which is here prohibited. For Moſes and the Prophets are wont to ſpeak in theſe terms of utmoſt abhorrence, concerning ſuch Matters. And nothing was more common among the Heathen, than for Men, in the worſhip of ſeveral of their gods, to put on the Garments uſually worn by Women, and Women thoſe worn by Men. Particularly in the worſhip of Venus, Women appeared before her in Armour, and Men in Womens Apparel. And thus the words literally run here in the Hebrew; Women ſhall not put on the Armour of a Man, (ſo the word Celi frequently ſignifies Armour, as well as other ſorts of Inſtruments) nor a Man (foreign the LXX. tranſlate it) the ſtole of a Woman. See Selden Syntag. II. de Diis Syris, Cap. IV. And thus Maimonides ſaith he found this Precept in an old Magical Book, that Men ought to ſtand before the Star of Venus in the flower'd Garment of Women, and Women put on the Armour of Men, before the Star of Mars. More Nevochim P. III. Cap. XXXVII. Servius alſo upon the Second Book of Aeneiads, mentions a Statue of Venus in Cyprus (in which Iſland were anciently many Colonies of Phaenicians) to whom the Women ſacrificed in Mens Garments, and the Men in Womens. Many other Nations did the ſame. See J. Ger. Voſſius, Lib. II. de Orig. & Progr. Idol. Cap. XXVII. & XXXI. but eſpecially our Learned Dr. Spencer, Lib. II. Cap. XVII. Sect. I. &c.
But ſetting aſide all this, every one knows that if there were no diſtinction of Sexes, made by their Habits, it would open a Door to all manner of Impurity: for which reaſon, if there were no other, this Law was very wiſe and pious.
Verſe 6 Ver. 6. If a birds nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, &c.] By this place, among others, (particularly VIII Pſal. 8.) it appears the word tſippor ſignifies all kind of Birds, and not only the ſmaller ſort, as ſome have imagined. But he ſeems particularly to ſpeak of clean Birds, ſuch as it was lawful for them to eat. And this Precept ſeems to have been given to breed in the Jews a ſenſe of a Divine Providence, extending it ſelf to all Creatures; and to teach them to exerciſe their Dominion over them, without any kind of Cruelty.
Thou ſhalt not take the dam with the young.] R. Menachem, mentioned both by Druſius and Bochartus, was of opinion that it is not pity towards Birds which is intended in this Law, but kindneſs to Mankind; whom God intended by this uſage of other Creatures, to form unto gentleneſs and commiſeration towards one another. But others, I think, have more truly determined, that this is a merciful Conſtitution, with reſpect to Birds as well as Men. It being a ſufficient Affliction, as Maimonides calls it, to the old one to loſe her young: and it being unreaſonable alſo, that Men ſhould conſider only their own preſent intereſt, without regard to Poſterity; to whom the breed ought to be continued by letting the old one go free. Unto which thoſe Verſes, commonly aſcribed to Phocylides, have reſpect.
foreign,
foreign.
i. e. Let no Man take all the Birds together out of a Neſt; but let the Mother go, that thou mayest have young ones again of her.
Ver. 7. Thou ſhalt in any wiſe let the dam go, and take Verſe 7 the young to thee.] For there is a great deal of ill nature in it, to take away the Liberty and the Life of any Creature, from whom we have received a benefit; as Bonfrerius gloſſes upon theſe words.
That it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.] Some of the Jews, from theſe words, have fancied, that the obſervation of this ſingle Precept was of ſuch great value, as to procure for them even forgiveneſs of ſins and a long life. Which is ſuch a fooliſh conceit, that it makes all other Precepts unneceſſary. The plain meaning is, that God would reward them for their kind uſage even of brute Creatures, if other Vertues were not wanting; ſuch as Charity towards their poor Neighbours. And ſo the Miſchna, in the Concluſion of the Tract called Cholin, diſcourſes very well, If in a light Precept concerning a thing which is ſcarce worth a farthing, the Law ſays, that it may be well with thee, and thou mayeſt prolong thy days; how much more may this be expected in the weightier things of the Law?
