Deuteronomy 22:8-23:25 Chavurah Shalom Shabbat 8/4/18

22:8 The Parapet Deuteronomy 22:8 “When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you will not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone falls from it. This mitzvot is for a guard-rail, or parapet, to be built around the edge of a roof or balcony. In the ANE, most houses were built with a flat roof and utilized for various purposes: the drying and storing of produce, socializing, and even sleeping in warm weather. In the case of King David and Bathsheba, the roof was also used for bathing. This open area could provide a gathering area for family and friends, or as a place to stay for hospitality to travelers. It was therefore imperative that safety from falling be provided. A home owner who did not make such provision, was liable for the injury or death of anyone who fell from his roof, hence the phrase "bring bloodguilt on your house." Negligence in this matter would be considered equal to homicide. This law is comparable to Exodus 21:33–34, which holds a person responsible if an animal falls into a pit he has left uncovered. Halakhic literature sees it as an example of an obligation to block or remove anything on one’s property that is capable of causing death, such as a pit, a faulty ladder, or a vicious dog; and to personally avoid potentially harmful food and drink and other risky practices. It has recently been argued that the principle underlying this obligation would support a ban against smoking. When you build a new house According to the halakhah, one must also build a parapet if he acquires an old house that lacks one, and a blessing is to be recited when building it. The Sages ruled that the parapet should be a minimum of 10 handbreaths tall (approximately 30 inches), and strong enough not to collapse is someone were to lean upon it.--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 201. Illustrations of the use of the flat roof are found at Joshua 2:6; Judges 16:27; 1 Samuel 9:25-26; 2 Samuel 11:2; 16:22; Jeremiah 19:13; Zephaniah 1:5; Matthew 24:17; Acts 10:9. Some of these passages reveal that both false worship and true worship of God were both expressed at times on the rooftops of their homes. It would appear to be a place fixed for the daily prayers in the case of

- 1 - Sh'mon Kefa in Acts 10:9. 22:9-11 Forbidden Mixtures Deuteronomy 22:9 “You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, or all the produce of the seed which you have sown and the increase of the vineyard will become defiled. 10 “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. 11 “You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together. These same mixtures are mentioned at Leviticus 19:19. The halachic ruling of the Sages concerning these mitzvot are found in the Mishnah tractate Kil'ayim, "two kinds." The first, v. 9, prohibits the sowing of two kinds of seed in a vineyard. The restriction at Leviticus 19:19 is the sowing of a field with two kinds of seed. Josephus and R. Jonathan both understood this to mean grapes and one other kind of seed. R. Josiah however, understood this to mean two kinds of seed in addition to the grapes. The Sages understood this to mean that one is permitted to sow one ground crop between rows of grapevines, but not two. Grapevines are most often not planted, but are grafts from existing vines. Mixing of crops in the same field (“mixed cropping” or “intercropping”) is practiced in many places, especially in areas of subsistence farming and where arable land is scarce. Although mixed cropping is less efficient, for the purpose of harvesting, than growing each crop in a separate field, it enables different species of plants to benefit from the nutrients given off by each other and can thereby increase the yield of all species in the field. It also spreads the risk of crop failure in case of a shortage of water, since different plants require less water than others do. Also, because pests and diseases attack specific plants and not others, the entire field is not at risk in the case of these dangers. These protective benefits are not entirely eliminated by the present law: the replenishing of depleted nutrients can be accomplished by crop rotation, the Sages ruled that crops were sufficiently separated if they did not draw sustenance from each other and the separation was visible. The reason for the prohibition of mixed cropping is not clear. Since it is not a method of hybridization, the practice does not undermine the species distinctions established at creation. Nevertheless, mixing of plant seed may have been

