Deuteronomy 1 2 3a 3b 4 5 6 7a 7b 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16a 16b 17 18 19 20 21a 21b 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29a 29b 30 31 32 33 34
22:1 LO TIREH ET SHOR ACHICHA O ET SEY'O NIDACHIM VE HITALAMTA MEY HEM HASHEV TESHIVEM LE ACHICHA
לֹא תִרְאֶה אֶת שׁוֹר אָחִיךָ אוֹ אֶת שֵׂיוֹ נִדָּחִים וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ מֵהֶם הָשֵׁב תְּשִׁיבֵם לְאָחִיךָ
BN (BibleNet translation): You shall not witness your kinsman's ox or his sheep being led astray, and pretend you haven't noticed; it is your responsibility to bring them back to your kinsman.
I have translated ACHICHA as "kinsman" rather than "brother"; the next verse makes clear that the wider context is intended. "Kinsman" could also be "clansman" or even "tribesman"; this verse is important for our understanding of the term ACH as the same issue recurs on a number of occasions.
NIDACHIM: Two remarkably similar roots in Yehudit, one with with a Hey (נדה), the other, the one here, with a Chet (נדח). The former would allow the ox or sheep simply to have wandered off and gone stray; though presumably the same responsibility would apply. But this is the latter, and based on its other usages (Deuteronomy 19:5, 2 Samuel 14:14, Jeremiah 40:12, a dozen others) there has to be another human hand involved, and the animal is not going of its own accord.
HITALAMTA: The root ALAM meaning "to conceal", but in the Hitpa'el or reflective form. This is not even HISTIR PANAV, which is "turning a blind eye", but much stronger, a self-willed decision to ignore, and it leads to one of the key, one of the truly historic facts of this Torah, regardless of whether it was written by the deity or Mosheh or Ezra or whoever or whenever: that it does not simply provide a set of Prohibitions, which is what most laws are there to do, nor does it offer what the 20th century regarded as one of its great achievements, a Charter of Self-Entitlements which is euphemistically called a Charter of Human Rights, but the fundamental necessity of a successful society, which is a Charter of Human Responsibilities.
22:2 VE IM LO KAROV ACHICHA ELEYCHA VE LO YEDATO VA ASAPHTO EL TOCH BEITECHA VE HAYAH IM'CHA AD DEROSH ACHICHA OTO VA HASHEVOTO LO
KJ: And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again.
BN: And if your kinsman does not live near you, or you do not even know him, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall remain with you until your kinsman asks for it, at which time you shall give it back to him.
Though you would be well advised to let people know you have found it and are keeping it on that principle, lest you get accused of stealing it at some later point; and when the kinsman turns up to claim it, make sure there is a "fingerprint" that can be used to confirm that it really was his in the first place.
22:2 VE IM LO KAROV ACHICHA ELEYCHA VE LO YEDATO VA ASAPHTO EL TOCH BEITECHA VE HAYAH IM'CHA AD DEROSH ACHICHA OTO VA HASHEVOTO LO
וְאִם לֹא קָרוֹב אָחִיךָ אֵלֶיךָ וְלֹא יְדַעְתּוֹ וַאֲסַפְתּוֹ אֶל תּוֹךְ בֵּיתֶךָ וְהָיָה עִמְּךָ עַד דְּרֹשׁ אָחִיךָ אֹתוֹ וַהֲשֵׁבֹתוֹ לוֹ
KJ: And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it unto thine own house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again.
BN: And if your kinsman does not live near you, or you do not even know him, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall remain with you until your kinsman asks for it, at which time you shall give it back to him.
Though you would be well advised to let people know you have found it and are keeping it on that principle, lest you get accused of stealing it at some later point; and when the kinsman turns up to claim it, make sure there is a "fingerprint" that can be used to confirm that it really was his in the first place.