Ver. 8. When thou buildest a new houſe, then thou ſhalt make a battlement for thy roof.] The Jews, I think, are a little too curious, in ſetting a Mark upon the Verſe 8 word thy; fancying he ſaith not ſimply the Roof, but thy Roof, to except the Temple, and the Synagogues, and Schools from this Rule; which were no private Man's Houſe, but belonged to the whole Congregation. They ſay indeed the Temple had Battlements; but not for neceſſity, but for Ornament; becauſe the Roof of the Temple was not flat, as the Roof of another Houſe was. For no Body walkt upon the Temple, as they did upon their own Houſes, to take the Air, and diſcourſe together; or to meditate and pray (in little Cloſets they had there) which made it neceſſary to have theſe Battlements, of three foot and a half high (as the Jews ſay) to prevent any Man's falling down; when he did not attend, but was thinking of ſome other thing. See Conſtant. L'Empereur in his Annotations on Codex Middoth, p. 160.
That the Roofs of their Houſes were flat, which was the ground of this Precept, we have many proofs in the Scripture. For hither Rahab brought the Spies, and covered them with the Stalks of Flax, which ſhe laid upon them, II Joſh. 6. Here Samuel communed with Saul upon the top of the Houſe, 1 Sam. IX. 25. David alſo was walking upon the Roof of his Palace, when he ſaw Bathſheba waſhing her ſelf, 2 Sam. XI. 2. And in the ſame place Abſolom cauſed a Tent to be ſpread, that he might go in to his Fathers Concubins, in the ſight of all Iſrael, XVI. 22. See alſo XV Iſa. 3. XXII. 1. and in the New Taſtament X Acts 9. Nor was it the manner of the Hebrews only, but of the Greeks and Romans alſo, to make the Roofs of their Houſes ſo, that they might walk upon them; and ſtand there to ſee any Publick Show, or take the Air; as Iſ. Caſaubon ſhows in a multitude of Inſtances, Lib. IV. in Athenaeum, Cap. XII. where he obſerves alſo out of Pliny and Seneca, that the Roman Houſes wanted theſe Battlements, which Moſes here ordered in this Law. By all which we may eaſily underſtand thoſe places in the Goſpel, that ſpeak of proclaiming things on the Houſe top, &c. X Matth. 27. V Luke 19.
That thou bring not blood upon thine houſe, if any man fall from thence.] And be killed by the fall. For his neglect being the cauſe of his death, it made him guilty before God of his Blood, and liable to be puniſhed by the Judges for ſlighting ſo profitable an Inſtitution as this is. Which the Jews extend to a ſtudious care about every thing that might bring a Man's Life in danger. For examples ſake; they might not keep a mad Dog; nor ſet up a broken Ladder in their Houſe, &c. as L'Empereur obſerves upon Bava kama, Cap. V.
Ver. 9. Thou ſhalt not ſow thy Vineyard with divers Verſe 9 ſeeds.] What he had ſaid concerning their Fields, XIX Levit. 19. he now ſays of their Vineyards; which they were not to ſow with Seeds of a diverſe kind. For this was an idolatrous Cuſtom, as the reaſon given againſt it plainly ſhows. This Maimonides ſaith he found in a Book of the Zabij, and in one Rabbi Joſiah; who taught, That theſe three things, Wheat, Barley, and Grapes dried in the Sun, ſhould be ſown together in the Grounds with one and the ſame Caſt of the Hand. Which was ſo ſenſleſs a thing, that he could not but think they learnt it from the ways of the Amorites, as his words are; that is, from the wicked Idolaters of the Country, to which the Iſraelites were going. For Wheat being ſown properly at one ſeaſon of the year, and Barley at another, and a Vineyard being an improper place for the growth of either of them, this Cuſtom could not have its original either from God, or from Man, but from the Devil, the Author of Confuſion; who taught them this uncouth Rite, in honour of Ceres, perhaps, and Bacchus, whom they joyned in the ſame Act of Worſhip.