- 2 - regarded as sufficiently similar to the mixing of animal seed that they seemed analogous. Ramban’s explanation may well express the reasoning of the Torah: “The nature and form [of the mixed seeds] are modified by their drawing nourishment from each other, and it is as if each resultant grain is composed of two species.” may not be used - Hebrew tikdash, literally, “become sacrosanct.” This probably means that the crop will become forbidden for use. According to the halakhah, it must be burnt.--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 202. to ,קַָדַ שׁ ,This is an interesting interpretation, for the word is our familiar kadash make holy, to consecrate. In this case, it means it is not for ordinary use by man, but is only for God. Since it is a negative commandment, it is understood that it must be destroyed. This is particularly difficult since the process here is not to produce a new crop, it is not cross-breeding, not modifying the plant in any way. The second prohibition is that of yoking an ox and a donkey. The stronger one might exhaust the weaker one. Additionally we would note that the ox was a clean animal and the donkey was unclean. The Creator continues to show His concern for the animals. Paul uses this concept in 1 Corinthians 9:9; 1 Timothy 5:18. Paul uses this picture to speak of caring for the leadership of the local synagogue/ congregation. A third prohibition, is wearing of a garment in which wool and linen are woven together. It is interesting that is does not forbid the making of such cloth, but forbids the wearing of such material. The Hebrew literally reads, "You shall not wear sha'atnez," which appears to be a loanword from Egypt made up of two words, "to weave" and "to thread." It is used elsewhere in the Tanach only in Leviticus 19:19. The common Jewish way of understanding is that what is said in general in Leviticus 19:19 is now specified in Deuteronomy 22:11, "don't wear a garment made of a mixture of wool and linen." Pairing wool and linen made for a stronger fabric; fragments of such fabric have been unearthed at the site of Kuntillet Ajrud in the Sinai Peninsula, where religiously heterodox inscriptions in Hebrew were also found, along with inscriptions in other languages.--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 203. Josephus (Antiquities 4.208) suggests this prohibition relates to those things pertaining to the High Priest which was not to be used by the common people. In Exodus 39:8, the High Priest wears garments woven of wool and linen. The status

- 3 - of such garments is thus comparable to that of the sacred anointing oil and the incense that is used in the sanctuary and may not be made or used by laypersons, as stated in Exodus 30:22–37. The very next section deals with Tzitzit, which were made of white linen threads combined with wool threads dyed blue or teichelet. Since these threads are not a garment, they do not violate the prohibition of mixtures. Yet in combining the two substances, the common Israelite wore something that symbolically connect to the Ephod of the High Priest. Since the tzitzit were to remind you of the commandments so that you would do them, the combination of linen and wool reinforced the fact that obedience to God required the service and duties of the High Priest. As a kingdom of priests, Israel's life revolved around the Mishkan/ Temple where God's way of atonement was constantly displayed in the priestly service and sacrifices.--Hegg, Parashah 143, p. 2. 22:12 Tassels on Garments Deuteronomy 22:12 “You shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of your garment with which you cover yourself. The more detailed instructions for the tzitzit are found in Numbers 15:37-41. In our present text the Hebrew word is g'dilim, from gadil, used only here and in 1 Kings 7:17. In the 1 Kings passage it describes the "wreaths of chain work" on the captials of the courtyard of King Solomon's Temple. The Kairites have understood this to mean that the tzitzit is to be made in a twisted or braided fashion. The Sages regarded the wrapping of the teichelet and the tying of knots as complying with the words of our text. The only other place tzitzit is found is at Ezekiel 8:3, where it refers to Ezekiel being picked up by the tzitzit of his head and carried away in a vision in the Spirit to Jerusalem. Thus we get the picture of a "tuft" or a "strand." The most normal interpretation is that of "tassels." The specific commandment of Deuteronomy is that the tassels be attached to "the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself." In the ancient times, this was the ordinary and primary outer garment which was worn all day. Many identify the Middle Ages or the Medieval Times as the period in which the tzitzit began to be worn on a Tallit Katan, or undershirt, so the tzitzit could be hidden when necessary for safety, to save the life of the wearer. or wings, of the ,כַּ נְ פוֹת ,The word for "four corners" is the Hebrew can-fot