22:3 VE CHEN TA'ASEH LA CHAMORO VE CHEN TA'ASEH LE SIMLATO VE CHEN TA'ASEH LE CHOL AVEDAT ACHICHA ASHER TOVAD MIMENU U METSATAM LO TUCHAL LEHIT'ALEM
וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה לַחֲמֹרוֹ וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְשִׂמְלָתוֹ וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְכָל אֲבֵדַת אָחִיךָ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאבַד מִמֶּנּוּ וּמְצָאתָהּ לֹא תוּכַל לְהִתְעַלֵּם
BN: Thus shall you do with his ass as well; and thus shall you do with his garment; and thus shall you do with every lost possession of your kinsman, which he has lost, and you have found; you may not conceal yourself.
LO TUCHAL LEHIT'ALEM: The literal translation, which KJ offers, is somewhat ambiguous: "you may not conceal yourself" suggests pretending to be out when the seeker knocks on your door, and this would only apply if you were trying to personalise the booty. But that is not the intention here. Rather, as above, it is a re-statement of "Personal Responsibility", which in the end is what makes this Torah different from any other law code ever written.
Interestingly the law does not require you to seek out the owner; you only have to give it back if he finds out that you have it. And presumably, if it is a milking beast, you have the right to take its milk, and even put it to the male, and produce offspring, which are counted as yours; or use it as a stud-animal for your own flock or herd if the stray is male.
samech break
22:4 LO TIREH ET CHAMOR ACHICHA O SHORO NOPHLIM BA DERECH VE HITALAMTA MEY HEM HAKEM TAKIM IMO
לֹא תִרְאֶה אֶת חֲמוֹר אָחִיךָ אוֹ שׁוֹרוֹ נֹפְלִים בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ מֵהֶם הָקֵם תָּקִים עִמּוֹ
BN: You shall not witness your kinsman's ass or his fallen down on the road, and pretend you haven't noticed; it is your responsibility to help him get them on their feet again.
samech break
22:5 LO YIHEYEH CHELI GEVER AL ISHAH VE LO YILBASH GEVER SIMLAT ISHAH KI TO'AVAT YHVH ELOHEYCHA KOL OSEH ELEH
לֹא יִהְיֶה כְלִי גֶבֶר עַל אִשָּׁה וְלֹא יִלְבַּשׁ גֶּבֶר שִׂמְלַת אִשָּׁה כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כָּל עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה
KJ: The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
BN: Male clothing may not be worn by women, nor may a man put on a woman's skirt; for all who do that are an abomination to Elohim.
pey break
22:6 KI YIKAR'E KAN TSIPUR LEPHANEYCHA BA DERECH BE CHOL ETS O AL HA ARETS EPHROCHIM O VEYTSIM VE HA EM ROVETSET AL HA EPHROCHIM O AL HA BEYTSIM LO TIKACH HA EM AL HA BANIM
כִּי יִקָּרֵא קַן צִפּוֹר לְפָנֶיךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּכָל עֵץ אוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ אֶפְרֹחִים אוֹ בֵיצִים וְהָאֵם רֹבֶצֶת עַל הָאֶפְרֹחִים אוֹ עַל הַבֵּיצִים לֹא תִקַּח הָאֵם עַל הַבָּנִים
KJ: If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young:
BN: If you happen to find a bird's nest as you walk along the road, whether in a tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the mother is sitting on the young, or on the eggs, you may not take the mother with the young.
But you are free to take her young from under her! And of course, if you are running, say, a chicken farm, and you have ten thousand hens laying an egg a day in nesting boxes...
Compare ROVETSET here with MERACHEPHET in Genesis 1:2, and also the law (Exodus 23:19, 34:26, Deuteronomy 14:21) about not seething a goat in its mother's milk. Apparently human can bestow rights and privileges upon animals too, and accept responsibility towards Nature.
22:7 SHALEYACH TESHALACH ET HA EM VE ET HA BANIM TIKACH LACH LEMA'AN YIYTAV LACH VE HA'ARACHTA YAMIM
שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם וְאֶת הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח לָךְ לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ וְהַאֲרַכְתָּ יָמִים
KJ: But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.
