Deuteronomy 21

and shelter themselves behind them, by which the Israelites were much annoyed, then they think they might be cut down, to shorten the siege. And in peace, if they did not bring forth fruit, or if the fruit would not be so profitable as the wood would be for building, and other uses; or if they hindered the growth of better trees: in all these cases they might be cut down, as the Jewish doctors resolve. Who, when they please, mind the reason of a law, and not the bare words; insomuch, that they extend this law to a great many other things, which they say might not be destroyed, if they were useful and profitable. No houses, for instance, nor garments, nor household-stuff; nor were they to stop up fountains, &c. (See Selden, lib. vi. de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. 15. and Guil. Schickardus in Jus Regium, cap.. 5. Theor. 18.) -. For the tree of the field is man’s life.’] The word life is not in the Hebrew text; but we add it to make out the sense. In which we follow many good authors among tho Jews, particularly Aben Ezra, who observes many such elliptical, i. e. concise forms of speech in Scripture. As in 1 Sam. xvi. 20. where an ass of bread, is an ass loaded with bread. So here the tree is a man, u e. the life or support of man. Just as (xxiv. 6.) it is said, a man should not take the upper or nether millstone to pledge, ki nephesh hu, because it is his life, i. e. that whereby he gets his livelihood. But there are a great many who translate the words by way of interrogation (and the Hebrew will bear it), and, joining them with those that follow, make this the sense, Is the tree of the field a wan, that it should come against thee in the siege? So the Vulgar, the Greek, a~nd the Arabic translation, and the Chaldee paraphrast, and Josephus, as Mr. Selden observes, (lib. vi. de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. 12.) As much as to say, They need not fear any danger from the trees, as if they were soldiers that could fight against them. And if this sense do not seem dilute (as some have censured it), there is no need of rendering the words by way of interrogation, but only of repeating the word not out of the foregoing words, in this manner, Tliou shalt not cut them down, for the tree of the field is not a man, &c. Of this there are many examples, as Glassius and our Gataker have shewn. And thus R. Bechai among the Jews expounds these words; and the famous Abarbinel, who thus glosses upon them: " It is not decent to make war against trees, who have no hands to fight with thee, but against men only." And this sense Grotius follows, lib. iii. de Jure Belli et Pacis, cap. 12. sect. 2. where he produces Philo for this opinion, and Josephus, who says, “If trees could speak, they would cry out that it was unjust, that they who were no cause of “the war should suffer the mischiefs of it.” And thus Onkelos translates these words, and those that follow, For the tree of the field is not as a man, that it should come against thee in the siege; that is, they had no cause to fear trees, and therefore should not hurt them. But this is a reason against cutting down any trees whatsoever; whereas Moses speaks only of fruit-trees. From whence Grotius thinks that saying of the Pythagoreans took its original, r^xtpov vtx>v hm tyKapwov, &c. trees that do not grow wild, and bear fruit, ought not to be hurt, much less cut down. And yet it seems to be more agreeable to the Hebrew words, than our marginal translation, which makes this sense, That there are trees of the field sufficient to employ in the siege; so that they need not cut down fruit-trees to carry it on. longed. Therefore the paraphrase ascribed to Uzi elides saith, " Two of the wise men er elders, and three of the judges, were sent by the great Sanhedrin about this business.”.(See Selden, lib. iii. de gynedr. cap. 7. a. 2.) Yet he observes, in another part of that most learned work, (Jib. ii. cap. 7. n. 3.) that there was a sort of; elders who were not ordained, by laying on of hands, but; only were venerable persons for their age and piudence, who, some think, might serve for this employment. And they called such elders zickne hashuck, elders of the street, or vulgar elders. But none, I think, hath discoursed more critically upon these words, thy elders, and thy judges, than our Mr. Thorndike; who observes, that there had been judges constituted to determine causes by Jethro’s advice, (Exod. xviii.) the greater causes being reserved for Moses alone* For whose assistance God afterward appointed seventy elders, (Numb, xi.) who made up the great court of judgment in that nation. Now they of this great consistory are called the elders of Israel; but they of other consistories, or inferior courts, are called barely; elders, or elders of such a city. See Review of the Rites of the Church, p. 70. where he alleges this very place for it; and by thy elders, understands the elders of Israel; the Lower elders being mentioned in the next verse. And so those of the great consistory are commonly called in the; gospel: and in like manner, the scribes of the people, and; thy scribes, signify there those of this higli court Whereas, thebare name o( scribes is extended further, to the inferior doctors of the law. As’also the name of rulers, and that of rulers of the people^ are tobe understood with the like difference,’ And they shall measure unto the cities that are round about him that is slain.] That is, if it were dubious what city lay nearest to the dead body, as it sometimes happened. But commonly, it is probable, at the first view they easily discerned this, and so did not trouble themselves to measure. It is a frivolous dispute in theMischna, from whence they were to