Commentary on Deuteronomy, Commentary · Chapter 24
CHAP. XXIV.
Verſe 1 Verſe 1. WHen a man hath taken a wife, and married her.] The Hebrew Doctors make a difference between theſe two: underſtanding by taking a wife, his eſpouſing her to be his Wife; and by marrying her, his compleating the Contract, by lying with her.
And it come to paſs.] Either after he hath eſpouſed her, or after he hath conſummated the Marriage.
That ſhe find no favour in his eyes.] i. e. He diſlikes her; or as it is expreſſed v. 3. hates her. Which ſignifies either an abſolute diſlike to her; or comparatively with ſome other Perſon, whom he likes better.
Becauſe he hath found ſome uncleanneſs in her.] This is aſſigned as the reaſon and ground of his diſlike, which ſignifies ſomething odious to him, though perhaps it might not be ſo to another, whom Moſes ſuppoſes ſhe might marry after this Husband had diſcharged her. Some of the Jews indeed extend this liberty ſo far, as to fancy they might, without any reaſon at all, for their meer pleaſure, part with their Wives. See Buxtorf. de Sponſal. & Divortiis, Sect. 89. But others are more modeſt, and acknowledge that theſe words [matter of uncleanneſs] ſignifie ſome weighty Cauſe. Yet they diſtinguiſh between the first Wife a Man took, who might not be put away but for ſome Uncleanneſs; and the ſecond, who might be put away for a leſſer reaſon. But there were great differences between the School of Hillel, and the School of Samai (whom the Talmudiſts ſo much talk of) about this matter of Ʋncleanneſs. Yet both agree it hath a far lower ſignification here, than in the Book of LEVITICUS, where it ſignifies Adultery, Inceſt, or ſuch like Turpitude. For if Adultery had been here meant, ſhe might have been put to death; or the meer ſuſpicion of it tried by the Water of Jealouſie. See Buxtorf in the Book before-named, Sect. 90. and our Selden L. III. Ʋxor. Hebr. Cap. XX, XXI. Abarbinel thinks the two plaineſt Cauſes of diſlike ſignified by theſe words, were either, ſuch behaviour as might make her ſuſpected of Impurity, (as going with her Face uncovered, or her Breaſt naked; ſporting with young Men; or waſhing in the ſame place with them; or having her Arms bare) or ſecondly, when they were of ſuch a different Temper, Humour, and Diſpoſition, that they diſliked and nauſeated each others Company, and conſequently lived in continual Brawls and Contentions. And beſides ſuch moral Cauſes, they allowed alſo ſuch natural, as made a Woman offenſive, viz. Leproſie, or ſome ſuch Diſeaſe in her Body, as he did not diſcover before Marriage. And ſometimes they extended this as far, as to a ſtinking Breath.
Then let him write her a Bill of Divorcement.] Whatſoever was the Cauſe of the Husband's diſlike, this Law provides the Wife ſhould not be damaged by it, being made rather for her Advantage, than her Huſband's, viz. to free her (as Dr. Hammond obſerves) from the pain and vexation of her Husband's unkindneſs, and the danger of ſeeing another taken in, and preferred before her; and ſhe might be perfectly at liberty to leave one who did not love her, and take another Husband who might poſſibly delight in her. See Anſwer to ſix Queries, Q. III. Cap. II. Some think that this Cuſtom of putting away Wives which they did not like, prevailed before the Law of Moſes. Which Opinion hath ſomething to countenance it, from the mention of Divorces in ſeveral places (XXI Levit. 14. XXII. 13. XXX Numb. 9.) before the Book of Deuteronomy was written, wherein he orders a Bill to be given in writing to diſcharge them. If this be true, it gives a good reaſon why God was pleaſed to grant this permiſſion, becauſe they were ſo ſettled in this practice, that it was ſafer ſtill to indulge it to them, than quite to aboliſh it. Which he did with this Caution, that Husbands ſhould not diſcharge their Wives with a Word, bidding them be gone out of Doors (i. e. putting them away raſhly, and in a ſudden fit of Anger) but firſt write them a Bill containing their pleaſure herein. Which being a deliberate act, might poſſibly hinder this Divorce; to which they might be prone in a paſſion, but not after ſome conſideration. The form of this Bill is in Mr. Selden, and exactly ſcanned Lib. III. Ʋxor. Hebr. Cap. XXIV. who obſerves alſo in another place of that Book (Cap. XIX.) that, as for five hundred years or more, the Roman State flouriſhed, without the uſe of Divorces, ſo for ſeven hundred years after the making of this Law, there is no mention of any Bill of Divorce among the Jews, that is, till the days of Iſaiah, (See Chap. L. 1.) and but rarely afterwards.