BN: You are bound and obligated to let the mother go, though you may take the young for yourself; that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days.
samech break
22:8 KI TIVNEH BAYIT CHADASH VE ASITA MA'AKEH LE GAGECHA VE LO TASIM DAMIM BE VEITECHA KI YIPOL HA NOPHEL MIMENU
כִּי תִבְנֶה בַּיִת חָדָשׁ וְעָשִׂיתָ מַעֲקֶה לְגַגֶּךָ וְלֹא תָשִׂים דָּמִים בְּבֵיתֶךָ כִּי יִפֹּל הַנֹּפֵל מִמֶּנּוּ
KJ: When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.
BN: When you build a new house, then you must make a parapet for your roof, so that you bring no blood on your house if any man should fall from there.
Zoning laws, building regulations, circa 1300 BCE!
22:9 LO TIZRA KARMECHA KILAYIM PEN TIKDASH HA MELEYAH HA ZERA ASHER TIZRA U TEVU'AT HA KAREM
לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאָיִם פֶּן תִּקְדַּשׁ הַמְלֵאָה הַזֶּרַע אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרָע וּתְבוּאַת הַכָּרֶם
KJ: Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.
BN: You may not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed; lest the fulness of the seed which you have sown be forfeited together with the increase of the vineyard.
Is this a variation of sha'atnez (for which see Leviticus 19:19), or about adding new matter to the universe, or about the quality of the fruit? The second half of the verse tells us it is the latter (though sha'atnez could still be the reason); and if it is the latter, should it not then lead on to laws prohibiting cuvée wines? If it is the second option, then it precludes most of the known roses in the world (roses, not rosées), which are all hybrids and crossbreeds, as well as most of the pedigree dogs and horses, all sheep, even before Ya'akov (Jacob) introduced genetic modification (Genesis 30), as well as nectarine, grapefruit, and those cute cherry tomatoes which should be boycotted anyway because they were developed, puh puh puh, in Israel!
samech break
22:10 LO TACHAROSH BE SHOR U VA CHAMOR YACHDAV
לֹא תַחֲרֹשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וּבַחֲמֹר יַחְדָּו
KJ: Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.
BN: You may not plough with an ox and an ass together.
Another kind of sha'atnez.
22:11 LO TILBACH SHA'ATNEZ TSEMER U PHISHTIM YACHDAV
לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים יַחְדָּו
BN: You may not wear mingled cloths, wool and linen together.
SHA'ATNEZ: I might have have written it as "shatnes" until now, because that is how it has been written in English, and is the phonetic for the way it has been said in Hebrew and Yiddish, for centuries. This verse gives it in its correct Yehudit spelling, and it is SHA'ATNEZ. Clearly it was not a Yehudit word originally: the four-letter root, the Tet (ט) where we would expect a Tav (ת), the final Zayin (ז) - so where does it come from, and why is this mingling of natural products such anathema? No one knows; any more than, ultimately, we have the feintest idea why. Reduction of the quality of the crop is the explanation given at verse 9; but that can't explain verse 10 or verse 11.
samech break
22:12 GEDILIM TA'ASEH LACH AL ARBA KANPHOT KESUT'CHA ASHER TECHASEH VAH
גְּדִלִים תַּעֲשֶׂה לָּךְ עַל אַרְבַּע כַּנְפוֹת כְּסוּתְךָ אֲשֶׁר תְּכַסֶּה בָּהּ
BN: You shall make for yourselves twisted cords, on the four corners of your garments with which you clothe yourself.
Note that this does not actually use the word TSITS OR TSITSIT. It says GEDILIM, whose root will have surprised you: yes, it is the same root that yields GADOL = "large". How can that be? In the Pu'al form it yields the verb "to twist" or "tie", and presumably, when this is done, the result is something larger than it had been before, and so GADOL comes to mean "large". But still not fringes.
Nor is any reason offered for doing this.
22:13 KI YIKACH ISH ISHAH U VA ELEYHA U SENEY'AH
כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבָא אֵלֶיהָ וּשְׂנֵאָהּ
BN: If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and hates her...
Once again, the order of these laws makes no sense; we dealt with men hating their wives in the last chapter, and now it is here in the midst of Sha'atnez. And without a pey or samech break to make a separation.