measure; whether from the navel, or the nose, or. the forehead: which last seems more rational to Maimonides, who calls it the centre of the body. But they did not (if we believe the Jewish doctors), in their measuring, take notice of any city wherein there was not a court of twenty-three elders; and Jerusalem was always excepted. (See Selden in the place forenamed, n. 3. and L’Empereur upon Bava-kama, p. 173. and Wagenseil upon Sota, p. 899.) If the dead body lay nearest to the country of the gentiles, then they did not 1 measure at all; but it was presumed the man was killed by them. (if avc may bclievo the Mischna) was never to be sown any more. (See Sota, cap. 9. sect. 5.) And shall strike off the heifer’s neck there in the valley.] Coming behind the heifer (saith the Mischna), as the murderer was supposed to have treacherously surprised the slain man; and should have been thus used, if he could have been found. Vcr.5. And thepriests, the sons of Levi] See chap.xvii. 9.18. xviii. 1. Shall come near.] To see all performed according to the law, and to pray to God for the country in the words prescribed, ver. 8. For them the Lord, thy God liath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the Lord.] See Exod. xxviii. 1, &c. Numb. vi. 23, &c. And by their ivord shall every controversy and every stroke be tried.’] They did not determine all matters whatsoever, but all of this nature; in which the law appointed them to take care things were done according to it. As in the killing the red heifer; the examination of the xcomaii. suspected of adultery by the water of jealousy; the leprosy, whether in men, or houses, or garments. Thus the Hebrews explain these words. (See Sclden, lib. ii. de Synedr. cap. 8.) And so Bonfrerius here acknowledges,* that they did not come hither as judges, but as directors; and that they might purge themselves, together with the elders, from all guilt of this crime. *! Ver. C. And all the elders of that city, that are next to the slain man.] If there were never so many elders in the city, they were all to clear themselves by doing what follows." Shall ivash their hands over the heifer, &c] In the water of the brook which flowed through the valley; protesting thdr innocence, in the words prescribed in the next verse. So Chaskuni glosses, " As our hands are clean, so’ arc we from the guilt of this blood." See Wagenseil upon Sota, p. 910. w v ho thinks Pilate had respect to this rite, when he condemned our Saviour, (Matt, xxvii. 24.) notwithstanding all that learned men have said to the contrary., Vcr.-7: And they shall answer and say.] Being asked, perhaps, whether they knew any thing of this murder. Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.] That is, they professed solemnly they knew not who shed it, nor how the man came to be slain. And the Mischna beforementioned adds, that they said, (for how can any one think that elders would be murderers?) “This man did not come into’our city that we know of, and dismissed without necessary provisions; nor was seen by us, and permitted to go away without company.” Which Maimonides expresses more largely in his More Nevochim, par. iii. cap. 40. where he represents the wisdom of this law in these words’: " The elders called God to witness; that they had not neglected to secure the ways, nor to set watches to examine diligently those that travelled, saying (as our rabbins express it), This man was not killed through any negligence, or forgetfulness, which ive are guilty of, in not observing ourjwblic constitutions; 7ior do we know who killed him.’ Now; by this inquisition into the fact, by this going forth of the elders, and the striking oiT the heifer’s head, &c. a great deal of discourse necessarily arose about this business, which made the thing public, and was a probable means of discovering the murderer, by some or other who were there, or should hear of all this." And if any one came, and said he knew the author, then they forbore to behead the heifer: but the man being apprehended, if the house of judgment did not put him to death, the king had power’ to doit: if he neglected it, the avenger of blood might kill him wheresoever he met him. By which it appears, that this solemn process here mentioned tended very much to detect the murderer. Unto which this also contributed, that the place where the heifer’s head was struck off might never be ploughed or sowed hereafter (as I noted before), which made the owners of that ground employ their * utmost diligence to find out the murderer, that their land might not lie waste for ever; for they might not so much a,s plant a tree upon it. >73D And hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife.] The plain meaning is, fell so passionately in love with her, as to desire to marry her, though a stranger, of another nation and religion. It is a common opinion, indeed, among the Jewish doctors, that a baser sort of passion is here indulged; for it was lawful, they imagine, for a soldier to lie with such a captive once to satisfy his lust (which some make to be the meaning of this expression, hast a desire to her, or, as it is in the Hebrew, hast cleaved to her), but not repeat it,.unless he would take her lor his wife: which they. think was allowed to military men when they were absent from’their wives, to prevent greater outrages, which were wont to be committed by the heathen. But the best nations severely prohibited all such abuses, as Grotius observes, lib. iii. de Jure Belli et Pacis, cap. 4. sect, xix.l. And though Schickard, in his Mischpat Hammelech, endeavours to make out the wisdom of this law in permitting a Hebrew soldier to enjoy a captive once, (see p. 130, 131. and Mr. Selden, lib. v. de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. 