And give it into her hand.] Saying theſe, or ſome ſuch like words, Behold, this is thy Bill of Divorce; otherwiſe it was not good: And there were to be, at leaſt, two Witneſſes unto it, as the Jews ſay. Who make ten things neceſſary (which they think to be founded upon the Law it ſelf) to make the Bill legal. See Selden in the ſame Book, Cap. XXV.
And ſend her out of his houſe.] This Dr. Hammond (in the place above-mentioned) looks upon as an Obligation upon her Husband to furniſh her for her Journey, to endow her, and make proviſion for her. For ſo the word foreign, to ſend out, ſignifies in the New Teſtament to provide a viaticum, 1 Corinth. XVI. 6, 11. III Titus 13. where it is explained by letting nothing be wanting. But the Jews are of opinion, that the Divorce was perfect and legitimate, before he ſent her out of his Doors. For it was ſufficient to give her a Bill in ſuch a form, as plainly ſhow'd their Matrimony was diſſolved, and that ſhe was no part of his Family; though he had not actually ſent her away. Yet if he kept her ſtill in his Houſe, after this Bill was delivered into her hand, it was preſumed they cohabited together; and he was to give her a new Bill of Divorce.
In all which I can ſee nothing like a Command for putting away their Wives, if they were diſagreeable; which the Jews would fain extort out of theſe words. And ſo they ſpake unto our bleſſed Lord, XIX Matth. 7. though in another place they ſpake of it only as a permiſſion, X Mark 3. The plain intent of this Law being this; That if a Man did put away his Wife (as they are here ſuffered to do) ſhe might marry another Man; but if that new Husband died, ſhe might not return to her firſt Husband again. See Buxtorf de Sponſal. & Divort. p. 107, 108, &c. and to ſhow that Moſes rather ſuppoſed than permitted Divorces, p. 113, &c.
Verſe 2 Ver. 2. And when ſhe is departed out of his houſe.] So that it is publickly known, ſhe is no longer his Wife.
She may go and be another man's wife.] The Bond of Marriage being wholly broken by the Bill of Divorce; whereby he renounced all intereſt in her, and expreſly ſaid, in the very body of the Bill, (as we ſpeak) It may be free to thee to marry with whom thou wilt. Much more was the Bond broken by Adultery, for which our Saviour gives a Man leave to put away his Wife and take another. See David Chytraeus concerning this matter, p. 117, &c. where he reports a very wiſe Reſolution of Luther's, Pomeranus and Melancthon in the Caſe of the Criminal Perſon.
Verſe 3 Ver. 3. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a Bill of Divorce, and give it her in her hand, and ſend her out of his houſe.] This ſhows that no other way of putting away a Wife was allowed, but only this. For, as Maimonides well obſerves (More Nevochim P. III. Cap. XLIX.) if it had been lawful to do it, by bare words, or ſimply ſending her out of his Houſe, any Woman might have left her Husband, and ſaid ſhe was put away; both ſhe, and he that committed Adultery with her, pretending a Divorce, when her Husband had given her none. Therefore the Law wiſely provided none ſhould be put away, but by ſuch a Bill as is before-mentioned, whereby an Authentick Teſtimony was given of it.