22:14 VE SAM LAH ALILOT DEVARIM VE HOTSI ALEYHA SHEM RA VE AMAR ET HA ISHAH HA ZOT LAKACHTI VE EKRAV ELEYHA VE LO MATSATI LAH BETULIM
וְשָׂם לָהּ עֲלִילֹת דְּבָרִים וְהוֹצִא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם רָע וְאָמַר אֶת הָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת לָקַחְתִּי וָאֶקְרַב אֵלֶיהָ וְלֹא מָצָאתִי לָהּ בְּתוּלִים
KJ: And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
BN: And he lays wanton charges against her, which causes her to have a bad reputation, and says: "I took this woman, but when I approached her, I found no proof of her virginity...
There is a world of difference between "wanton charges", which is the standard translation, and "charges of wantonness", which is what this verse intends (her not being virgin, you see, how do I know if that meant she got raped by one man, or seduced by three, or went orgiastically partying twice-weekly, or earned a living as a prostitute...); though in fact the following verse clarifies the matter, and it really should read "wanton charges of wantonness": the real point not being whether she is wanton or not, but whether his allegations are sincere or not.
22:15 VE LAKACH AVI HA NA'ARA VE IMAH VE HOTSI'U ET BETULEY HA NA'AR EL ZIKNEY HA IR HA SHA'ERAH
וְלָקַח אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָ וְאִמָּהּ וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת בְּתוּלֵי הַנַּעֲרָ אֶל זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הַשָּׁעְרָה
BN: Then the father of the young woman, and her mother, shall gather up the proofs of the damsel's virginity, and bring them out to the elders in the city gate.
HA NA'ARA, and HA NA'AR, should both be NA'ARAH (נערה), with a final Hey (ה) as in verse 19. All texts that I have checked have the same errors; many commentaries and translations (see here for example) likewise note it.
BETULEY: And is there not something very fundamentally awry in a world where the parents have to keep the soiled bedsheet in storage, just in case the husband wants to lodge a false claim later on?
22:16 VE AMAR AVI HA NA'ARA EL HA ZEKEYNIM ET BITI NATATI LA ISH HA ZEH LE ISHAH VE YISNA'EYHA
KJ: And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
BN: And the young woman's father shall say to the elders: "I gave my daughter to this man as his wife, and now he hates her...
22:17 VE HINEH HU SAM ALILOT DEVARIM LEMOR LO MATSATI LE VIT'CHA BETULIM VE ELEH BETULEY VITI U PHARSHU HA SIMLAH LIPHNEY ZIKNEY HA IR
KJ: And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
BN: "And now he has laid wanton charges against her, saying: 'I did not find in your daughter the proofs of virginity'. And yet these are the proofs of my daughter's virginity." And they shall spread the bedsheet before the elders of the city.
How does this work in practice? Many societies to this day (click here for an example) have traditions and customs for dealing with this.
22:18 VE LAK'CHU ZIKNEY HA IR HA HI ET HA ISH VE YISRU OTO
KJ: And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
BN: And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him.
22:19 VE ANSHU OTO ME'AH CHESEPH VE NATNU LA AVI HA NA'ARAH KI HOTSI SHEM RA AL BETULAT YISRA-EL VE LO TIHEYEH LE ISHAH LO YUCHAL LESHALCHAH KOL YAMAV
KJ: And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
BN: And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad reputation upon a virgin of Yisra-El. And she shall remain his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
I have issues with this. If she were not a virgin, as per two verses below, they will stone her to death; so why does he get off so lightly? And why is her virginity so important, but not his?
But the sociology of this is immense; the status of women. We would think she would want an immediate divorce as well as the damages; but the proof of her having been a virgin is also proof that she is no longer is a virgin, and so she will never be allowed to remarry until the man dies, and only then under the law of the Levir (see Deuteronomy 25:5-6). Nor is his being forced to stay married to her a burden (to him), other than perhaps financially, because he can take other wives and simply keep her on as a serviceable concubine, a maid, an ornament, a souvenir; a piece of property.
samech break
22:20 VE IM EMET HAYAH HA DAVAR HA ZEH LO NIMTSE'U VETULIM LA NA'ARA
KJ: But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
BN: But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman...