13.) yet he cannot but acknowledge that some of the Jews do not allow of this interpretation, but are of opinion, that he might not touch a captive till she became a proselyte, and he took her for his wife. Thus R. Bechai, as Grotius observes in the place forenamed, sect. xix. 2. " God would have the camp of Israel holy, and not defiled with fornication, and other abominations, as the camps of the gentiles." Unto whom Alexander himself gave a better example; who being extremely taken with the beauty of Roxana, did not abuse her as a captive, but vouchsafed. to marry her, and make her his wife; for which he is justly commended, both by Arrianus and by Plutarch; and therefore I think it is most reasonable to expound this law, only of taking such a captive in marriage; which Abarbinel also shews is the most ancient interpretation of it, and hath the best authority on its side among the Jews. For though he acknowledges it is the common opinion of their wise men, that a soldier might lie with a fair captive once, whilst she was a mere gentile; yet herein they followed the doctors in the Babylonian Talmud, which is not of so great antiquity as the Jerusalem Talmud, where R. Johannes (in Massccheth Sanhedrin) delivers the quite contrary doctrine, that it was not lawful for any Israelite to lie.with such a woman at all, till the conditions, mentioned in the following words of this law, were fulfilled,. when he was to make her his wife. And according to the judgment of this R. Johannes, Abarbinel explains this law in a large commentary on this place. among the Athenians, Lysias saith (in his oration against Agoratus), He that beats his parents, or did not maintain them, and provide a habitation for them, when they were in want, afro’c t<m Oavari ( ) ZnfxtuSfjvat, deserved to be put to death. The law indeed did not inflict that punishment, but only said, ur</*oc i<nw, let him be infamous; that is, as they expound it, ho might not come into the public assemblies, nor enter into their temples, nor wear a crown in their public festivals; and if any such persons presumed so to do, they were brought before the magistrates, who set a fine upon their heads, and committed them to prison till they paid it. (Sec Sam. Petitus, in his Commentary upon the Attic Laws, lib. ii. tit. 4. p. 163.) No wonder therefore Moses ordained this punishment, when a son was come to such a dcgrce’of profligate wickedness, that he endeavoured to undo his parents. Which some states have thought fit to follow in these latter ages: for David Chytraeus saith, he himself saw an example of this severity at Zurich, in the year ono thousand five hundred and fifty; where a disobedient son was beheaded, who had cursed his mother, and •beaten her. So shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.] See concerning this before mpon xix. 20.: Vcr. 22. If a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death.] There were several sorts of capital punishments; viz. strangling, burning, cutting off by the sword, and stoning. Now the Hebrew doctors limit this unto such offenders as were stoned; of which punishment he speaks in the foregoing verse. But there being eighteen sorts of offenders, who were to be sentenced to this death, they put a further limitation upon these words; their tradition being, as they tell us, the sin worthy of death (or stoning) is only idolatry or blasphemy. So we read in the Sanhedrin, cap. G. sect. 4. “All that were stoned were also hanged, according to the opinion of It. Eliezcr: but the wise men say none were hanged but the idolater and blasphemer.” And they add there, that only mcn,notwomcn, •were -thus used; for which I can see no reason, but the sticking to the mere letter of these words; as if the word man did not comprehend.both sexes. But if we examine the Scripture, we shall find this not to be true (that no men were hanged but they that were stoned), for the king of Ai was hanged, (Jo$h. viii. 29.) and -five kings more, (x. 26.) and tlioy were not hanged because -they were blasphemers or idolaters (for then all the rest of the Canaanitcs should have beenso treated), but because’they were such enemies of God, as had rebelliously withstood the gracious summons of surrender. And there are other examples also which confute this; as, the two traitors that murdered Ish-boshcth, (2 Sara, iv.12.) and the five.sons of Saul, (2 Sam. xxi. 9.) Jt is more probable, therefore, that all those whom the judges thought to be such great offenders, that it was fit to make them very public ^examples, “were hanged up after they had suffered the punishment *of death, to which they were sentenced. This -seems to be denoted in the word chatta, which signifies •sometimes a very great crime, as appears from Hosca xii. 8. where he speaks of iniquity, which is sin: not as if all iniquity were not si?i; but some acts of iniquity were nqt so heinous, as to be called by that name. And thou hang him.’] After Jie had been put to death, as appears by the foregoing words, which speak of his being put to death before this suspension: which shews that this punishment was not the same with the Roman crucifixion (as Baroniiis, Sigonius, Lipsius, and others, have mistaken), for they hanged men alive upon the gibbet; whereby they expired before they were taken down: but this was only hanging up their bodies after they were dead, and exposing them to open shame for a time. On a tree.] On a piece of timber (saith the Sanhedrin). struck into the ground; out of which came a beam, whereunto his hands were tied, as they tell us in the place beforcmentioned: and so Schickard, in his Mischpat Hammelech, cap. 4. Thcor. 14. So that his body hung in such a posture as crucified men did.