- 4 - garment. Ancient Near Eastern art shows people wearing closed skirts and robes, not rectangular poncho-like garments. The four corners (lit., “wings” or “extremities”) were probably either the points on scalloped hems or the places at which vertical bands of embroidery met the hems. Both styles, sometimes with tassels attached, are visible in ancient Near Eastern murals.--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 203. The Sages ruled that actual corners were meant, requiring the garment to have clearly distinct corners. There is nothing in this text nor in the Numbers passage which limits the wearing of the tzitzit to men, though this became the rabbinic halachah, which was based upon the ruling that women were exempt from time-bound commandments. Since the purpose of the tzitzit was that "you man may look upon them," Numbers 15:39, and since this would be practical only in daylight hours, the Rabbis included this ordinance of tzitzit among the among the time bound commandments (cf. m.Kiddushin 1:7). Even in this halachah, the women were not prohibited, only exempted.--Hegg, Parashah 143, p. 2. There are many historical examples of leading sages whose wives and maid servants wore tzitzit. Examples are Rambam, otherwise known as Maimonides, who gives us the most used listing of the 613 Mitzvot, and Rashi. Our present text says nothing about the P'til Techelet, the Cord of Blue, that we use in our Tzitzit. We find all the details in the Numbers 15:37-41 passage. There is no specific way of tying the Tzitzit found anywhere in the Scripture. Exodus 13:2 would .בּנֵי יִשׂרֶֶַַַַַַַַַַָָָָ אֵ ",You cannot go by the phrase "sons of Israel require that the sons of Israel have wombs! Rather it is a generic phrase meaning the children of Israel, for if there is a singular male among a group of women, it would be addressed in the masculine. That is just the way the Hebrew language works. See also Leviticus 12:2; Numbers 5:6; 6:2; etc. 22:13-30 Sexual Misconduct These verses deal with various types of sexual misconduct: accusations of premarital sex, adultery and rape. vv. 13-19 False Accusation of Premarital Sex “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,’ 15 then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity

- 5 - to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 “The girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; 17 and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, “I did not find your daughter a virgin.” But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18 “So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. The Chumash notes two major aspects of a Jewish Marriage: Kiddushin and Nesuin. These Hebrew terms have been given English identifiers that unfortunately are not very often equivalents. The Chumash identifies the Kiddushin with the betrothal period, and yet describes the time period as that which is equal to the item of value given to the bride and the declaration made by a groom under the huppa, or marriage canopy today. The concept of bride-price is found in Exodus 22:16-17. The basic meaning of the word is "set apart" or sanctification. Once the bride price was paid in the ancient world, the woman would remain in her father's house. The Eryusin ceremony of today is the entering into the marriage contract, the vows that are made under the huppa, the signing of the Ketubah, and the declaration of solemnity. Later at the Marriage Feast, the union was consummated. The Nesuin is the final act, the culminating step, after which the couple may cohabit. The Hebrew verb nasa means "to carry." This was a graphic description, as the bride awaited the groom to come carry her away to their new home. The time of the groom's arrival was to be a surprise, and would await the announcement of the father of the groom, who would give the final approval for the Nesuin to begin. The bride and the bridal party would anxiously await the arrival of the Groom, watching and waiting for the exact moment. Even into the evening, the bridal party was to keep their oil lamps burning just in case the wedding was to begin. One of the customs was for a member of the Groom's party to lead the way from the Groom's house to the home of the Bride, and to shout, "Behold, the Bridegroom comes!" This would be followed by the sound of the Shofar, which was used to proclaim the Biblical Holy Days and special events. To note the time period of engagement or betrothal does not do justice to the expectations of the Kiddushin period once the Shadkan had made the match. They have made certain vows, and the fulfillment awaits the completion of the bridal

- 6 - chamber. They are halachically married in many respects, and the bride is liable to the death penalty for adultery. Our passage brings the situation of a husband accusing his new wife of not being a virgin during this time period of Kiddushin. If this were true, and it can be proven that she committed adultery after Kiddushin, then she would be subject to the death penalty. The Chumash goes on to assert that if adultery cannot be proven, then even if she was not a virgin at the time of Kiddushin, she is not liable for judgment, since it occurred before the Kiddushin. Even so, she would not be entitled to the divorce settlement since she had presented herself as a virgin. The subject of this passage is a husband who comes to hate his newlywed wife and seeks to void the Ketubah by accusing her of adultery. The Traditional understanding of the Jewish community is that this passage means that a man must marry a wife. In reality, it is more of a procedural issue of when a man decides to marry. The Mishnah states that, "A wife is acquired in three ways, ...She is acquired through payment [of a bride-price], through a written document, and through sexual intercourse." m. Kiddushin 1:1. Thus sexual intercourse is seen not only as being reserved for marriage, but the initiation of the marriage relationship. Hebrews 13:4 says, "Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; bfor fornicators and adulterers God will judge." Now having said all of that, we can now deal with our text. Bringing such an accusation against your new wife is an extremely serious matter, for it results in death. Displeasure with a wife provided grounds for divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1, but divorce would almost certainly required the husband to provide financial support. A false accusation required the husband to be flogged, to pay damages to the woman's father, and the impossibility of ever bringing similar charges against her in the future. The woman's parents were responsible for her upbringing and the protection of her virginity until the appointed time of her marriage. Thus the parents were responsible for proof of her virginity. This proof of virginity is the producing of the blood-stained cloth of v. 17, the simlah. Simlah is a common noun found 35 times in the Tanach, and describes "garments" in general. There are at least two basic thoughts on this proof. Special garments are evident, for there was Joseph's coat of many colors that marked him out as special to his father, Genesis 37:3. It is suggested that in the ancient semitic cultures the virgins may have worn clothing that marked them out as unmarried