I hate to put this quite so crudely, but, assuming the parents failed to keep the soiled bedsheet, or perhaps she didn't bleed, is the idea here that someone will conduct a physical virginity check? Did they have trained medics in those days, or was some random person (female hopefully!) appointed by the elders? And how will this "prove" the matter anyway? Girls who ride horses will tell you how the hymen is perfectly capable of breaking open without sexual intercourse.
22:21 VE HOTSI'U ET HA NA'ARA EL PETACH BEIT AVIHA U SEKALUHA ANSHEY IRAH BA AVANIM VA METAH KI ASTAH NEVALAH BE YISRA-EL LIZNOT BEIT AVIHA U VI'ARTA HA RA MI KIRBECHA
Definitions of evil: it could be argued that stoning two people to death for having an affair may itself be the introduction of evil into Yisra-El.
samech break
22:23 KI YIHEYEH NA'ARA VETULAH ME'ORASAH LE ISH U METSA'AH ISH BA IR VE SHACHAV IMAH
KJ: If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
BN: If there be a young woman who is a virgin, and she is betrothed to a man, and another man finds her in the city, and lies with her...
Does this then not apply if he finds her in the country? My question is absurd, I know, but so is the statement. Why mention the city if the law is universal?
22:24 VE HOTSEYTEM ET SHENEYHEM EL SHA'AR HA IR HA HI VE SEKALTEM OTAM BA AVANIM VA METU ET HA NA'ARA AL DEVAR ASHER LO TSA'AKAH VA IR VE ET HA ISH AL DEVAR ASHER INAH ET ESHET RE'EYHU U VI'ARTA HA RA MI KIRBECHA
KJ: Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
BN: Then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones until they die: the damsel, because she did not cry, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbour's wife; so you shall put away the evil from your midst.
The inference is rape, and this may is why the city is different from the country; in the country, even if she did scream, it might have gone unheard; but in the city, surely someone would have heard and could either come to help or at least bear witness in court. This also assumes that the rapist hasn't prevented the woman from screaming. Contemporary evidence, based on the number of rape allegations left unprosecuted by the police for lack of witnesses in a "his word against her word" conflict, is that this law is completely useless as a protection of women or a deterrent of men.
samech break
22:25 VE IM BA SADEH YIMTSA HA ISH ET HA NA'ARA HA ME'ORASAH VE HECHEZIK BAH HA ISH VE SHACHAV IMAH U MET HA ISH ASHER SHACHAV IMAH LEVADO
KJ: But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
BN: But if the man find the young woman who is betrothed in the field, and the man takes hold of her, and rapes her; then only the man who raped her shall die.
22:16 VE AMAR AVI HA NA'ARA EL HA ZEKEYNIM ET BITI NATATI LA ISH HA ZEH LE ISHAH VE YISNA'EYHA
וְאָמַר אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָ אֶל הַזְּקֵנִים אֶת בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה לְאִשָּׁה וַיִּשְׂנָאֶהָ
BN: And the young woman's father shall say to the elders: "I gave my daughter to this man as his wife, and now he hates her...
22:17 VE HINEH HU SAM ALILOT DEVARIM LEMOR LO MATSATI LE VIT'CHA BETULIM VE ELEH BETULEY VITI U PHARSHU HA SIMLAH LIPHNEY ZIKNEY HA IR
וְהִנֵּה הוּא שָׂם עֲלִילֹת דְּבָרִים לֵאמֹר לֹא מָצָאתִי לְבִתְּךָ בְּתוּלִים וְאֵלֶּה בְּתוּלֵי בִתִּי וּפָרְשׂוּ הַשִּׂמְלָה לִפְנֵי זִקְנֵי הָעִיר
BN: "And now he has laid wanton charges against her, saying: 'I did not find in your daughter the proofs of virginity'. And yet these are the proofs of my daughter's virginity." And they shall spread the bedsheet before the elders of the city.
How does this work in practice? Many societies to this day (click here for an example) have traditions and customs for dealing with this.
22:18 VE LAK'CHU ZIKNEY HA IR HA HI ET HA ISH VE YISRU OTO
וְלָקְחוּ זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הַהִוא אֶת הָאִישׁ וְיִסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ
BN: And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him.