Or if her latter husband die, which took her to wife.] Whereby ſhe became free again, as the Apoſtle hath obſerved VII Rom. 2.
Ver. 4. Her former husband, which ſent her away, may Verſe 4 not take her again to be his wife.] One would have thought there could have been no danger of any Man's deſiring her again, whom he had ſolemnly ſent away with diſlike. But ſuch is the levity and fickleneſs of Humane Nature (the Jews at leaſt were ſo inconſtant) that it ſeems Men ſometimes ſought after that which they had rejected: and this was the Puniſhment of their Injuſtice, in putting away a Wife without ſufficient Cauſe, (as by this they acknowledged) that they might not again enjoy her.
After that ſhe is defiled.] This is the reaſon why the former Husband might not marry her again (as the Jews take it) becauſe by her ſecond Marriage ſhe was defiled. Which, they ſay ſhe was, (ſo that he could not have her again) though ſhe had been only eſpouſed to a new Husband, who had never lain with her. For they make no difference between her ſecond Marriage and ſecond Eſpouſals; but think a Woman contracted ſuch a Pollution by her ſecond Eſpouſals, that ſhe would not have been ſo much polluted, if ſhe had plaid the Whore after her Divorce. For in that caſe, they ſay, he might notwithſtanding have married her again; but not after ſhe had been married to another. Thus Mr. Selden reports their opinion, Lib. I. Ʋxor. Hebr. Cap. XI. where he obſerves that the Mahometans, who are wont in many things, to ape the Jews, here quite differ from them; allowing a Man liberty to take his Wife again, though he had divorced her three times.
Now the ground upon which a divorced Woman was accounted defiled, or unclean, after another Man had married her, I ſuppoſe, was that this was lookt upon as a Solemn Renunciation of her former Huſband, on her part; who had been renounced by him, by the Bill of Divorce, but he was not abſolutely renounced by her, till ſhe married another, whereby ſhe was totally alienated from him. This made her unclean, not in her ſelf, nor with reſpect to her ſecond Husband, whom ſhe married, nor with reſpect to any other Man, (who might marry her without any pollution) but only with reſpect to her firſt Huſband. Unto whom, by this Law, ſhe was made unclean: for ſo all things forbidden to the Jews were accounted, as appears from X Acts 14, 15. where all Meats prohibited by the Law are called unclean; and God is ſaid to have cleanſed them, by taking off that Prohibition.
For that is abomination before the LORD.] That is, to return to her firſt Husband, and to be his Wife again: For this, ſaith Abarbinel, was to imitate the Egyptians, who changed their Wives, and took them again into their Houſes, which was the occaſion of great filthineſs. But this intimates, that if ſhe had not been married to any other Man, but kept her ſelf free, ſhe might have been his Wife again, if he had a mind to be Reconciled to her. And this ſhows alſo, that God intended to diſcourage them from putting away their Wives; by making them uncapable, after they had been married to another, for ever to enjoy them again, though they grew very rich, or otherwiſe deſirable: which inclined many, no doubt, to conſider well before they parted with them.
And thou ſhalt not cauſe the Land to ſin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, &c.] The People of the Land might, by ſuch a large Indulgence, have been tempted to pollute it with many ſins, and thereby bring God's Judgments upon it. See III Jerem. 1. For, as Iſaac Arama gloſſes, if this had not been prohibited, a Gate had been opened unto vile Men, to make a trade of changing their Wives, and thereby filled the Land with Whoredoms.
Ver. 5. When a man hath taken a new wife.] The Verſe 5 Hebrews think (as I obſerved before XX. 7.) that whether he had married a Virgin, or a Widow, he was to have the Priviledge here mentioned; yea, they extend it to him, who had married his Brother's Wife; but not to him who had married her whom he put away, and might take again, if ſhe had not been married, ſince that, to another Man. For ſhe could not be ſaid to be a new wife.