Deuteronomy 21:1

JLF one shall be found slain in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess. This follows very properly, after the law he had delivered about making war; because then the bodies of dead men were most frequently found. About which the wisest lawgivers took the greatest care that inquisition should be made, how and by whom they were slain. This appears by Plato, who, in his ninth book de Legibus, hath a law something like to this, though far short of the solemnity that is here required to be used; as I shall observe in the conclusion of this statute. Lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him.] The Hebrew doctors here stick too much to the letter of these words; for they will not have them reach to a dead body hanging in the air upon a tree, or hid in the sand or dust, or floating upon the water, which is extremely absurd.

Deuteronomy 21:2

Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth. The great Sanhedrin were to send forth some of their members (so the Jews interpret it) to do what here follows. And indeed it may be thought that none but they could take care of this matter, the doubt being to which of the neighbouring cities (where the other judges lived) it bc-

Deuteronomy 21:3

And it shall be, that the city which is next to the slain man. From whence it might be presumed the murderer came, or was fled thither, as Abarbinel discourses. - Even the elders of that city.] Who were different from the elders beforementioned (see the foregoing verse), for they returned to Jerusalem when they had se&i the body buried, if there was no discovery of the murderer: and then the senators of the city next to the dead body, who were twentythree, performed what is here ordered. Shall take an heifer.) That was not above two years old; for if it were a day more, they might not use it for this purpose, as Maimonides andothers affirm. Yet the Scripture, in other cases, mentions, one of three years old, (Gen, VOL. J.’ xv. 9. Isa.xv. 5. Jcr.xlviii. 5.) as Wagenseil observes upon the Mischna of Sota, cap. 9. sect. 3. annot. 2. If two cities. happened to be equidistant from the dead body, they then joined together to provide this heifer. Wliich hath not been wrought with.] Never used in plough-. ingthe ground. And which hath not drawn in the yoke.]. This may seem to be included in the feregoing expression, as Maimonides observes; but it is added, he thinks, to signify, that if it had been employed in any other labour, it became improper for this use. Such heifers were accounted by the heathen to be most acceptable to their gods, as appears by Homer, in whom Diomedes and Nestor promise such an offering to Pallas. (See Bochart, lib. ii. Hieroz. cap. 33. p. 1. out of Iliad K. and Odyss. r.) But there was a particular reason for such a one in this case (wherein the heifer was not to be offered), that it might the better represent, as many think, the person that had committed this murder, who was a son of Belial, subject to no law, and deserved to be beheaded as this heifer was. It is not required that it should be without blemish,, as those heifers were to be that were offered at the tabernacle: but it sufficed if it had never been accustomed tothe yoke. Yet this is not to be taken without all limitation; for if it wanted any member, or were diseased, it might not be employed in this service, as Wagenseil observes out of Maimonides, in the place, beforenamed, p.

Deuteronomy 21:4

And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer. \ Their cities, it seems, were commonly seated on. hills or high grounds. Into a rough valley. The Hebrew word nachal signifies both a valley and a torrent. The LXX., Josephus, and the Vulgar, understand it as we do; and the following, words favour this interpretation. But the Talmudists andthe rabbins, who generally follow them, take it to signify a torrent, whichis the sense of Maimonides himself; and the next word ethan (which we translate rough) they interpret a rapid torrent. Chaskuni thinks there is some reason for this in the sixth verse, where they are required to wash their hands over the heifer in the water that is of the brook. I see nothing to hinder the putting both senses together; torrents being wont to run down: violently from, the mountains, through the valleys, which lie beneath them, which is the cause that the same ^yord signifies both. Which is neither eared.] Or rather, ploughed. Nor sown.] Being a stony, craggy ground, representing the horridness of the murder, and the cruelty and hardness of the man’s heart who committed it. They that follow the other interpretation of nachal, understood the foregoing words, Ascher lo jeabeth bo, which we translate, neither eared, as if they signified the torrent did not serve to water the neighbouring ground: and these words to be meant of the soil which lay next to the torrent, in which nothing was sown. And, besides this variety, there are those who take ethan notto signify either that which, is hard or rapid, but the most fertile ground: so B. Bechai, and lately R. Jac. Abendana, in his marginal notes upon Mi chlal Jophi, where he gives this reason for it; that the inhabitants of each city might be the more careful to prevent such murders, being in, danger otherwise to lose the best ground belonging to their inheritance. For the land where the body was found 5B

Deuteronomy 21:8

Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay 7iot innocent blood unto thy people of Israel’s charge. The priests, alone pronounced, these words, as the Mischna there saith; though Josephus (who often’differs from the Talmudists) saith, Both priests and elders prayed God to be propitious unto them, and to prevent the like evil from falling out again in their region.. (See Selden, lib. iii. dc Synedr. cap. 7. n. 5, C.) And the blood shall be forgiven them.] These arc not the words of the priests, saith the same Mischna, but the Holy Ghost pronounces, That when they observed these rites/ the guilt should be removed from them; which, in some sort, would have lain upon them, if they had taken no notice of a murder committed so near to their city, nor made inquisition after it, and expressed their abhorrence of it.