22:19 VE ANSHU OTO ME'AH CHESEPH VE NATNU LA AVI HA NA'ARAH KI HOTSI SHEM RA AL BETULAT YISRA-EL VE LO TIHEYEH LE ISHAH LO YUCHAL LESHALCHAH KOL YAMAV
וְעָנְשׁוּ אֹתוֹ מֵאָה כֶסֶף וְנָתְנוּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה כִּי הוֹצִיא שֵׁם רָע עַל בְּתוּלַת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה לֹא יוּכַל לְשַׁלְּחָהּ כָּל יָמָיו
KJ: And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
BN: And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad reputation upon a virgin of Yisra-El. And she shall remain his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
I have issues with this. If she were not a virgin, as per two verses below, they will stone her to death; so why does he get off so lightly? And why is her virginity so important, but not his?
But the sociology of this is immense; the status of women. We would think she would want an immediate divorce as well as the damages; but the proof of her having been a virgin is also proof that she is no longer is a virgin, and so she will never be allowed to remarry until the man dies, and only then under the law of the Levir (see Deuteronomy 25:5-6). Nor is his being forced to stay married to her a burden (to him), other than perhaps financially, because he can take other wives and simply keep her on as a serviceable concubine, a maid, an ornament, a souvenir; a piece of property.
samech break
22:20 VE IM EMET HAYAH HA DAVAR HA ZEH LO NIMTSE'U VETULIM LA NA'ARA
וְאִם אֱמֶת הָיָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לֹא נִמְצְאוּ בְתוּלִים לַנַּעֲרָ
KJ: But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
BN: But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman...
I hate to put this quite so crudely, but, assuming the parents failed to keep the soiled bedsheet, or perhaps she didn't bleed, is the idea here that someone will conduct a physical virginity check? Did they have trained medics in those days, or was some random person (female hopefully!) appointed by the elders? And how will this "prove" the matter anyway? Girls who ride horses will tell you how the hymen is perfectly capable of breaking open without sexual intercourse.
22:21 VE HOTSI'U ET HA NA'ARA EL PETACH BEIT AVIHA U SEKALUHA ANSHEY IRAH BA AVANIM VA METAH KI ASTAH NEVALAH BE YISRA-EL LIZNOT BEIT AVIHA U VI'ARTA HA RA MI KIRBECHA
וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת הַנַּעֲרָ אֶל פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ וּסְקָלוּהָ אַנְשֵׁי עִירָהּ בָּאֲבָנִים וָמֵתָה כִּי עָשְׂתָה נְבָלָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לִזְנוֹת בֵּית אָבִיהָ וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ
KJ: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
BN: Then they shall bring the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones until she is dead, because she has wrought a wanton deed in Yisra-El, playing the harlot in her father's house; so shall you put away the evil from your midst.
U SEKULAH: Once again the barbarism alongside the humanism. I only keep mentioning it because, according to the orthodox at least, these laws still apply today, and we are required to keep them. All of them, not just the ones we are still comfortable with.
LIZNOT: Any girl or woman who has sex with a man, before marriage (or outside marriage, but this verse does not tell us that), even if it's a loving affair with a boy-friend, is, by this definition, a whore. ZONAH is the noun. We need to keep this verse in mind when the same word is used in many different contexts.
Note that the man who had relations with her does not even get censured. Perhaps he seduced her; perhaps he raped her; it doesn't matter; the man can do as he pleases, unless the woman in question is a blood-relative or someone else's wife (see next verse).
samech break
22:22 KI YIMATS'E ISH SHOCHEV IM ISHAH VE'ULAT-BA'AL U METU GAM SHENEYHEM HA ISH HA SHOCHEV IM HA ISHAH VE HA ISHAH U VI'ARTA HA RA MI YISRA-EL
LIZNOT: Any girl or woman who has sex with a man, before marriage (or outside marriage, but this verse does not tell us that), even if it's a loving affair with a boy-friend, is, by this definition, a whore. ZONAH is the noun. We need to keep this verse in mind when the same word is used in many different contexts.