Lest the fruit of thy ſeed, which thou haſt ſown, and the fruit of thy Vineyard be defiled.] If the Iſraelites had followed this Cuſtom, it would have made both the Corn, and the Grapes that ſprung up from ſuch Seed, impure, becauſe polluted by Idolatry; the very ſmell of which God would not have to remain among the Iſraelites, as Maimonides ſpeaks in his More Nevochim, P. III. Cap. XXXVII. See Dr. Spencer in his very Learned Work de Leg. Ritual. Hebr. Lib. II. Cap. XVIII. Every one alſo knows that it was unlawful for the Iſraelites to eat any of the Fruits of the Earth, till the Firſt-fruits of them had been offered unto God; which would not have been accepted by him of ſuch things as theſe, that were expreſly forbidden by his Law; and conſequently the whole Crop became unclean to them, and might not be uſed by them.
Verſe 10 Ver. 10. Thou ſhalt not plough with an Ox and an Aſs together.] Leſt that Law ſhould be violated which we read XIX Levit. 19. Thou ſhalt not let thy Cattle gender with a diverſe kind. So ſome give the reaſon of it; even Maimonides in the Book forementioned, P. III. Cap. XLIX. But it ſeems alſo to have reſpect to thoſe Magical Rites of the Idolatrous Nations in thoſe Countries; who thought their Fields would be more fruitful, if, according to ſome Directions which had been given by their gods, they were thus ploughed. For one cannot well think that Men, of themſelves, would joyn together two Creatures ſo different in their Temper and Motions, to draw in the ſame Yoke, if they had not been led to it by ſome Superſtition or other. For their ſtrength is unequal, as Aben-Ezra here obſerves, The ſtrength of an Aſs is not as the ſtrength of an Ox. Whence it was that Ʋlyſſes, to make it be believed that he was mad, joyned an Horſe and an Aſs to plough: and Homer, Odyſſ. 5. would have Oxen foreign joyned together; that is, foreign, equally bearing, and drawing, as Bochart obſerves the Scholiaſt there gloſſes.
The Jews commonly think this Law extends to all other Creatures of different Species, which might not be yoked together. But ſome underſtand it ſo, that they might joyn ſeveral kinds together; provided one was not unclean, and the other clean. Baal Hatturim finds this Myſtery in this Prohibition, That the Righteous ought to have no Society with the Wicked. And there are thoſe who think the Apoſtle alludes to this, when he ſaith 2 Corinth. VI. 14. foreign, Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers. Which Bochart himſelf thinks not improbable. See Hierozoicon, P. I. Lib. II. Cap. XIII. and Cap. XL. p. 401. where there are other reaſons of this Precept.
Ver. 11. Thou ſhalt not wear a garment of divers ſorts, Verſe 11 as of woollen and linnen together.] The Ancients think God intended hereby to teach his People ſimplicity in their Manners. See Bochart in the ſame Book, P. I. Lib. II. Cap. XLV. p. 491. But there was ſomething further in it, as I have obſerved upon XIX Levit. 19. to which I refer the Reader. And ſhall only add here, That the Jews carried this ſo far, as not to ſew a Woollen Garment, with Linnen Thread; nor on the contrary.
Ver. 12. Thou ſhalt make the fringes.] What theſe were is ſufficiently explained upon XV Numb. 38, 39. See there.
Verſe 12 Ʋpon the four quarters of thy veſture.] They wore long Garments in thoſe Countries, as moſt People do ſtill at this day. And I ſuppoſe the Garments of the Jews had uſually four Skirts. But perchance they ſome times had more, or fewer than four: and in this caſe, if they had but three, their Doctors have reſolved they were not bound to make any Fringes for them; but if they had five or ſix, they were bound to annex them to the four moſt remote quarters, in which the intermediate were included. But this is a very unreaſonable Subtilty; the intention of the Law being, that they might be put in remembrance of God's Commandments, by theſe Fringes; which therefore were to be worn in the Skirts of their Garments, though they had been divided into no wings, or quarters at all.