- 7 - and still under the guardianship of their fathers. Judges 21:12 describes those from outside the confines of Jabesh-Gilead finding 400 virgins among the population. The concept is, how would you know without a thorough investigation unless there was something that marked them as virgins. The appropriate clothing would be allowed only so long as the community recognized her as a virgin. Thus the providing of this clothing could represent her virginity. The Jewish Study Bible however, spells things out in rather terse medical terms. I quote from there: There is scant medical support for the underlying assumptions: that intercourse would cause the first perforation of the hymen and that such perforation would cause bleeding upon the bedding, which is here held up in public display as legal evidence. The JPS commentary also asserts the same. A garment or cloth that was spotted with the girl’s blood when her hymen was perforated on the wedding night. The bride’s parents would save it as evidence of her virginity. This custom is well known in the Middle East and has been practiced among various Jewish and Arab communities until recent times; in some places the cloth is displayed by the proud parents. They save it because their daughter, their reputation, and the bride-price they receive all depend on it. As Ramban notes, the mother joins the father here, though only the father speaks, because it was women who kept the cloth after the consummation of the marriage.--p. 204. These charges were brought before the Elders of the City, at the city gates. If the charges were false, then the man was to be flogged, and thereby degraded just as he sought to degrade this woman and her whole family. He is fined, because his accusation would have forced the father to return the bride-price. He loses the right to divorce her, which was probably the aim in seeking to defame her. Thus the father is protected and the wife is protected. The 100 shekels of silver is normally understood to be double the bride-price, on the basis of v. 29 and Exodus 22:16 being the normal amount for a bride-price in that ancient time. Although the bride was disgraced, the fine is given to her father because the financial loss caused by the accusation would be his, and because the accusation disgraced him, too, since it implied that he did not raise a virtuous daughter. There would be no point in giving the fine to the bride since, as Abravanel observes, she is under her husband’s authority and he would be able to take the fine back from her.

- 8 - he has defamed a virgin in Israel - The final phrase reflects the text’s concern for the good name of Israelite girls in general; as the Sifrei indicates, his accusation would raise doubts about the character of all Israelite girls.--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 205. V. 20-21 A Correct Accusation of Premarital Sex “But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you. If the charges were true, the woman was to be brought to the entrance of her father's house and executed by stoning. This is the very site of the offense and has dual connotations. One, that the woman while presenting herself to her family, to her husband, and to the community of Israel is general as a virgin, she was indeed "playing the harlot" to put it in colorful terms. On the other hand, the father was responsible to Israel to raise chaste daughters for the community. Thus the punishment was carried out at the gates or doorway of the father's house. Hebrew nevalah, “outrage,” “deplorable act,” often refers to sexual crimes such as rape and adultery. It is often followed by “in Israel,” sometimes indicating indignation that the act happened among Israelites, and at other times characterizing the act as a violation of Israelite standards, “a thing not to be done in Israel,” as in 2 Samuel 13:12. The phrase expresses the importance of sexual morality as a feature of Israel’s national character. Genesis 34:7; Joshua 7:15; Judges 19:23-34; 20:6, 10.--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 206. Thus the concept is that if Israel were to abide by the Torah, then the norms for the Nation as a whole is that you would not find adulteresses and prostitutes in the land, for they would be following the Torah. These actions are below and beneath the moral character and integrity demanded by the Torah of all who would follow after ADONAI. V. 22 Adultery with a Married Woman “If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.