He ſhall not go out to war.] See XX Deut. 7.
Nor be charged with any buſineſs.] No Publick Employment was to be put upon him, which might occaſion his abſence from his Wife. Not ſo much as watching, or ſuch like. For the better underſtanding of which, it muſt be remembred what was ſaid about the fearful and timorous, who were bid to return home from the Army, leſt they diſheartned their Brethren, XX. 8. And yet theſe Men were bound to furniſh the Army with Victuals and Water, to clear the Ways, and take up their Quarters. But a new Bridegroom was free from all theſe. Only they made a difference between a War by the Divine Commandment, and one undertaken voluntarily: unto the former of which they think this Immunity doth not extend, but only to the latter. In the Margin theſe words are tranſlated, Nor any thing paſs upon him; that is, he ſhall not pay tribute.
But he ſhall be free at home for one year.] The ſame time of freedom, it was thought reaſonable, to grant unto Builders and Planters, becauſe they are joyned with new married Men, in the Speech the Prieſt made before they went to battle, XX. 5, 6, 7.
And ſhall cheer up his wife whom he hath taken.] Make much of her, as we ſpeak, and ſo endear himſelf to her by his kindneſs, that there might be no occaſion of a Divorce. For the prevention of which, this Law ſeems to have been intended; that by ſo long a Converſation together without any interruption, they might have ſo perfect an underſtanding one of another, and ſuch a mutual confidence might be ſettled, that he might not eaſily entertain any jealouſies of her, when he ſhould be abſent in the Wars, or elſewhere.
Verſe 6 Ver. 6. No man ſhall take the nether, or the upper Milſtone to pledge.] This is a Law of the ſame nature with that XX Exod. 26, 27. for the preſervation of Mercy, Beneficence, and Clemency towards the Poor, as Maimonides ſpeaks, More Nevochim, P. III. Cap, XXXIX.
For he taketh a man's life to pledge.] That is, his livelyhood: by which he maintains himſelf and his Family, and keeps them from ſtarving. By this reaſon it was unlawful to take any other thing for a Security, by the want of which a Man might be in danger to be undone. For inſtance; they did not allow any Man to ſeize upon the Oxen which were at Plough. He who broke this Law was ſcourged.
Ver. 7. If a man be found ſtealing any of his brethren Verſe 7 the children of Iſrael.] If he were either taken in the fact, or it was plainly proved againſt him. So the very words of the Athenian Law were, foreign, if a Man be an apparent Man-ſtealer.
And maketh merchandiſe of him, or ſelleth him.] This was the end of Man-ſtealing, to make a gain of him; either by exchanging him for ſome Commodity, or ſelling him for Money.
Then that Thief ſhall die.] This Crime was puniſhed with death, though ſtealing of Beaſts, or other things was not, (See XXI Exod. 16.) becauſe it was very heinous on a double account: both by depriving the Community of one of its Members, and making him a Slave in another Country. And indeed, the moſt moderate Lawyers did not know how to ſecure Men in the poſſeſſion of things very valuable, but by inflicting ſuch a Puniſhment on thoſe that ſtole them. Thus, after Solon had tempered the rigid Law of Draco, which puniſhed all Theft with death, by ordering in moſt Caſes only the payment of double, he enacted the ſtealing of a great Sum of Money to be Capital. Nay, he made it a great Crime to ſteal Dung, becauſe it was a thing of great value in that Country, which was very barren, & needed it for their Ground. How much more valuable was a Man in all Mens account, whom if any Man ſtole, the Law was foreign, that death ſhould be his puniſhment, as Xenophon reports it. And he was accounted foreign, a Man-ſtealer, who not only by force, or by fraud, carried away a free Man, and ſold him for a Slave, or ſuppreſſed him; but he who inveigled away another Man's Servant, and perſwaded him to run away; or concealed ſuch a Fugitive; as Samuel Petitus obſerves out of Pollux and others, Lib. VII. in Leges Atticas, Tit. V. p. 533. which makes me think, not only he that ſtole one of his Brethren of the Children of Iſrael, but he that ſtole a Proſelyte of any ſort, or the Servant of a Stranger, was liable to the puniſhment mentioned in this Law of Moſes.
And thou ſhalt put away evil from among you.] By theſe words we may underſtand the greatneſs of this Crime, for they are never uſed in this Book, but when Moſes ſpeaks of the puniſhment of ſome enormous ſin. See XIII. 5. XVII. 7. XIX. 19, &c.
Verſe 8 Ver. 8. Take heed in the plague of Leproſie, that thou obſerve diligently.] This was the higheſt legal Uncleanneſs, and therefore the greateſt Caution was to be uſed to prevent its Contagion.
And do according to all that the Prieſts the Levites.] They were conſtituted by the Law the ſole Judges, whether a Man had the Leproſie, or no; and were to order his Separation from others, if he had: and frequently make inſpection whether it ſpread, or was at a ſtand, &c. See the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Chapters of LEVITICƲS: where there are Laws about Houſes and Garments, as well as Perſons, infected with this Diſeaſe by the Hand of God, as the Jews underſtand it.
Shall teach you.] To teach in this place, ſignifies to declare the Obligation of the Law by the Judges of it, the Prieſts, the Levites. Thus Jehoſaphat is ſaid to have ſent his Princes to teach in the Cities of Judah, and with them he ſent Levites and Prieſts, 2 Chron. XVIII. 18. where R. Solomon notes, that it was the buſineſs of the Prieſts and Levites to teach and inſtruct, as is here written in this place, (which he quotes) and the Princes went with them, that none might diſobey them, but be conſtrained by their Authority to do according to their command. See Mr. Thorndike in his Religious Aſſemblies, Chap. II. p. 22. where he obſerves, that in LEVITICUS direction is given to the Prieſts how to proceed in judging Leproſies; but no Proviſion made till now, that the People ſhould ſtand to their Judgment.
They who imagine that the Prieſt had the care of Lepers, as their Phyſicians, forget that no other diſeaſed Perſons are ordered to repair to them: which is a ſign they did not pretend to cure them, but only to preſerve others from being defiled by them; and to do what was neceſſary for their cleanſing, when they were healed by God.
As I command them, ſo ſhall ye obſerve to do.] They were ſo to obſerve the Prieſts, as to mark what God commanded; and accordingly obey them, not againſt, but according to his command.
Ver. 9. Remember what the LORD thy God did unto Verſe 9 Miriam by the way, after that ye were come forth out of Egypt.] This ſeems to be mentioned, that they might not think much to be ſhut up ſeven days, when they were but ſuſpected to have the Leproſie; and ſeven days more to make farther trial: and to be put out of the Camp, when it appeared plainly they had this Diſeaſe, (XIII Levit. 4, 5, 45, 46.) Since ſo great a Perſon as Miriam was excluded ſo long from the Society of God's People, XII Numb. 15. And this may be alſo lookt upon, as an Admonition to take care, leſt they ſpoke Evil of Dignities, (which brought this Puniſhment on Miriam) or diſobeyed the Commands of the Prieſts, which might bring the like, or ſome other Judgment, upon them.
Verſe 10 Ver. 10. When thou dost lend thy brother any thing, thou ſhalt not go into his houſe to fetch his pledge.] This was a very merciful proviſion for the Poor; whoſe Houſes he would have ſo priviledged, that no Man might enter into them without their conſent, and there chuſe what he pleaſed for the Security of his Debt. But he was to take what the Borrower could beſt ſpare.
Verſe 11 Ver. 11. Thou ſhalt ſtand abroad.] Keep without door.
And the Man to whom thou dost lend, ſhall bring out the pledge abroad unto thee.] So the Debtor, not the Creditor, was to chuſe what Pledge he would give: For he beſt knew what he could, with moſt convenience to himſelf, part withal; and if it was ſufficient, the Lender had reaſon to be ſatisfied with it.
Verſe 12 Ver. 12. And if the Man be poor, thou ſhalt not ſleep with his pledge.] But reſtore it before Night. Which is to be underſtood of ſuch things as were neceſſary for the preſervation of his Life, or Health; as the following words demonſtrate.
Verſe 13 Ver. 13. In any caſe thou ſhalt deliver him the pledge again, when the Sun goeth down, that he may ſleep in his own raiment.] And not to be forced to borrow of others a neceſſary Covering to defend him from the Cold; and not be able, perhaps, to procure it. See XXII Exod. 26, 27. which Laws ſeems to have been intended, to keep them from taking any pledge of a very poor Man. For to what purpoſe ſhould they every Morning fetch a pledge, and every Evening carry it back again? which would only create them a great deal of trouble.
And bleſs thee.] Pray God to bleſs thee.
And it ſhall be righteouſneſs unto thee before the LORD thy God.] Procure thee a Bleſſing from God; who will eſteem it an Act of great Mercy: which is often called by the name of Righteouſneſs in the Holy Books, CXII Pſalm 9. X Prov. 2, &c. Nay, ſuch like actions are properly called tzedekah, or righteouſneſs, according to the opinion of Maimonides, who obſerves (More Nevochim P. III. Cap. LIII.) that this word doth not meerly ſignifie, giving to every Man his own. For when a Man pays the Hireling his wages, or a Debtor pays his Creditor, that is not called tzedekah; but what a Man doth out of pure love to Vertue and Goodneſs, (as when a Man cures a poor Wretch of his wounds) is properly called by that name. From whence it is ſaid, concerning the reſtoring of a poor Man's pledge, it ſhall be to thee for righteouſneſs. That is, ſaith Dr. Hammond (in his Practical Catechiſm) that degree of Mercy which the Law required of every Jew, without which he could not be accounted righteous: but there was a degree of Bounty beyond this, called chuſidah, which was an exceſs of Righteouſneſs, or Goodneſs.
Ver. 14. Thou ſhalt not oppreſs an hired ſervant.] Verſe 14 Either by putting more work upon him than he is able to do, or by detaining his Wages when it is done. The latter of theſe is moſt properly here denoted, as Conſt. L'Empereur obſerves out of D. Kimchi, who in his Book of Roots, ſaith, the difference between foreign (which is the word here) and foreign doth not lye in this, that the former ſignifies to defraud, the latter to take away by violence; but the former ſignifies to detain by force, and the other to take away by force, what belongs to another. And for the proof of it alledges this place in Deuteronomy, which he thus tranſlates, Thou ſhalt not detain by force the wages of the hireling. Which is expreſſed more clearly III Malachi 5. Annot. in Bava kama, Cap. IX. Sect. VII. p. 247.
That is poor and needy.] And therefore the more to be pitied, and not oppreſſed; either by giving him leſs Wages than another Man, when he ought rather to have greater; or by keeping back his hire beyond the time wherein it ought to be paid: For as the ancient Lawyers ſay, Minus ſolvit, qui tempore minus ſolvit; as it is obſerved by Grotius upon V James 4.
Whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy ſtrangers that are in thy Land within thy gates.] No difference was to be made between a Natural Jew, and a Proſelyte of the Gate, according to the general Law XIX Levit. 34. For ſuch oppreſſion might tempt them to do very wicked things; for inſtance, expoſe, or kill their Children, when they were not able to maintain them; after the manner of the Heathen, who were frequently guilty of this, and thought it no Crime when their Poverty conſtrained them to it. See Petrus Petitus, Lib. III. Miſcell. Obſerv. Cap. XVII. where he produces many proofs of it, both out of Greek and Roman Authors.
Verſe 15 Ver. 15. At his day thou ſhalt give him his hire.] Which was due to him, either by Contract, or by natural Equity; and whether he had agreed to ſerve him for a Day, or a Month, or a Year. At the time when his Wages was due, it was to be punctually paid, unleſs he were willing to have it remain in his hands. For this was not an Act of Mercy, but of Juſtice, to pay an Hireling his Wages.
Neither ſhall the Sun go down upon it, for he is poor.] This ſhows he ſpeaks, particularly, of one that ſerved for a days Wages, and could not forbear the payment of it, becauſe he was ſo poor, as not to be able to provide himſelf and family Neceſſaries without it.
And ſetteth his heart upon it.] Eagerly expects it, as the Support of his Life. So the Vulgar tranſlates it, with it he ſupports his Soul; that is, his Life.
Lest he cry unto the LORD.] Make grievous Complaints to him, who made both Rich and Poor.
And it be ſin unto thee.] God will hear his Cry, and ſeverely puniſh thee. See V James 4.
Ver. 16. The father ſhall not be put to death for the Verſe 16 children, neither ſhall the children be put to death for the father: every man ſhall be put to death for his own ſin.] This is a Rule of Common Reaſon, which was anciently expreſſed in this vulgar ſaying, Noxa Caput ſequitur: And is excellently expreſſed by Dion Chryſoſtom, foreign Let every Man be the Author of his own Misfortune. Which Amaziah King of Judah thought extended to the Children of Traitors, unto whom he allowed the benefit of this Law, as we read in ſo many words, 2 Kings XIV. 6. 2 Chron. XXV. 4. And not only Philo, but Dionyſ. Hallicarnaſſaeus condemns the Cuſtom of thoſe Nations, who put to death the Children of Tyrants or Traitors. See Grotius Lib. II. de Jure Belli & Pacis, Cap. XXI. Sect. XIII, XIV. where he obſerves, that God indeed threatens to viſit the ſins of the Fathers upon the Children: but in this Caſe, Jure dominij non poenae utitur, he uſes the Right of Dominion, not of Puniſhment.
Verſe 17 Ver. 17. Thou ſhalt not pervert the judgment of the ſtranger, nor of the fatherleſs.] Nor of the Widow, who is joyned with them, v. 19. For ſuch Perſons commonly had none to ſtand by them, and plead their Cauſe; and therefore the Judges were to take the greater Care to ſee them have Juſtice done, XXII Exod. 21. XXIII. 9.
Nor take the widows raiment to pledge.] Which is to be underſtood of one that is poor; as appears from v. 12. See XXII Exod. 21, 26, 27.
Verſe 18 Ver. 18. But thou ſhalt remember that thou wast a bond-man in Egypt, and the LORD redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing.] The remembrance of their own miſerable Condition in Egypt, till God took pity upon them, was to work Compaſſion in them towards others, in the like forlorn Eſtate; otherwiſe they did not remember them, as they ought. This is often urged as a Reaſon for ſhowing Mercy to Strangers, and ſuch like helpleſs Perſons; particularly in XIX Levit. 33, 34. and in this Book, X. 19, 20. XV. 15.
Ver. 19. When thou cuttest down thine harveſt in thy field, and hast forgot a ſheaf in the field, thou ſhalt not go back again to fetch it.] There are many merciful Laws about the Poor. See XIX Levit. 9, 10. XXIII. 22. They are all put together by Mr. Selden Lib. VI. de Jure Nat. & Gent. Cap. VI. where the Expoſition the Talmudists give of this Law, ſeems to me to be ſo ſtrict, that it could do little good. For they ſay a Sheaf was not taken to be forgotten, unleſs not only the Owner of the Field, but all the Labourers forgot it: and if none of them remembred it, yet if any Man that paſſed by that way, came and gave them notice of it, it was not lookt upon as left by forgetfulneſs. Yet they are ſo kind as to extend this Law, not only to Sheaves of Corn left in the Field; but to Bunches of Grapes, and other Fruit which was left behind in their Vineyards, or Orchards. And it ſeems no unreaſonable Interpretation of this Law, that if an Owner of a Field, or his Workmen, called to mind, before they were gone quite out of the Field that a Sheaf was left in ſuch a place, they might go back and fetch it; but not if they did not remember it, till they came into the City. They that would ſee more Caſes about this matter, may look into Maimonides de Donis Pauperum, tranſlated by Dr. H. Prideaux, Cap. V. and his very learned Annotations upon it. Joſephus ſeems to me to have interpreted this Law moſt charitably, Lib. IV. Archaeolog. Cap. VIII. where he ſaith they were not only not to go back to fetch what they had forgot, but to leave on purpoſe Corn, and Grapes, and Olives, &c. for the benefit of the Poor.
It ſhall be for the ſtranger, for the fatherleſs, and for the Widow.] Who are commonly put together, as proper Objects of Charity: and are (as Mr. Selden ſpeaks) a kind of Paraphraſe upon the word, Poor.
That the LORD thy God may bleſs thee in all the work of thy hand.] Make their Land ſtill very fruitful: which was a reward of their Charity.
Ver. 20. When thou beatest thine Olive-tree.] As Verſe 20 they were wont to do, in thoſe Countries, with Sticks; to bring down the Olives.
Thou ſhalt not go over the boughs again.] Not ſearch the Boughs, after they are beaten, whether any be left.
It ſhall be for the ſtranger, &c.] Who might go into the Olive-yards, after the Owner had carried out his Fruit, and gather what they found ſtill remaining on the Trees.
Verſe 21 Ver. 21. When thou gatherest the grapes of thy Vineyard, thou ſhalt not glean it afterwards.] By making a new gathering after the firſt. But if the poor themſelves left any behind, after the uſual time allowed for the gathering ſuch Fruits or Corn as were left for them, it was lawful for the Owner to take it himſelf; and he was not bound, either to pay the Poor the price of it, or to leave it for the Beaſts and the Birds. For the command is (ſay the Jewiſh Doctors, who nicely ſcan theſe things) that it ſhall be for the Poor; and that it be left for them: But not any thing given them in lieu of it. See Selden in the forenamed place, p. 699.
It ſhall be for the ſtranger, for the fatherleſs, and for the widow.] The Jewiſh Doctors, by the Stranger here mentioned, in this and the foregoing Verſes, would have only Proſelytes of Juſtice underſtood, who had intirely embraced the Jewiſh Religion: So that other Proſelytes, and meer Gentiles, had no right to theſe things. For by the Law, ſay they, concerning the Tythe for the Poor, XIV. 29. the Levite and the Stranger are put together: and the Levite being a Child of the Covenant, ſo muſt the Stranger be, who is joyned with him. But this Reſtriction confined this Charity within ſuch narrow Bounds, that they themſelves are not ſatisfied with it: and therefore they add, that though ſuch only as were within the Covenant, had a right to theſe things by the Law, yet if Proſelytes of the Gate, or meer Gentiles, mixed themſelves with the Jews, by the decree of their Wiſe-men,Chapter XXV. they were not to be hindred from gathering their ſhare in theſe Fruits of the Earth, which were left for the Poor. And they give this Reaſon for it, becauſe of the way of peace: that is, Offices of Humanity and Charity ought to be extended to all. See Selden p. 700.
Ver. 22. And thou ſhalt remember that thou wast a Verſe 22 bondman in the Land of Egypt; therefore I command thee to do this thing.] If they had been only Strangers there, and neglected by the Natives of the Country, the remembrance of God's Mercy in providing for them, had been a powerful Motive to obey this Command: and therefore the remembrance of the Slavery and grievous Oppreſſions under which they there groaned, was a far greater. See v. 18.