Wherewith thou coverest thy ſelf.] Which they commonly wore: And it ſeems to ſignifie the uppermoſt Garment which covered all the reſt, and was moſt ſeen; whereby they were diſtinguiſhed from the People of other Nations: For that was one end of theſe Fringes, to be a diſtinctive Mark that they were of the Jewiſh Religion. And therefore I do not ſee any reaſon in the determination of their Doctors, who ſay Women, Servants, and little Children were not bound to wear Fringes: For though little Children could not think of the Commandments of God, yet it was fit they ſhould wear the Note of their Religion. There is no reaſon neither in their Reſolution, when they ſay, That if Women and Servants (who were bound as much as others to obſerve the Laws of God) would wear Fringes, though they were not obliged by their Conſtitutions, yet they might not put them on with the common Form of Benediction which they uſed. But I think they obſerve rightly enough, that theſe Fringes were ſo peculiar to the Jews, that the Samaritans, though acquainted with the Law, did not wear them. Nor do the Jews themſelves at this day uſe them upon their upper Garment: for that being no longer four-cornered (becauſe it made them a laughing-ſtock) they wear only under their other Garments a kind of ſquare Frock, with the aforeſaid Taſſels or Pendants faſtned to it; as Leo Modena relates in his Hiſtory of the Jews, Part I. Chap. V. Only in their Synagogues or Schools at Morning Prayer, every Man puts over his Head a ſquare Woollen Garment, with the ſaid Taſſels faſtned at each corner, which they call Talith. Concerning which Bartoloccius in his late Rabbinical Lexicon. Tom. I. hath a long Diſſertation, p. 576, &c.
Ver. 13. If a man take a wife and go in unto her.] Have Verſe 13 Carnal Knowledge of her.
And hate her.] Do not like her; but is deſirous to be rid of her.
Ver. 14. And give occaſion of ſpeech against her.] Verſe 14 The LXX. tranſlate it, foreign, lay to her charge ſuch things (for ſo words ſometimes ſignifie) as are opprobrious.
And bring up an evil name upon her.] Or as the Hebrew words are, bring forth a name of evil, or infamy. Which ſignifies, as Mr. Selden obſerves (Lib. III. Ʋxor. Hebr. Cap. I. p. 321.) the Action it ſelf, which he brought againſt her, in the Court of Judgment. This appears from the words following.
And ſay, I took this Woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a Maid.] This was the Form wherein the Action was laid againſt her (as the ſame Selden there obſerves) in theſe words, as the Jews ſay; Having lain with this young Woman, not of full age, as her Husband, I found not in her the Tokens of Virginity; and making inquiſition into the matter, it appears to me that ſhe hath been guilty of Adultery, after I had eſpouſed her: and theſe are the eye-witneſſes of her guilt.
Verſe 15 Ver. 15. Then ſhall the father and the mother of the damſel, take and bring forth the tokens of the damſels virginity.] If the Accuſation, as they ſay, was to be made good by Witneſſes of her Adultery, then her Defence was to be made, no doubt, by contrary Witneſſes, who endeavoured to diſprove the Teſtimony which was brought againſt her. For ſo they are conſtrained to interpret the words we tranſlate, Tokens of her Virginity; as I ſhall ſhew upon v. 17. The Hebrews have many nice Subtilties about the word Damſel, with which I ſhall not trouble the Reader. See Selden in the forenamed place, L. III. Ʋxor. Hebr. Cap. I.
Ʋnto the Elders of the City.] The Court conſiſting of XXIII. Judges; who had the Cognizance of Common, Capital, and Penal Cauſes, in every City.
In the Gate.] Where the Court ſat, as I obſerved before upon XVI. 18. And this may be added to what I noted there, that by this may be explained thoſe words in the Book of Job V. 4. concerning the Children of the wicked, that they are cruſhed in the Gate; i. e. loſe their Cauſe, and are Condemned in the Court of Judgment: and thoſe of the Wiſe-man, XXII Prov. 22. Oppreſs not the afflicted in the Gate; i. e. do him juſtice, and not let him be overthrown, becauſe he wants Money to defend his Cauſe. This appears to be the ſenſe from the very next words, v. 23. For the LORD will plead their Cauſe, &c.