Note that the man who had relations with her does not even get censured. Perhaps he seduced her; perhaps he raped her; it doesn't matter; the man can do as he pleases, unless the woman in question is a blood-relative or someone else's wife (see next verse).
samech break
22:22 KI YIMATS'E ISH SHOCHEV IM ISHAH VE'ULAT-BA'AL U METU GAM SHENEYHEM HA ISH HA SHOCHEV IM HA ISHAH VE HA ISHAH U VI'ARTA HA RA MI YISRA-EL
כִּי יִמָּצֵא אִישׁ שֹׁכֵב עִם אִשָּׁה בְעֻלַת בַּעַל וּמֵתוּ גַּם שְׁנֵיהֶם הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִם הָאִשָּׁה וְהָאִשָּׁה וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל
KJ: If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
BN: If a man be found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; thus shall you put away the evil from Yisra-El.
BN: If a man be found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; thus shall you put away the evil from Yisra-El.
Definitions of evil: it could be argued that stoning two people to death for having an affair may itself be the introduction of evil into Yisra-El.
samech break
22:23 KI YIHEYEH NA'ARA VETULAH ME'ORASAH LE ISH U METSA'AH ISH BA IR VE SHACHAV IMAH
כִּי יִהְיֶה נַעֲרָ בְתוּלָה מְאֹרָשָׂה לְאִישׁ וּמְצָאָהּ אִישׁ בָּעִיר וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ
BN: If there be a young woman who is a virgin, and she is betrothed to a man, and another man finds her in the city, and lies with her...
Does this then not apply if he finds her in the country? My question is absurd, I know, but so is the statement. Why mention the city if the law is universal?
22:24 VE HOTSEYTEM ET SHENEYHEM EL SHA'AR HA IR HA HI VE SEKALTEM OTAM BA AVANIM VA METU ET HA NA'ARA AL DEVAR ASHER LO TSA'AKAH VA IR VE ET HA ISH AL DEVAR ASHER INAH ET ESHET RE'EYHU U VI'ARTA HA RA MI KIRBECHA
וְהוֹצֵאתֶם אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם אֶל שַׁעַר הָעִיר הַהִוא וּסְקַלְתֶּם אֹתָם בָּאֲבָנִים וָמֵתוּ אֶת הַנַּעֲרָ עַל דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר לֹא צָעֲקָה בָעִיר וְאֶת הָאִישׁ עַל דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר עִנָּה אֶת אֵשֶׁת רֵעֵהוּ וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ
KJ: Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
BN: Then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones until they die: the damsel, because she did not cry, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbour's wife; so you shall put away the evil from your midst.
The inference is rape, and this may is why the city is different from the country; in the country, even if she did scream, it might have gone unheard; but in the city, surely someone would have heard and could either come to help or at least bear witness in court. This also assumes that the rapist hasn't prevented the woman from screaming. Contemporary evidence, based on the number of rape allegations left unprosecuted by the police for lack of witnesses in a "his word against her word" conflict, is that this law is completely useless as a protection of women or a deterrent of men.
samech break
וְאִם בַּשָּׂדֶה יִמְצָא הָאִישׁ אֶת הַנַּעֲרָ הַמְאֹרָשָׂה וְהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ הָאִישׁ וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ וּמֵת הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר שָׁכַב עִמָּהּ לְבַדּוֹ
KJ: But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
BN: But if the man find the young woman who is betrothed in the field, and the man takes hold of her, and rapes her; then only the man who raped her shall die.
HECHEZIK...SHACHAV: The language here is circuitous and imprecise, but the reality is clear anyway, and I have translated it as such. A distinction is being made between "consensual" and "coerced", though this way round does also allow the woman to lay false allegations against a man.
22:26 VE LA NA'ARA LO TA'ASEH DAVAR EYN LA NA'ARA CHET MAVET KI KA ASHER YAKUM ISH AL RE'EYHU U RETSACHO NEPHESH KEN HA DAVAR HA ZEH
וְלַנַּעֲרָ לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה דָבָר אֵין לַנַּעֲרָ חֵטְא מָוֶת כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר יָקוּם אִישׁ עַל רֵעֵהוּ וּרְצָחוֹ נֶפֶשׁ כֵּן הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה
BN: But nothing shall be done to the young woman, because the young woman has cmmitted no sin that is worthy of death; just as when a man stands up to defend himself against another man, and kills him in so doing, so it is in this case.