- 9 - The sin of adultery is a violation of the 7th commandment, Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:17, and is considered a capital offense, Leviticus 18:20; 20:10. Other ANE law codes also imposed capital punishment for adultery. A distinct difference in the other law codes leaves the imposing of the punishment upon the wronged husband, and permit him to spare their lives and impose a lesser punishment, including a fine. Biblical Torah however, demands the death of both parties before ADONAI as a fitting punishment. No human, not even the husband, is allowed to lessen the consequences of adultery. Adultery between marriage partners is an adultery in our relationship to God, and not just an adultery to husband or wife. One of the reasons for this is the picture that marriage is to provide of God's relationship with His Chosen People Israel, and that of the coming of Messiah and the Marriage Supper of the Lamb to fulfill this relationship at the end of time. Idolatry is often spoken of as spiritual adultery in the Scripture. To worship any other God is to violate the Torah, the Marriage Contract between Israel and their God. The picture of adultery is that of faithlessness, a disloyal partner. The Torah describes a life of loyalty to this Covenant Relationship with ADONAI. Loyalty, faithfulness, and obedience are the by words not only of the Torah and Tanach, but also of the Apostolic Writings. We are called to fidelity in our relationship with God. Adultery defiles the Land, Leviticus 18:20-30. It is for this defilement of the Land, with all of their abominations, of which this was simply one, caused the nations to be dispossessed before Israel, and would result in Israel being spewed off the Land if they also followed in such abominations, and defiled Israel. Hosea 4:2-3; Jeremiah 5:7-9; 7:9-15. While there is no record of an adulterer or adulteress being executed in the Tanach, the implications of John 8:1-11, is that it was expected, and perhaps even executed. The story of Judah and Tamar also suggests that it was a common expectation in ancient Israel, Genesis 38:24-26. Many point to Proverbs 6:32-35 as proof that adultery may well have been compensated by financial payment. However, this text gives no such affirmation, but actually the reverse is true, no payment will assuage the anger of the victim of adultery. Our present text, like that of John 8:1-11, seems to suggest that the couple were caught red handed, in the very act. Our Torah insists on the repugnant attitude toward God in this act, and the necessity to rid the Land of such evil.

- 10 - Vv. 23-27 Adultery with an Engaged Virgin “If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. Deut. 22:25 “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26 “But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27 “When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her. Once the bride-price has been paid, then the groom begins to work on the bridal chamber, and they are considered as being married. However, they have not yet consummated the marriage. Sexual relations with a different man at this point is considered adultery, even in Mesopotamian law. The primary issue at stake is whether this was consensual or that she protested and cried out. The rule of thumb is based upon proximity of the general public who would have heard her cries for help and rendered assistance in keeping with Torah. If this happened within a town or city, it was considered consensual since she would have been heard if she cried out for help. In most villages dwellings were close together, and even attached sharing courtyards with other households. In this case both woman and man are to be executed immediately. If such occurred out in the field however, it is charged as rape, and the man alone is executed. The cries for help would not likely be heard outside of the city. Where evidence of the woman crying out is impossible to determine, the woman is presumed innocent. The Torah gives the woman precedence over the man in this case. This would apparently also be the case in the ANE as evidenced by the false accusation against Joseph, Genesis 39:14-15. Philo, Josephus, and halakhic sources hold that this guideline is not absolute: whether in town or in the country, evidence that there was no one who could have saved her, that she resisted, or that her life was threatened if she resisted, would establish innocence; evidence to the contrary would establish guilt. It is not clear why Deuteronomy deals with the possibility of rape only in the case of engaged and unmarried girls (see v. 29). Unquestionably, evidence that a

- 11 - married woman was raped would clear her, too, as the halakhah rules. Indeed, the Hittite Laws prescribe a similar rule of thumb for cases involving married women. In general, however, Near Eastern laws, like Deuteronomy, tend to deal with the issue of rape in connection with engaged and unmarried girls instead of married women. This choice may have been due to experience. Since girls married relatively young (many probably by their mid-teens), engaged and unmarried girls were usually minors and were less likely to have deliberately sought sexual experience than were married women, who were more sexually mature. Hence, of those who had been involved in extramarital sex, it was the engaged and unmarried girls who were most likely to have been forced, and laws dealing with them were the more natural context in which to present the guidelines for deciding the issue of consent.--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 207-208. Vv. 28-29 The Rape of an Unengaged Virgin “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days. is in the perfect tense, and thus means literally "was never ,לֹא־אֹרָ֔שָׂה ,The Hebrew engaged." In v. 25 we find the same word we use at the end of a book, chazaq chazaq v'nitchazek, be strong, be strong and let us be strengthened. This word Chazaq then implies that the man has overpowered the virgin and taken her by force. Here in v. 28 however, there is a different Hebrew word used, taphas, that can mean "capture," "grasp," "seize," but can be used in the sense of "to capture the heart," as in Ezekiel 14:5. In the parallel of Exodus 22:16-17 the word patah, "to seduce," is used. Thus it is possible that this section may involve seduction rather than rape. If this is the case here, and the father is willing, then the woman is given to her seducer and the bride-price of 50 shekels of silver is given to the father. In such a case, no divorce is ever allowed. This is an insightful restriction. Marriages which begin in fornication are often fraught with the inability to trust one another. Removing the possibility of divorce may strengthen the couple's need to build trust between each other. The Exodus text gives the father the right to refuse the request for marriage. The seducer must still pay a dowry equal to that normally paid for a virgin. In either case, it is the

- 12 - father of the woman who has the final word.--Hegg, Parashah 143, p. 3. Most commentators however, still regard this situation as rape rather than a seduction. The JPS Torah Commentary: This is often taken to be identical to the “bride-price for virgins” mentioned in Exodus 22:16 that the seducer must pay to a virgin’s father, but this is questionable. There is no other evidence that the bride-price for virgins was fifty shekels. Leviticus 27:5–6—although not necessarily a guide in the present case—states that the value of a woman between twenty and sixty years old, whose value is pledged to the sanctuary, is thirty shekels, and that of a girl aged between five and twenty, ten shekels. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that a rapist ’s penalty would be identical to that of a seducer, since his offense is graver. If the seducer of Exodus 22:16 is required to pay an average bride-price, the fifty shekels paid by the rapist probably represents a combination of an average bride-price plus punitive damages. According to the halakhah in cases of both seduction and rape, the girl as well as the father has the right to refuse the marriage.--p. 208. Our text however, seems to require the marriage of the two. While it might not seem so extreme if the concept of an older man seducing a younger woman is what is pictured, to force a woman to marry her rapist does seem extreme. Thus the halachah. This might shed light on the situation with Amnon and Tamar, 2 Samuel 13:10-16. Tamar obviously expected that now that she had been humbled, she would remain in Amnon's house as his wife. We would expect that once a woman was humbled by a man, she was not so marriageable and this would at once put the woman and her father both at a great disadvantage. We must also consider here that we are talking about Jew on Jew situations, and that Torah requirements on the taking care of a wife would now be imposed upon this rapist. Still it is hard to accept that one who raped could be trusted to care for the woman in the way that the Torah outlines. Deuteronomy 22:30 “A man shall not take his father’s wife so that he will not uncover his father’s skirt. V. 30 is actually 23:1 in the Hebrew Bible. Our passage deals with marriage rather than incest, so we understand this to mean a woman who had been his father's wife, but not his mother. This restriction would apply whether the father was alive or had passed away. Incest is considered extremely vulgar and detestable, Leviticus 18:7-8; 20:11. This passage emphasizes the sanctity of marriage, and the importance of family boundaries. The covenant of marriage between a husband

- 13 - and a wife is a unique bond, and from it flows blessings to the children, though it is exclusive from this bond. It is a very intimate bond. Our text describes this act as "uncovering the hem of his father." This is a euphemism for the private sensual relationship between husband and wife. Genesis 2:24; Ezekiel 16:8. Paul dealt with the violation of this Mitzvot in 1 Corinthians 5:1-6. The physical relationship in marriage is the seal and privilege of the sacred covenant that binds husband and wife together. This mitzvot eliminates a man from inheriting his father's wives or concubines after his death. Middle Assyrian laws allowed a man to marry his father's former wife. Among Arabs of pre-Islamic times, it was customary for the heir to acquire the father's wives and concubines. This renders Absalom's actions in seeking to take away his father's throne an outright violation of the Torah, 2 Samuel 16:22. This however was understood as part of the practice of a usurper, taking over the harem as an expression of his right to the throne. A broader prohibition, barring all sexual relations (not only marriage) with one’s father’s wife, appears in Leviticus 18:8 and 20:11, where it is a capital crime. Such relations are condemned in Deuteronomy 27:20 and are listed in Ezekiel 22:10 among the causes for Jerusalem’s fall. All these references indicate that such relations were a real possibility. This is probably due to the young age at which girls married, which often resulted in a situation where a later wife of a man would be about the same age as his son by an earlier wife, if not younger.--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 209. There are 12 of the typical 613 Mitzvot taken from our Parashah, Deuteronomy 22:8-30. We will deal with the next section next cycle. 22:8 Pos Comm 184 Removing sources of danger from our habitations 22:8 Neg Comm 298 Leaving obstacles on public or private domain 22:9 Neg Comm 193 Eating from a vineyard with two kinds of seed 22:9 Neg Comm 216 Sowing grain or vegetables in a vineyard 22:10 Neg Comm 218 Working two different kinds of animals together 22:11 Neg Comm 42 Wearing a garment of wool and linen

- 14 - 22:19 Pos Comm 219 Law of the defamer of a bride 22:19 Neg Comm 359 Divorcing a woman after defaming her virginity 22:24 Pos Comm 229 Transgressors of certain commandments be stoned 22:26 Neg Comm 294 Punishing a person for sin committed under duress 22:29 Pos Comm 218 Violator must marry the maiden he violated 22:29 Neg Comm 358 Divorcing a woman he raped and was compelled to marry Deuteronomy 23:1-9 Those Excluded from "Church" - the Kahal of ADONAI “No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD. 2 “No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD. 3 “No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the LORD, 4 because they did not meet you with food and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. 5 “Nevertheless, the LORD your God was not willing to listen to Balaam, but the LORD your God turned the curse into a blessing for you because the LORD your God loves you. 6 “You shall never seek their peace or their prosperity all your days. 7 “You shall not detest an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not detest an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land. 8 “The sons of the third generation who are born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD. 9 “When you go out as an army against your enemies, you shall keep yourself from every evil thing. .קָהַל ,The Septuagint uses the Greek εκκλησια, ekklesia, here for the Hebrew kahal Our NASB has translated "assembly," whereas the NJPS has "congregation." The word "congregation" would indicate the nation as a whole gathered together for worship. The word "assembly" can refer to the whole of Israel, or it can refer to a more limited group within Israel. The Hebrew word kahal, literally means "gathering," and is not limited to to a religious gathering, but can refer to any gathering. The same can be said for ekklesia, synagogue, and the Hebrew edah,

- 15 - .עֵדַה There is a tendency to regard this as more of a legal or governing gathering of leadership rather than Israel as a whole. Tim Hegg ascribes to this understanding of a "designated body of ruling elders with executive powers functioning throughout the Torah narratives." An assembly of leaders came against Moshe and Aharon in Numbers 16:3; in Judges 21:5, 8 there is an "assembly" of the army; in 1 Kings 12:3 an "assembly" appears before Rehoboam to select a king; in other places such an "assembly of elders" functions as adjudicators or judges, Jeremiah 26:17; Ezekiel 16:40; 23:45-47; in Micah 5:2 they cast lots for acquiring property.--Parashah 143, p. 4. This would be quite the deal changer from the more normal interpretation of this passage. This becomes quite difficult since kahal is sometimes obviously used of a limited group, and at other times of the nation of Israel at large. The same can be said of 'edah, though it is often thought of more as the nation of Israel assembled for worship. In some verses the intention is just not clear, as in our present text. This is further complicated since in our next sections we deal either with the Camp of Israel or the House of ADONAI yourGod. This would in fact lend weight to the argument that our first 9 verses do in fact refer to the leadership of Israel rather than to the nation as a whole. The scholars are divided over this text, as to whether a more limited governing body is being referred to, or Israel at worship, in a community of faith. The more popular understanding has always been that of the Community of Israel at Worship, and therefore these restrictions have often been applied to those allowed to come to the modern church and those excluded from the church. I have debated some of these issues with individuals in the past. The Congregation of the LORD (v.2) served as the national governing body, akin to a popular legislature, that was charged with a broad range of judicial, political, and policy matters (Judges 20:2).--The Jewish Study Bible, p. 418. But it also refers to the national governing assembly of the Israelites, that is, the entire people, or all the adult males, meeting in plenary session, and perhaps sometimes to their representatives acting as an executive committee. This Assembly convenes to conduct public business such as war, crowning a king, adjudicating legal cases, distributing land, and worship. 9 It is synonymous with ʿedah, “community,” which likewise refers to the entire nation, to the adult

- 16 - males (especially those bearing arms), and perhaps to the tribal leaders acting as an executive on behalf of the nation. 10 The fuller phrases kehal ʾAdonai (“the Assembly of the Lord”) and kehal ʿam ha-ʾelohim (“the Assembly of God’s people”) function similarly. (See Num. 16:3; 20:4; Judg. 20:2; Mic. 2:5; 1 Chron. 28:8).--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 210. From Hegg, the JPS, and the Jewish Study Bible all relegate the reference to a governing body within the Camp of Israel. The Chumash, Keil & Delitzsch, Word Biblical Commentary, etc., all relegate the concept of the Community of Israel as a whole. Oy Vey! If Hegg, et al are correct, then this would alleviate some of the difficulties of "those not allowed into the congregation of ADONAI." It would no longer eliminate them from the Community of Faith, but rather from the Governing Body of Israel. There are three restrictions outlined in these verses. V. 1 One Emasculated or Mutilated The male reproductive organ was a vital part of God's commandments to Israel, and at the same time became something of a symbol of man's inability to fulfill God's Commands. The point of the Circumcision is that God will bring about His Plan for Man through the miraculous gift of life to the Jewish people, not only in the gift of children so that they might be fruitful and multiply, but in the particular Seed that is promised first to Adam and Chava in Gan Eden. Such mutilation then is seen by some to exclude since it maligns this promise of God. More common however, is the association with paganism or the revulsion of such bodily mutilation. There is no good evidence that creating Eunuchs were ever a part of Israeli Traditions. Emasculation would prevent one from serving as a priest, and would disqualify an animal for sacrifice, so perhaps the better understanding would be this call for Holiness and Purity. V. 2 The Mamzer The true meaning of the Hebrew word Mamzer is hotly debated. We have no consensus. It has typically been identified as the child conceived and born out of wedlock. Because of the close proximity of other Mitzvot regarding incest and adultery, the Sages have determined this word to refer to the child as a product of either one of these sins. The Septuagint and Targum Jonathan assert it is the child of a prostitute. If this is correct, it simply limits those in administration from

- 17 - broken homes. As Tim Hegg suggested, "those who govern should be from whole families because their decisions should nurture a society that fosters wholesome and stable homes. In other words, as goes the leadership, so goes the country. This is expressly true of the High Priest and the King in the Israelite Economy. The refrain "to the 10th Generation" is taken to mean "forever." Ten is a complete number, and thus interpreted to mean complete exclusion. Vv. 3-6 The Ammonite and the Moabite The reason for the exclusion of the Ammonite and the Moabite is the settled and outright rebellion against the Kingdom of God. It wasn't just that they had some distant relationship through Lot, and did not care for them in their journeys. There was the absolute intent to destroy this Nation of Israel, this Family of God. This was no doubt incited by HaSatan, and one of the many ways that he attempted to prevent The Promise of the Messiah from every occurring. They sought to put a curse upon Israel through hiring Bilam, a known prophet, one who had "the power to bless or to curse." But no one can curse those whom ADONAI has blessed. So ADONAI turned his cursing into a blessing. We find this exclusion to be practiced at the building of the 2nd Temple. Ezra 9:1-4, 10-12. Now when these things had been completed, the princes approached me, saying, “The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, according to their abominations, those of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and the Amorites. 2 “For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has intermingled with the peoples of the lands; indeed, the hands of the princes and the rulers have been foremost in this unfaithfulness.” 3 When I heard about this matter, I tore my garment and my robe, and pulled some of the hair from my head and my beard, and sat down appalled. 4 Then everyone who trembled at the words of the God of Israel on account of the unfaithfulness of the exiles gathered to me, and I sat appalled until the evening offering....10-12 “Now, our God, what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken Your commandments, 11 which You have commanded by Your servants the prophets, saying, ‘The land which you are entering to possess is an unclean land with the uncleanness of the peoples of the lands, with their abominations which have filled it from end to end and with their impurity. 12 ‘So now do not give your

- 18 - daughters to their sons nor take their daughters to your sons, and never seek their peace or their prosperity, that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it as an inheritance to your sons forever.’

Vv. 8-9 The Grandchildren of the Edomites and Egyptians Allowed The Edomites were direct kin to Israel through Esau, the brother of Jacob. However, there was no such affiliation with Egypt. Nonetheless, it was determined that by the third generation, they may be so reformed and refined so as to enter into the Assembly of ADONAI. This is an interesting question: How long does it take to reteach a people? Does this mean it takes two generations to bring them into a correct position of purity and understanding of God so that they might follow after Him fully? And the counter question: How long does it take to lose a people? That takes only one generation!

- 19 -