Ver. 16. And the damſels father ſhall ſay unto the Elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife.] The Jews ſay the Mother had no power to eſpouſe her Daughter, but the Father only, before ſhe was of Age. Verſe 16 Miſchna Sotae, Cap. III. Sect. VIII. where Wagenſeil notes that the Mother, and Brethren alſo, had ſome power in this matter; but ſuch that the Daughter, within a time limited, might make the Contract void.
And he hateth her.] Hath not the Affection which an Husband ought to have to his Wife. If ſhe had no Parents alive, the Judges appointed her a Guardian: and Joſephus ſaith the next of kin were to Patroniſe her, as if they had been her Parents.
Ver. 17. And lo, he hath given occaſion of ſpeech againſt Verſe 17 her.] See v. 14. He doth not add what there follows, and brought up an evil name upon her, (i. e. accuſed her publickly before you of Adultery) becauſe it is ſufficiently comprehended in this.
Saying, I found not thy daughter a maid.] As ſuch and ſuch give Evidence.
And yet theſe are the tokens of my daughters virginity.] I have good Witneſſes to the contrary; which are here ready to be produced before the Court, to diſprove the former Teſtimony.
And they.] That is, the Witneſſes which the Father produces.
Shall ſpread the cloth before the Elders of the City.] Though ſuch Tokens of Virginity, as are commonly underſtood by theſe words, might always be found in thoſe Countries (being very conſonant to the Opinion of the chiefeſt Arabian Phyſicians, as Mr. Selden obſerves out of Avicenna, and of the Africans and other People at this day, as many Authors▪ teſtifie: See Joh. Geuſius de Victimis Humanis, Pars I. Cap. IX. and P. II. Cap. II. and Wierus L. Medicarum Obſervationum, Sect. de Hymene) eſpecially in ſuch Virgins as the Jews ſay were here meant, who were under thirteen years of Age; and though all that ſome Phyſicians and Lawyers in theſe parts of the World have ſaid to the contrary, is of no conſideration: yet there are weighty Reaſons to incline us to think, that no Man of common ſenſe would bring ſuch an Action againſt his Wife, wherein he was ſure to be caſt, whether his Cauſe was right or wrong, if theſe were the Evidences whereby it was to be tried. For if he accuſed her falſly, he knew her Friends were able to produce the Sheet wherein they lay when they were married, with ſuch Tokens upon it as would diſprove him, and render him guilty of Defamation. And if he had a juſt ground to accuſe her, becauſe he knew they could produce no ſuch Tokens; yet this was no proof ſhe had been vitiated ſince ſhe was Eſpouſed to him; for ſhe might have been corrupted before: and then he could not attain his end, which was to be rid of her, not by way of Divorce, (for then he muſt have given her a Dowry, which he was deſirous to ſave) but by having her put to death, as an Adultereſs, which v. 21. ſhows to be the preſent Caſe. Such evident Reaſons as theſe have conſtrained the Jews to underſtand theſe words, not according to the very Letter of them, but figuratively; of ſuch Witneſſes produced by her Parents, as convinced the other of falſity ſo evidently, that they made it appear as plainly as a piece of Cloth that is unfolded, and laid before Mens eyes to view it. And they think the Hebrew word Simlah, which we tranſlate the Cloth, favours this Expoſition. For it never ſignifies a Sheet, or a Linnen Cloath (which is wont to be called Sadin, XIV Judg. 12. XXXI Prov. 24.) but ſuch Cloth as Mens Garments are made of, which commonly is Woollen, not Linnen. And ſo it is uſed in this Book, X Deut. 18. and in this very Chapter, v. 5. So that the ſenſe is, They ſhall produce evident proofs, and lay them before the Court, like a piece of Cloth, which is ſpread for all that pleaſe to look upon it. Whether this be the Truth or no, I will not diſpute, but refer the Reader to Mr. Selden, Lib. III. Ʋxor. Hebr. Cap. 1, 2.
Ver. 18. And the Elders of that City ſhall take that Man.] Verſe 18 If they were convinced that he had accuſed his Wife falſly, he was to be delivered into the hands of the Officers, who executed the Sentence of the Court.
And chaſtiſe him.] Condemn him to receive forty Stripes ſave one, as both Joſephus and the Talmudiſts agree; and it was to be done with a Scourge made of Thongs of an Oxes Hide. The Woman was diſmiſſed with a Solemn Benediction; the Form of which is ſet down in the Jewiſh Rituals: and, as for the falſe Witneſſes againſt her, they were condemned to be ſtoned, according to the Law, XIX. 18, 19.
Ver. 19. And they ſhall amerce him in an hundred Verſe 19 ſhekels of ſilver, and give them unto the father of the damſel.] Who was to receive this Satisfaction for the Reproach which was thrown upon his Family. It is ſomething ſtrange that Joſephus ſhould mention only foreign, fifty Shekels to be paid to her Father, when the Scripture expreſly ſaith an hundred, Lib. IV. Archeolog. Cap. VIII. But it is ſuppoſed by ſome, that he means fifty beſides her Dowry, which he was to have given her, if he had put her away. Which that he might ſave, he deſigned to take away her Life: and therefore was puniſhed double to what it would have coſt him, if he had not been ſo wicked.
Becauſe he hath brought up an evil report upon a virgin of Iſrael.] Laid the moſt infamous Crime to the Charge of an Innocent Virgin; and that out of hatred to her, and love to his Money. For if he would have put her away, according to the Law of Divorce, no Man could have hindred him, as Maimonides obſerves: But then he muſt have paid her fifty Shekels, which they take to be the Dowry of Virgins, mentioned XXII Exod. 16, 17. To keep which to himſelf, and be rid of her, he brought this Scandalous Action againſt her; for which he was thus juſtly puniſhed.
And ſhe ſhall be his wife, he may not put her away all his days.] Beſides the two former Puniſhments, in his Body and his Purſe, he was deprived of the common benefit which all Men had, who did not like their Wives; which was to ſue out a Divorce. Here Maimonides calls upon his Readers to admire the wiſe Ordination of God, which appears in his Judgments, as well as in his Works. For becauſe this Man took away his Wives Reputation, therefore God ordered him to be rendered vile, by being whipt: and becauſe he baſely contrived to ſave her Dowry of fifty Shekels, he ordered him to be amerced as much more: and becauſe he indulged his Luſt, and ſought nothing but his Pleaſure, therefore he was bound to keep her as long as ſhe lived, More Nevochim P. III. Cap. XLIX.
Verſe 20 Ver. 20. But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damſel.] If the Witneſſes which appeared for her, could not prove the falſity of their Teſtimony who appeared againſt her.
Ver. 21. Then ſhall they bring out the damſel to the door of her father's houſe.] Where ſhe was to be puniſhed, as a Diſgrace to her Parents, who had taken no better care to preſerve her Chaſtity, while ſhe lived Verſe 21 with them.
And the Men of her City ſhall ſtone her with ſtones that ſhe die.] This was the puniſhment of ſuch Adultereſſes, except only of a Prieſt's Daughter, who, if ſhe was guilty of this Crime, was burnt alive, XXI Lev. 19. And it plainly ſhows he ſpeaks here of a Woman corrupted between the time of her Eſpouſals, and her Husbands compleating the Marriage. Otherwiſe he could not have had this Capital Action againſt her, none being put to death for ſimple Fornication. And this Maimonides ſaith in Seder Zeraim, that from Moſes to his time, it was never doubted, the Woman he here ſpeaks of, was one that proved falſe to her Huſband, after ſhe was contracted to him.
Becauſe ſhe hath wrought folly in Iſrael.] A great wickedneſs; as the word folly ſignifies in Scripture, and as the Vulgar tranſlates it.
To play the whore in her father's houſe.] Where ſhe remained after her Eſpouſals, as in a ſafe place, till her Husband brought her home to his own Houſe.
So ſhalt thou put evil away from among you.] See XIX. 19.
Ver. 22. If a man be found lying with a woman married Verſe 22 to an husband, then they ſhall both of them die, &c.] It is not ſaid what death, either here or XX Lev. 10. But the Jews ſay they were to be ſtrangled. Which is an Opinion ſo ſettled among them, that Buxtorf ſaith he never ſaw any Hebrew Book, which aſſigned any other Puniſhment for Adultery but this. Stoning indeed was the Puniſhment of her that after her Eſpouſals play'd the Whore (as was noted before) between that time and her Marriage: but after the Marriage was compleated, if ſhe were guilty of this Crime, this was the only Puniſhment, according to their Tradition. See upon XX Lev. 10. and Buxtorf. de Sponſal. & Divortiis, p. 32, 33. and Grotius in VIII John V.
Verſe 23 Ver. 23. If a damſel that is a virgin, be betrothed to an husband.] But not yet known by him: For there was generally ſome ſpace between the Eſpouſals, and the bringing her home to her Husband's Houſe. And the time allowed was more or leſs, according to her Age. See Selden Lib. II. Ʋxor. Hebr. Cap. VIII.
And a man find her in the City, and lie with her.] If he lay with her any where elſe, the Crime was the ſame; but it was not ſo eaſie to corrupt her in her Father's Houſe, or among her Friends, where ſhe remained till the completion of the Marriage, as it was to do it abroad in the City, or in the Field.
Verſe 24 Ver. 24. Then ye ſhall bring them both out unto the gate of that City.] That is, to the Court of Judgment, which ſat there; as I noted upon XVI. 18.
And ye ſhall ſtone them with ſtones that they die.] After they had been Sentenced to this Death by the Court.
The damſel, becauſe ſhe cried not out.] Which was a demonſtration ſhe was not forced, but lay with him by Conſent.
Being in the City.] Where the Neighbours might have heard her cry; and the Force, if there had been any, prevented.
The man, becauſe he hath humbled his neighbour's wife.] For ſo ſhe was by ſuch a Contract, as made her only his. This is ſuppoſed to be the Caſe of the Woman taken in Adultery, mentioned VIII John 5. See my Notes upon XX Lev. 10.
So thou ſhalt put away evil from among you.] See v. 21, 22.
Ver. 25. And if a man find a betrothed damſel in the field.] Where no Body was near, as in the City. Verſe 25
And the man force her, and lie with her.] It was preſumed, by the Circumſtances of the Place, that ſhe did not Conſent, but was under a Force; as ſhe alſo affirmed, and he could not prove the contrary.
Then the man only that lay with her ſhall die.] Becauſe he only was guilty of a Crime; as it follows in the next words.
Ver. 26. But unto the damſel thou ſhalt do nothing, Verſe 26 there is in the damſel no ſin worthy of death.] To make her liable to ſuffer death: for it was her miſfortune, as we ſpeak, not her fault, that ſhe was raviſhed.
For as when a man riſeth against his neighbour, and ſlayeth him.] He not being able to defend himſelf.
Even ſo is this matter.] It is here obſerved by many (particularly by Grotius and de Dieu) that Chaſtity is equal unto Life.
Ver. 27. For he found her in the field.] Far diſtant Verſe 27 from all Company.
And the betrothed damſel cried.] For help, as ſhe affirmed, and as it was preſumed; becauſe if ſhe had conſented, ſome other place might have been found, more convenient for their purpoſe than the Field.
And there was none to ſave her.] None appeared to reſcue her, as ſhe deſired.
Ver. 28. If a man find a virgin.] In the Field, before-mentioned. Verſe 28
Which is not betrothed.] To a Husband.
And lay hold of her, and lie with her, and they be found.] There be Witneſſes of it; or they themſelves confeſs it. This Caſe is different from that in XXII Exod. 16, 17. in many reſpects. For that Law ſpeaks of one that was drawn in to conſent to the Man's lying with her, by inticing words (which is expreſly there mentioned) and fair Promiſes perhaps of Marriage; but here Moſes ſpeaks of one that laid hold of her, i. e. deflowred her by force and violence. In this Caſe the Man was bound to marry her, if ſhe and her Father pleaſed (for both their Conſents were required, though the Man that deflowred her could not refuſe) but in the former Caſe the Man himſelf might chooſe whether he would marry or no; which he could not refuſe in this; and beſides, was bound to pay fifty Shekels, as a Mulct upon him for the Crime, as follows in the next Verſe. See Selden L. I. Ʋxor. Hebr. Cap. XVI.
Verſe 29 Ver. 29. Then the man that lay with her ſhall give unto the damſels father fifty ſhekels of ſilver.] Here is another difference between this Caſe, and that in Exodus; where the Man was bound to ſettle a Dowry upon her; but here to pay a Fine unto her Father. The reaſon is plain; becauſe there was no need of ſettling a Dowry in this Caſe, as in the former; for the Dowry was ſettled upon her in that Caſe, leſt the Husband might lightly and wantonly put her away by Divorce, and ſhe have nothing to maintain her: of which there was no danger here, becauſe this Law ſaith expreſly in the concluſion of this Verſe, that he may not put her away all his days. Yet there are thoſe who think it likely, that in this Caſe alſo, he ſettled a Dowry of fifty Shekels upon her, beſides what he paid for her further; for otherwiſe the Condition of a Virgin deflowred by Force, was worſe than hers deflowred by her own Conſent.
They have ſome Exceptions concerning this Payment to her Father, which are not very material, nor certain. But this is conſiderable, That this Fine was the ſame, whether the Woman was of Noble, or of Mean Parentage; neither more nor leſs was paid by the Law. But, in after times, the Sanhedrim, they tell us, added ſome other Mulcts beſides this here mentioned; becauſe it ſeemed ſo ſmall that the Honour of a Virgin was not thought ſufficiently repaired by it. Therefore he that inticed a Virgin paid other two; one for the Shame and Diſhonour he had done her; and the other for the loſs of her Virginity, and vitiating her Body. And he that forced a Virgin paid a third beſides theſe two; upon the account of the Pain unto which, he was ſuppoſed, to have put her. And in theſe three they proportioned the Penalties to the quality of the Perſon, and other Conſiderations, which made them vary. See Selden in the forenamed place, p. 123.
And ſhe ſhall be his wife, becauſe he hath humbled her.] Though ſhe were blind, or lame, or leprous, he could not refuſe her; if ſhe and her Father required him to marry her.
He may not put her away all his days.] This was a third part of his Puniſhment for the force he had committed; that he ſhould be forced, not only to take her to Wife, but conſtrained alſo to keep her as long as ſhe lived, and not have the liberty of giving her a Bill of Divorce; as other Men might do, who were deſirous to part with their Wives.
If it be askt, How it could be known whether ſhe was inticed, or forced? They anſwer, as was obſerved before, that it was reaſonably preſumed that he forced her, if the thing was done in the Field, or in a Place far from Inhabitants:Chapter XXIII. but if in the City or Town, that ſhe conſented; unleſs the contrary was evidently proved.
Verſe 30 Ver. 30. A man ſhall not take his fathers wife.] That is, ſhall not marry her.
Nor diſcover his father's skirt.] Nor ſo much as lie with her. For this is a modeſt Phraſe, borrowed from the ancient Cuſtom in thoſe Countries; where the Bridegroom when he brought his Bride into the CHƲPPA, as they called it, or Bridal Chamber, ſpread the Skirt of his Robe over her, to ſignifie his right to her, and power over her, and that he alone might lawfully enjoy her, III Ruth 9. XVI Ezek. 8.
And this Verſe ſeems to me to be here inſerted, as a ſhort Memorandum, that they ſhould be careful to obſerve all the Laws which he had delivered againſt Inceſtuous Marriages, in the Eighteenth Chapter of Leviticus. See there v. 8. and XX. 11.