Deuteronomy 21:9

So shall thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shall do that which is right in the sight of the Lord.** Sincerely protesting their innocence* and detestation of this fact: which was to be done in the day-time, and not in the night; and the body of the hcifer> was to be buried, but none of it eaten, or any part employed to other use. If the murderer was found before its head w f as struck off, it was to be let go into the pasture among other beasts; if after,’ he was to suffer capital punishment, that is, to be cut off by the sword, as the Mischna beforementioned explains it, cap. 9. sect. 7.. By all this it appears, that no ancient law made such provision for the discovery and expiation of secret murders, as this of Moses. For the very best of them, which is that of Plato, enacts no more than this, that if a man was found dead, and he that killed him, after a diligent search, could not be heard of, public proclamation should be made, that he who was guilty of the fact should not come into any holy place, nor any part of the whole country; for if he were discovered and apprehended he should be put to death, Kal i%w rfc tov 7ra$ovroe Xwpag iicfiXyOnaofitvov aratpor, and be thrown out of the bounds of the country, and have 7io burial, (lib. ix. dc Legibus, p. 874.)

Deuteronomy 21:10

Wlieri thou goest to war against thine enemies. To a voluntary war against any of their neighbouring nations, not against the people of Canaan, none of which were to be spared, if they stood out and fought, but destroyed by the Divine precept, which required this war. And the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thy hands, and thou hast taken them captive.] As the manner was, to make them slaves to their conquerors. Tlien it shall be when he via Ices his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of tlie beloved first-born, &c] lie speaks of sons; for daughters were not to have a double portion. And he speaks of sons (as the Jows will have it) born before the death of their father; to whom he divided his inheritance, Pora Microsoft (I) CHAP,‘XXI.] UPON DEUTERONOMY. posthumous son had not a double portion, asthe’Gemara uponiBathra saith. (See Selden de Successionibus, cap. 7. p.;29.) IVer. 17. But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for -tlue first-born.] Which had his first love, and was to enjoy the effects of it By giving him a double portion.of all that he hath.] Of all that he was in possession of when he died; but not of that which was his in reversion.after ihis death; as Mr. Selden shews the opinion of »the Jewish lawyers is, lib. de-Success, cap. G.-p. 24. For he isihe beginning of his strength.] See Gen..xlix. 1. The right of the firft-born is his.] By a very ancient custom, antecedent to the law>*which made the>first-born the head of the family, and.gave him as much more as any of his brethren of the estate belonging to it, that he might be able to imaintain and support the dignity of it, (Gen. xxv. 31.) But if there was no son, and the inheritance was to be divided among daughters, the eldest daughter hadrhot a double share of the estate; as Mr. Selden shews in the same book, cap. 8.

Deuteronomy 21:11

And seest among the captives a beautiful woman:. It was indifferent whether she was a virgin, or a widow, or a wife, according to the Jewish doctors.

Deuteronomy 21:12

Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house. The forenamed doctors, who are so indulgent to the soldiers’ lust, will have this to signify, that they were to observe the rules of modesty in the camp, and not openly lie with her like beasts, but privately in their tents. Thus^ Maimonides himself, More Nevochim, par. iii. cap. 41.’ But it is evident Moses doth not speak of any thing done in the camp, but of what was to be done when he returned to his house; where he was to dispose her, in the manner following, to be his wife…. And site shall shave her head.] These and the following words are variously interpreted, some taking these things to be. done to her, with a design to abate his affection to her, that he might not marry her at all; and others, to prepare her, and make her fit for his bed. For, shaving her head /which every one knows was used in mourning) deprived her of one of her greatest ornaments, and made her less amiable, and consequently might extinguish his affection, which was kindled by her beauty. So Glcmens Alcxandrinus understands it. (See lib. ii. Strom, p. 3Q3, 399. and lib. iii. p. 456.) And many of the Hebrews arc of the same mind, that, these things were ordered to lessen his affection to her, by. making her appear less lovely in his eyes. (Sec Schickard’s Mischpat Hammelech, cap. 5. Theor. 17. p. 134, 135.) But there are others who take this to have been a kind of purification, and cleansing her from her gentilism; and a token of her becoming anew, woman, that she might be meet to be made his wife. And pare her nails.] This likewise was a piece of cleanliness and neatness. But they who are of the other opinion translate, the words, Let her, nails grow, as our marginal translation hath it, and the Arabic, and Chaldec, and the Hebrew. doctors commonly understand it; which was intended to make her look ugly, and to slack his love to her. At least, it was suitable to the. condition of a mourner, as she plainly was, it appears by the next verse. The Hebrew words, indeed (which t are, make her nails), arc dubious; from whence arose that dispute we find in the Talmud, between R. Eliezer, who expounds it pare her nails, to make them look handsome; and R. Akiba, who expound^ it, let theni grow. The former reasons thus: The hair and the nails are to be used alike. Now her hair is plainly ordered to be cut; and therefore so were her nails to be. But the other doctor turns it quite contrary: What was ordered about her hair, was to make her abominable; therefore this also was intended to make her appear illfavoured. And, indeed, the Hebrew word being indifferent to cither sense, we must judge of the meaning by the circumstances of the place: and here they seem to lead us to R. Akiba’s interpretation; which Onkelos, a. most ju T dicious paraphrast, follows; and many, learned men in later times, particularly Schickard in the book beforementioned, p. 134. and Martinus Gierus de Luctu Hebraeorum, cap. 14. sect.5. *

Deuteronomy 21:13

And she shall put the raiment of her captivity fromoffher. Her fine clothes, wherein they suppose her to have been taken captive; instead of which she was to put on sordid apparel, which was the habit of mourners* This still tended to cool his love; the drift of these things being (as the Jews commonly think) to take away from her all that was inviting and tempting, that so such marriages might not be common among them. And shall remain in thy house.] Nor stir out of doors, but be retired; as persons in a mournful condition arc wont to be. And bewail her father and mother.] Who, perhaps, were killed in the war; or rather, whom she was likely to see no more. And this also the Jews suppose might help to abate his affection to her: sorrow and grief very much spoiling one’s beauty. JLfidl month.] So long the Jews were allowed to bewail their dead relations, or at least those who were eminent, as they did Aaron and Moses. And here I cannot but observe how Philo magnifies this constitution, and plainly shews he was of the opinion of R. Johannes beforementioned, that this captive might not be touched till all these things were performed* Uaw kccXwc tKatrra Stara^afitvoQ, 5B2 Microsoft ® [chap. XXI. (saith he, in his book •/>( ipiXavSpioTrtae, p. 545, &c.) *’ Moses ordered every thing most excellently in this law: ■first, in not letting the reins loose to men’s desires, but restraining them for thirty days. In which time, secondly, a trial was made of his love; whether it was a furious ungovernable passion, or had something ofTeason in it, which <idA r ises us to do nothing suddenly, but after serious and long deliberation. And, thirdly, 9 E\eu tov alxfiaXwrov. This was a merciful law to the captive, that, if she were a virgin, she might bewail her unhappiness, in not being disposed of in marriage by her parents: if a widow, that she bad lost her first love, and was now to be married to one who would be her lord, as well as her husband.” And after that.] Upon these words R.Johannes grounded bis opinion, that, till a full month was spent in the forementioned ceremonies, he might cot lie with her. Thou shall go in mito her, and be her husband, cmd she “shall be thy wife.] If he continued, that is, to love her at the end of the month, and she was willing to embrace the Jewish religion, In which, while she remained retired in his house, she was instructed. For the Jewish doctors agree she was to be baptized, and not merely made a proselyte of the gate (i.e. renounce idolatry), otherwise he might not Inarry her. • And if she refused to embrace their religion entirely, Maimonides saith, they gave her a year’s time to consider of it; at the end of which, if she remained still obstinate, they required her at least to observe the seven precepts of the sons of Noah, and so to become a proselyte of the gate; otherwise she was to be slain. But though she -was so converted, no Jew might take her to wife; for such a marriage, Maimonides saith, was counted impious. Those Hebrew doctors who think a soldier might enjoy heronce, at the first taking her captive, have added another “conceit to this, viz.’that there was not only this month’s time allowed her to bewail’her parents, but that he was to stay two months more, before he might go in to her and be her husband, that he might see whether she were with child or not, by his first enjoyment of her. For if she were, a great difference was to be made between that child, and those she might have by him after marriage. Concerning which, see Selden, lib. v. de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. 13. where he observes, they make Tamar, the daughter of David, an instance of this; whose mother being a captive, they suppose he lay with her as soon as she was taken, and had this issue by her; but afterward she becoming a proselyte, he made her his wife, and she bare him Absalom. Whereby it came to pass, that there was not such a relation between her and the other sons of David by other women, but that it had been lawful for Amnon to have married her. But all this is judged by the famous Abarbinel (upon 2 Sam. xiii.) to be very absurd; and neither believes that David would have committed such a fact, as to lie with a woman in her gentilism; nor, if he had, that this child would have been looked upon as a gentile, since he afterward married her mother. And therefore he takes those words of Tamar, ver.13. “Speak to the king, and he will not withhold *mo from thee/’ to be a mere put-off, as we speak, to get rid of his company; which Amnon understood very well, who, knowing he could not have her to wife, proceeded to force her.

Deuteronomy 21:14

Audit shall be, if thou have no delight in her, Ihm Ihoushalt lei her go whither she will. If at the month’s <md, or before, his mind was changed, and he did not like to take her for Ms wife, then he might neither meddle with her any more (as the Hebrew doctors understand it), nor keep her any longer as a slave, nor sell her, or.make merchandize of her (as the text here expressly orders), but give;her liberty to go whither she iherself thought good. This ho lost, say the Jews, by his short pleasure he took at first. For other captives, w T hom a man had made himself master of, by the law of war, he might employ in his work as slaves, or make money of them; but one whom he had lain with, she ^vas either to marry, or set her at liberty. This they ground upon the last words of this verse, which I shall shew may have another interpretation. And therefore I shall not insist upon their sense (which depends upon the same words), who think Moses speaks of hisaiot liking her after slie was become his wife, her humour, manners, and conversation, being disagreeable to him; in which case he was to give her a.bill of.divorce, as he might do another wife, but not keep her as a slave. Because thou hast humbled Mr.] It must be acknowledged that this is an usual phrase, for having had carnal knowledge of a woman, as the Scripture modestly elsewhere speaks, in the like case. It signifies so in the very next»chapter of this book, Dent. xxii. 29. Judg. xix. 24. xx. 2. and many other places, where it is used for violence offered to a woman, which was the greatest affliction to her,;as the Hebrew word properly signifies. From which I see no Teason w T hy we should depart in this place; for it was sufficient affliction and humiliation to a captive woman (as’Carpzovius observes, in his annotations upon Schickard’s book, which I have so often named), that, after she had been brought into a soldier’s house, and kept there a month, having her head shaved, garments changed, &c. in hope of marriage, she was rejected at last, when it should have been consummated. And thus Abarbinel here understands the word humbled, not of.his lying with her, but of all the forementioned conditions, which were imposed upon her as a preparation for his bed, and of her disappointment after she had submitted to be baptized. And, indeed, the Hebrew word denotes any sort of affliction. (See Exod. i. 11. Psal. Ixxxviii. 8. Ixxxix. 23. xc. 15. xciv. 5, &c.)

Deuteronomy 21:15

If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated. That is, less loved; as the word hated sometimes signifies, Gen. xxix. 31. Matt. vi. 24. R. Solomon thinks that this case follows the other, because it might so happen, that, if a man suffered himself to be carried with too violent a passion towards such a woman m is beforementioned, it might turn into hatred, wiien he found her not to be agreeable to him. And they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated.] Towards which it was likely he would be affected very differently, as he was to his wives. And if the first-bom son be hers that -was hated.] As it fell out in the case of Leah and Rachel.

Deuteronomy 21:18

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son. By a stubborn son, the Jews understand one that will not do as heus bidden, and by ^rebellious, one that doth what he is forbidden. And they imagine this law is annexedto the foregoing, about the marriage of a soldier to a captive woman, because the issue of such marriages commonly proved refractory, or at least gave their parents great trouble. So Schickard observes out of Tanchuma. And they*confinn it by an example.out of Scripture, viz. the two children of.David, Absalom and TamaT, who were both born of a captive woman, made a proselyte: the former of which conspired the death of his father; and the -other being ravished by Amnon, was the occasion of the -death of some of her brethren.,(Mischpat Hamnuelech, cap. 5. Theor. 17.) Which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother.] Behaved himself not only undutifully, but crossly to them; and with such contempt of their authority, as argued he had not only lost all filial affection and.reverence to them, but would, if he could, undo them. And that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them.] Is never the better for admonitions, reprehensions, and corrections, which they were bound to give him.

Deuteronomy 21:19

TJien shall his father and his mother lay hold of him. It is absurd to say, as. the Hebrew doctors do (in their qualifications of this law), that his parents were with their own hands to apprehend him, and bring him before | the court; though it seems reasonable enough, that both father and mother should agree in the complaint against him, and desire officers might be sent to lay hold of him. In which one cannot well suppose that they would consent to have such a punishment as follows inflicted upon him, unless he were intolerable. • And bring him untothe elders of his city.] Who were to examine the proofs, and accordingly to pass sentence upon him. Concerning these elders, sec ver. 3, 4. Andunto die gate ofhisplace.] Where the court of judgment was wont to sit. (See xvi. 18.) The paternal power among the ancient Romans was so great, that they might put their children to death, as they did their slaves, without any process before a magistrate. And this some have; taken to be a natural right; and imagined God would not. have commanded Abraham (o kill his son, but that it was a partof his inherent power. However this bq, they were not thought fit to be long entrusted with it; for God here orders, by Moses, that it should be committed to the public judges, as the most disinterested persons.

Deuteronomy 21:20

Only the trees which thou knoicest, that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down. If it were necessary for the raising bulwarks (as it here fQllows), or otherways to distress the enemy, they had liberty to cut down trees that did not bear fruit; but not merely to make waste and desolation. And thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee.] From whence they battered the city, and threw great stones into it; as well as begirt them round, that no provisions might be brought in to them. Thus we find they did in aftertimes, 2 Chron. xxvi. 15. 2 Sam. xx. 15. And they must have some such inventions in Moses’s days; or else how could they take cities fortified with such high walls as are mentioned Deut. i. 28.? Or to what purpose should they build bulwarks, and cast up banks, but from thence to batter the city with some engine or other? Until it be subdued.] From these words the Jewish doctors conclude, that it was lawful to make war even upon the sabbath; because, having set down before a city, they were to proceed till it was subdued; which these words suppose might not be in a short time. Only they say, that the siege was to be begun at least three days before the sabbath. Thus these superstitious people, not thinking common reason sufficient to justify them in so plain a case, make the Scripture speak what it intended not for their warrant. See Schickard, in his Jus Regium, cap. 5. Theor. 18. where he alleges Maimonides in his Hilkoth Melachim to this purpose. And Joh. Benedictus Carpzovius produces a plainer out of Hilkoth Schabbath, where he delivers their sense in these words: " A siege is to be begun three days before the sabbath; and then it may be continued every day, even upon the sabbath, until the city be taken: and this may be done in a war that is voluntarily undertaken. For thus our wise men understand these words by ancient tradition, until it be subdued.’ 9 And they shall say unto the elders of his city.] This seems to intimate the authority of parents was still so.preserved, that their testimony alone was sufficient to convict a rebellious son, without any further proof. The Hebrew doctors, indeed, are of another mind, as I shall shew >in the explication of what follows. This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice.] This is to be understood, say they, of a son that was no ldss than thirteen years old and a day; and so might be presumed to know his duty, and to be capable of being governed by counsel and good advice; and this is reasonable enough: but what they say concerning the time when he became his own man is monstrously absurd. (See Selden, lib. ii. de Synedr. cap. 13. p. 559, 560;) What they say of a daughter, not to be comprehended under this law, may be admitted, because she was not capable to do so much mischief in a family as a rebellious son. He is a glutton and a drunkard.] These sins are no where.made capital by the law of Mosos, but when they were accompanied with rebellious disobedience to parents, who were to bring witnesses, as the Hebrew doctors say, thatthis son had stolen some of their goods, and sold Ihcm, that;he might spend the money in these vices; under which others’ are comprehended, which usually attend them; and that he had done this, after he had been admonished and chastised: so that he was not to be punished as this law at last prescribes, till he was grown incorrigible. For, they say, the court was first to order him to be whipped, and vnot lo proceed further till, upon a new complaint, it was proved that he had run into the same riotous courses since that punishment. Then, upon this second testimony (as they call it), the court gave sentence against him, that he should be stoned to death, unless the parents, before the sentence was pronounced, said they gave him their pardon. There are a gTeat many little niceties about the quantity of meat and wine that he ate and drank, and other matters; with which I do not think fit to trouble the reader. Ver.‘21. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.] This is such a severe sentence, that it inclines me to think, the parents looked upon such a son as so debauched, that he would not only spend all their estate, if he had it, but was inclined to kill them, that he might get it into his own hands. For the sentence of death is denounced, elsewhere, against one that struck his father or -mother, (Exod. xxi. 15.) or that cursed them, (ver. 17.) It is not said, indeed, he should be stoned, but put to death; which they interpret of strangling; this punishment of stoning being appointed for idolaters and blasphemers of God; next to whom parents are to be reverenced, being in God’s place, with respect to their children. (See upon the fifth commandment.) And therefore other nations were very severe in their punishment of such children as are here described; and particularly the Romans, after the power was taken from parents to sell them, or put them to death, and the censure of them committed to the magistrates. (See Hen. Stephen, in his Pontes et Rivi Juris Civilis, p.18.) And

Deuteronomy 21:23

His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day. This is excellently interpreted byJosephus, lib.iv.Archxol. cap. 8. Mdvag^ oXrjgryjg njuiipag tig Se’ovtwv airavrvjv, SairrlaSu) vvicrog. Having remained the whole day a spectacle unto all, he was to be buried at night: for as soon as the sun went down, the body also was taken down. Examples of which we have in the book of Joshua, viii. 29. x. 26, 27. In which he is far more sincere than their rabbins, who say the law was satisfied if they hanged up the body just before the setting of the sun, and presently after took it down again: which exposition seems to have been contrived in favour of their countrymen; for only Israelites, they confess, were to be thus exposed, not proselytes of the gate, as Mr. Selden observes, lib. ii. de Jure Nat. et Gent. &c. cap. 12. For he that is hanged is accursed of God.] The Jews interpret this clause, as if the meaning were, ho was hanged because he blasphemed God. So Onkclos himself, and the Samaritan versions, with those of the Spanish and Mauritanian Jews, as Selden observes, lib.ii. dc Synedr. cap. 13. n. 4. and Hottinger, in his Smegma Oricntale, p. 96, 97. * But though this be a common opinion among the Hebrew doctors, yet the LXX. have taken the sense right, “0™ KiKarripauivog virb Owv irag Kptjuiautvog iiri £vXov. Cursed of God is every one that is hanged on a tree. And so St. Paul, Galat. iii. with very little difference. For they observed what those doctors did not, that Moses doth not here give a reason why the man was hanged up, but why he was to be taken down from the gallows. Now what consequence is there in this, Let him be taken down, and buried, because he cursed God? Every one sees that (though the word cursed should be taken in an active sense) this is not a right interpretation of these words: for though it had been good sense to have said, Let him be hanged, because he t cursed God; yet not let him be taken down for that reason. Now such persons are hero said to be accursed of God, not because they were hanged up, but because of their sin, which deserved they should be thus exposed. So St. Jerome upon Galatiaus iii. *” Non idco malcdictus quia pendet, sed idco pendet quia maledictus:” he was not accursed because lie teas hanged; but he was therefore hanged became he was accursed: hanging up being a token that the man had committed a horrid crime, whereby lie had incurred the high displeasure of Almighty God. So that every one who saw him hang on that fashion was to think with himself, This man was under the cutsc of God, because of his sin; and unless he had undergone this curse, he could not.have been buried, and put into the condition of othejr