With one qualification that has not been dealt with. What if the woman claims rape, but the man refutes it, perhaps even claims that she seduced him? There are no witnesses, so we are back at my note to verse 24, only from his side now, not hers. How does this correlate with other laws?
22:27 KI VA SADEH METSA'AH TSA'AKAH HA NA'ARA HA ME'ORASAH VE EYN MOSHI'A LAH
כִּי בַשָּׂדֶה מְצָאָהּ צָעֲקָה הַנַּעֲרָ הַמְאֹרָשָׂה וְאֵין מוֹשִׁיעַ לָהּ
BN: For he found her in the field; the young woman who was betrothed cried out, but there was no one there to save her.
How do we know that she cried out?. Maybe she was "whoring" in the field too? Throughout this chapter we are being given laws that are hopelessly summary and ill-considered, filled with loopholes and unverifiable assumptions. If they were human laws, written by Mosheh or Ezra, we would simply note the flaws and move to improve them; but they are (claimed to be) written by the deity, immutable for all time, and not only are his laws badly flawed, but they serve as evidence against his omnipotence, almightyhood and higher wisdom too. Who can believe in such a deity?
ME'ORASAH: And why does there appear to be a difference because she was betrothed? Go back to my parenthesis at verse 14, which you probably thought was me being ridiculous, but which absolutely applies here - the man gets engaged to a woman, assuming her to be a virgin, then marries her and discovers she isn't... surely the law should apply to any woman, and her being or not being betrothed should have no relevance?
samech break
22:28 KI YIMTSA ISH NA'ARA VETULAH ASHER LO ORASAH U TEPHASAH VE SHACHAV IMAH VE NIMTSA'U
KJ: If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
BN: If a man finds a damsel who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and takes hold of her, and rapes her, and it be discovered...
Which answers my question in the last verse. This has nothing to do with her at all. This is not sexual legislation, nor is it about the rights of women. This is property law. What applies to a house, or a cart, or a piece of clothing, or an item of jewelery, or a donkey... or a woman... her status as property: who receives the damages, her father or her fiancé?
samech break
22:28 KI YIMTSA ISH NA'ARA VETULAH ASHER LO ORASAH U TEPHASAH VE SHACHAV IMAH VE NIMTSA'U
כִּי יִמְצָא אִישׁ נַעֲרָ בְתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֹרָשָׂה וּתְפָשָׂהּ וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ וְנִמְצָאוּ
BN: If a man finds a damsel who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and takes hold of her, and rapes her, and it be discovered...
Which answers my question in the last verse. This has nothing to do with her at all. This is not sexual legislation, nor is it about the rights of women. This is property law. What applies to a house, or a cart, or a piece of clothing, or an item of jewelery, or a donkey... or a woman... her status as property: who receives the damages, her father or her fiancé?
22:29 VE NATAN HA ISH HA SHOCHEV IMAH LA AVI HA NA'ARA CHAMISHIM KASEPH VE LO TIHEYEH LE ISHAH TACHAT ASHER INAH LO YUCHAL SHALCHAH KIL YAMAV
וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִמָּהּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָ חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף וְלוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנָּהּ לֹא יוּכַל שַׁלְּחָהּ כָּל יָמָיו
BN: Then the man who lay with her shall give the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.
So he has acquired her, like a new breeding-cow, like a new hen. And she, raped by him once in a field, will now be legally raped by him any time he pleases for the remainder of her life (until he comes to hate her for her lack of satisfactory sensual response, for which see verse 13, above).
And it may well be, based on verse 13 and all the rest of this, that this is actually better for her in that world than any of the alternatives. Islam in the Qur'an takes exactly the same position.
samech break
The King James version now has a verse 30, which is chapter 23, verse 1 in most other versions. The English text reads "A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt." I have included it fully in the next chapter.
Deuteronomy 1 2 3a 3b 4 5 6 7a 7b 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16a 16b 17 18 19 20 21a 21b 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29a 29b 30 31 32 33 34
Copyright © 2021 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment