Deuteronomy 22

men. But when he had undergone it for his sin, then it had been a sin in the people not to have taken him down, or prolonged his suspension longer than God imposed this curse upon him. And the land had been defiled, if, after this suffering which God had appointed, they had not buried him. To this purpose Abarbinel, who refutes several other accounts of this matter, particularly, that of Sol. Jarchi, who thinks he was not to hang longer than till the evening, because it would have freen a dishonour to the Sovereign &f the world, after whose image man was made. This is followed by many, and even by Grotius himself, who gives no other reason of it, in his book de Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. ii. cap. 19. sect. 4. But.this is a reason, as Abarbinel notes* why he should not have been hanged up at all. It may be also usefully noted further, that they say in the tract called Sanhedrin, that not only the malefactor, but all the instruments of punishment, were to be buried at the going down of the sun. Even the tree itself, upon which he was hanged, was to be buried, “that no memory of so foul a thing might be left in the world; nor any might say, Behold, this was the tree upon which such a one was hanged.” That the land be not defiled which the Lord thy God giveth thee.] By the stench of the body, after it petrified, as the same Abarbinel expounds it, who observes, that the dead body of no creature corrupts and stinks sooner than that of a man, which is exceeding offensive to the living. For which cause, saith he, the book Siphri determines, not only that all malefactors should be buried as soon as the law" here orders (that they might not imitate the manners of the Egyptians and Philistines, and such-like people, who let bodies rot in the air after they w: ere hanged up), but.that every man should bury his dead the same day they died, or be deemed to have transgressed a negative precept; which may pass for a very good natural reason of it: but there is something more in it, respecting a legal pollution, under which their whole country lay, as long as an accursed thing hung openly among them; just as all that entered" into the tent where a dead body lay, and all that was in it, were made unclean by it, (Numb. xix. 14, 1 5.) Upon which score St. Paul might well apply this passage to Christ crucified for us; not only because he bare our sins, and was put to death, and exposed to such shame as these sinners were, who were accursed of God; but was also taken down in the evening, in token now the guilt was removed; as the ■ curse upon the man that was hanged ended at the going down of the sun; and as the land of Israel was pure and clean, after the dead body was taken down and buried, with the tree upon which it was hanged. Joh. Coch hath well explained this, in his notes upon the. Sanhedrin, cap. G. sect. 5. whose sense in short is this: As our. blessed Savionr, whilk he hung upon the cross, was made a curse, and an execration; so, when, according to the law, he was taken down and buried, both he ceased to be a curse, and all they that are his. [chap..XX it. usually worn by women, and women those worn by men; particularly in Iho worship of Venus’, women appeared before her inarmour, and men in women’s apparel. And thus the words literally run hero in the Hebrew;’ Women shall not put on the armour of a* man (so the word cell frequently signifies armour, as well as other sorts of instruments), nor a man (frrokrjv the LXX. translate it) the stole of a woman. (See Selden, Syntag. ii. de Diis^Syris, cap. 4.) And thus Maimonides saith he found this precept in an old magical book, that men ought to stand before the star of Venus in the flowered garment of women, and women put on the armour of men before the star of Mars. (More Nevochim, par. iii. cap. 37.) Servius also, upon the secQnd book, of iEneids, mentions a statue of Venus at Cyprus (in which island were anciently many colonies of Phoenicians), to whom the women sacrificed in men’s garments, and the men in women’s. Many other nations did the same. (See I. Ger. Vossius, lib. ii. dc Orig. et Progr. Idol. cap. 27. 81. but especially our learned Dr. Spencer, lib. ii. cap. 17. sect. 1, &c.) • But setting aside all this, every one knows, that if there were no distinction of sexes made by their habits, it would: open a door to all manner of impurity; for which reason, if there were no other, this law was very wise and pious. Ver. ii. If a bird’s-nest chance to be before thee in the ivay in any tree, or on the ground, &c] By this place, imong others, (particularly Psal. viii. 8.) it appears the word tsippor signifies all kinds of birds, and not only the smaller sort, assome have imagined, but he seems particularly tp speak of clean birds, such as it was lawful for themto cat. y And this precept seems to have been given, to breed in the Jews a sense of a Divine Providence, extending itself to all creatures, and to teach them to exercise their dominion over them without any kind of cruelty. Thou shall not lake the dam with the young.] R. Menachem, mentioned both by Drusius and Bochartus, was of opinion, that it is not pity towards birds which is intended in this law, but kindness to mankind; whom God intended by this usage, of other creatures, to form unto gentleness and commiseration towards one another. But others, I think, have more truly determined, that this is a merciful constitution, with respect to birds as well as men; it being a sufficient affliction, as Maimonides calls it, to the old one io lose her young; it being unreasonable also that men should consider only their own present interest without regard to posterity, to whom the breed ought to be continued, by letting the old one go free. Unto which those verses, commonly ascribed to Phocylides, have respect: MijSc rig opvt^ac KaXing afia irairac cXla&w, Mrjrlpa 8’ k-n-poXiVyc, tv?xyc ^oXi rfjc t| vtorrovg. i. e. Let no man take all the birds together out of a nest; but let the mother go, that thou mayest have young ones again of her. • seeds.] What he had said concerning their fields, Lev. xix. 19. he now says of their vineyards, which they were not to sow with seeds of a diverse kind: for this was an idolatrous custom, ns the reason given against it plainly shews. This Maimouides saith he found in a book of the Zabii, and in one rabbi Josiah, who taught, that " these three things, wheat, barley, and grapes dried in the sun, should be sown together in the ground with one and the same cast of the hand:" which was so senseless a thing, that he could liot but think they learnt it from the w r ays of the Amorites, as his words are, that is, from the wicked idolaters of the country to which the Israelites were going. For wheat being sown properly at one season of the year, and barley at another, and’ a vineyard being an improper place for the growth of either of them, this custom could not have its original either from God or from man, but from the devil, the author of confusion, who taught them this uncouth rite, in honour of Ceres, perhaps, and Bacchus, whom they joined in the same act of worship. ■ Lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.] If the Israelites had followed this custom, it would have made both the corn and the grapes that sprung up from such seed impure, because polluted by idolatry 9 the very smell of which God would not have to remain among the Israelites, as Maimonides speaks in his More Nevochim, par, iii. cap. 37. (See Dr. Spencer, in his very learned work de Leg, Ritual. Hebr. lib. ii. cap. 18.) Every one also knows, that it was unlawful for the Israelites to eat any of the fruits of the earth, till the first-fruits of them had been offered unto God; which would not have been accepted by him of such things as these, that were expressly forbidden by his law; and consequently the whole crop became unclean to them, and might not be used by them., ffil And diastise him.’] Condemn him to receive forty stripes save one, as both Josephus and the Talrnudists agree; and it was to be done wth a scourge made of thongs of an ox’s hide. The woman was dismissed with a solemn benediction; the form of which is set down in the Jewish rituals: and as for the false witnesses against her, they were condemned to be stoned, according to the law, chap, kix. Ver. 19* And they shall amerce him in a hundred shekels of silver, and give them nnto the father of the damsel] Who was to receive this satisfaction for the reproach which was thrown upon his family. It is something stTange that Josephus should mention only TrcvriVovra gikKovq, fifty shekels to be paid to her father,‘when the Scripture expressly saith a hundred, (lib. iv. Archaeolog. cap. 8.) But it is supposed, by some, that he means fifty besides her dowry, which he was to have given her, if he had put, her away: which, that he might save, he designed to take away her life; and therefore was punished double to what it would have cost him, if he had been so wncked. Because he hatJi brought tip <tn evil report upon a virgin of Israel.] Laid the most infamous crime to the charge of. an innocent virgin; and that out of hatred to her and love to his money. For if he would have put her away, according to the law of divorce, no man could have hindered Jiim, as Maimonides observes: but then he must have paid her fifty shekels, which they take to be the do wry of virgins, mentioned Exod. xxii. 16, 17. To keep which to himself, and be rid of her, he brought this scandalous action against her; for which he was thus justly punished. And she shall be his wife: he may not put her away all his days.] Besides the two former punishments, in his body and his purse, he was deprived of the common benefit which all men had who did not like their wives; which was to sue out a divorce. Here Maimonides calls upon his readers to admire the wise ordination of God, which appears in his judgments, as well as in his ivorks. For because this man took away his wife’s reputation, therefore’God ordered him to be rendered vile, by being whipped: -and because he basely contrived to save her dowry of fifty -shekels, he ordered him to be amerced as much more: and ^because he indulged his lust, and sought nothing but his pleasure, therefore he was bound to keep her as long as she lived, (More Ncvochim, par. iii. cap, 49.)

Deuteronomy 22:1

JL HOUshalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them. They were not to turn away their face, as if they did not see them, and so neglect them. And by brother is to be understood, not only an Israelite, but any man that lived among them; this being a matter of common right, and extended to their enemies as well as their friends, (Exod. xxiii.4.) Thou shall in any case bring them again to thy brother.] Not merely give notice to the owner where he saw them, but take care himself to bring them back, that they might not go further astray, and perhaps be quite lost, before the owner could have notice of them. This and many that follow are precepts of humanity, and care of each other’s welfare, without which society could not be preserved.

Deuteronomy 22:2

And if thy brother be not nigh thee, or thou know him not; then thou shall bring it to thine own house. And preserve it there, till he could send to him, or find who the. owner was. And it shall be ivith thee until thy brother seek after it.] He was to give notice, by the public crier, that such a beast was with him, and that, as the Jews say, three or. four times, that the owner might seek after it. But here they are pleased to make a distinction: that they were to; do this, if there were marks upon the beast; but if there were none, they were not bound to cry it: which doth not seem to be reasonable. (See Selden, lib. vi. de Jure Nat. • et Gent. cap. 4.) And thou shall restore it to him again.] He paying the charges of keeping it, from the time it was brought to his house till its being restored. But if nobody could prove. a right in the beasts that were lost, they became his who found them, and he might lawfully keep them; for no other; owner appearing, they were his that was in present possession of them, who did very piously, if he gave the value of them to the poor (and so the law was in many places); but he was an honest owner of them, if he kept them to • himself; as Grotius observes, lib. ii. de Jure Belli et Pacis, cap. 10. sect. 11.

Deuteronomy 22:3

In like manner shall thou do with his ass, and so shall thou do with his raiment, and with all f lost things, &c. In all other cases of like nature, the same law was to be observed. Thou may est not hide thyself.] Pass them by with neglect, or pretend they did not see them. -

Deuteronomy 22:4

Thou shall not see thy brothers ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself front them. Turn away, as if they did not see the danger they were in. Thon shall surely help him to lift them up againJ] This hath been explained upon Exod. xxiii. 5» I shall only add here a famous example of this soTt of piety, in Alphonsus king of Naples; who, travelling upon the road, attended by: a great number of courtiers, and seeing a poor ass with a burden fallen into a deep slough (whom all that went before him passed by without any regard), when he came to the place, stopped, and went himself to the driver, and lent him assistance to help the ass out of the dirt. So David Chytraeus upon this place.

Deuteronomy 22:5

The woman shall not ivear that tvhich pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a tooman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God. The last words of this place plainly indicate, that it was an idolatrous custom, which is here prohibited. For Moses and the prophets are wont to speak in these terms of utmost abhorrence concerning such matters. And nothing was more common among the heathen, than for men, in the worship of several of their gods, to put on the garments

Deuteronomy 22:7

Thou shall in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee. For there is a great deal of ill-natme in it, to take* away the liberty and the life of any creature, from whom we -have received a benefit; as Bonfrcrius glosses upon these words. That it may be well ivith thee, and that thou mayest proj long thy days.] Some of the Jews, from these words, have fancied, that the observation of this single precept was of f such great value, as’ to procure for them even forgiveness of sins, and a long life; which is such a foolish conceit, that it makes all other precepts unnecessary. The plain meaning is, that God would reward them for their kind usage even of brute creatures, if other virtues were not wanting, such as charity towards their poor neighbours. And so the Mischna, in the conclusion of the tract called Cholin, discourses very well: " If in a light precept con-: cerning a thing which is scarce worth a farthing, the law says, That it may be well with, thee, and thou mayest prolong thy days; how much more may this be expected in the weightier things of the law?"

Deuteronomy 22:8

When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof. The Jews, I think, are a little too curious, in setting a mark upon the word thy, fancying, he saith, not simply the roof, but thy roof, to except the temple, and the synagogues, and schools, from this rule; which were no private manV house, but belonged to the whole congregation. They say, indeed, the temple had battlements; but not for necessity, but for ornament, because the roof of the temple was not flat, as the roof of another house was; for nobody walked upon the temple, as they did upon their own houses, to take the air, and discourse together, or to meditate and pray (in little closets they had there), which made it necessary to have these battlements, of three foot and a half high (as the Jews say), to prevent any man’s falling down, when he did not attend, but was thinking of some other thing. (See Constant. L’Etnpereur, in his annotations on Codex Middoth, p. 1G0.) That the roofs of their houses were flat, which was the ground of this precept, we have many proofs in the Scripture. For hither Rahab brought the spies; and covered them with tho stalks of flax, which she laid upon them, (Josh. ii. 6.) Here Samuel communed with Saul, upon the top of the house, (1 Sam. ix. 25.) David also was walking upon the roof of his palace, when he saw Bath-sheba washing herself, (2 Sam. xi.2.) And in the same place Absalom caused a tent to be spread, that he might go in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel, (xvi. 22. see also Isa. xv. 3. xxii. 1. and in the New Testament, Acts x. 9.) Nor was it the manner of the Hebrews only, but of the Greeks and Romans also, to make the roofs pf their houses so that they might walk upon them; and stand there to see any public show, or take the air; as Is. Casaubon shews, in a multitude of instances, lib. iv. in Athenaeum, cap.. 12. where he observes also out of Pliny and Seneca, that the Roman houses wanted these battlements, which Moses here ordered in this law\ By all which wc may easily understand those places in the gospel, that speak of proclaiming these things on the house-top, &c. (Matt, x, 27. Luke v. 19.) TJiat thou bring not blood upo?t thine house, if any man fall from thence.] And be killed by the fall. For his neglect being the causoof his death, it made him guilty before God of his blood, and liable to be punished by the judges for slighting so profitable an institution as this is: which the Jews extend to a studious care about every thing that might bring a man’s life in danger. For example’s sake: they might not keep a, mad dog, nor set up a broken ladder in their house, &c. as I/Empereur observes upon Bavakama, cap. 5.

Deuteronomy 22:9

Thou shall 7iot sow thy vineyard with divers

Deuteronomy 22:10

Thou shall not plough with an ox and an ass together. Lest that law should be violated which we read Lev. xix. 19. ’ Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diver.se kind/’ So some give the reason of it; even Maimomonides, in the book foremeutioned, pan iii. cap. 49, But it seems also to have respect to those magical rites of the idolatrous nations in those countries; who thought their fields would be more fruitful, if, according to some directions which had been given by their gods, they were thus ploughed. For one cannot well think that men, of themselves, would join together two creatures so different in their temper and motions, to draw in the same yoke, if they had not been led to it by some superstition or other. For their.strength is unequal, as Aben Ezra here observes, " the strength of an ass is not as the strength of an ox." Whence it was that Ulysses, to make it be believed that he was mad, joined a horse and an ass to plough: and Homer, Odyss. 5. would have oxen laoipopovg, joined together; that is, tawc fyipovrag kcw XXkovtoc, equally bearing and drawing’, as Bochart observes the scholiast there glosses. The Jews commonly think this law extends to all other creatures of different spocies, ^which might not be yoked together. But some understand it so, that they might join several kinds together; provided one was not unclean, and the other clean. Baai-Hatturirn finds this mystery in this prohibition, That the.righteous ought to have no society with the wicked. And there are those who think the apostle alludes to this, when he saith,,(2 Cor. vi. 14.), Mfj yivzoQs’ tTtpoZvyovvTBG aViVrotCj Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; which Bochart himself thinks not improbable. (See Hierozoicon, par. i. lib. ii. cap. 13. aj:d cap. 40. p. 401. where there are other reasons of this precept.)

Deuteronomy 22:11

Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. The ancients think God intended hereby to teach his people simplicity in their manners. (See Bochart, in the same book, par. i. lib. ii. cap. 45* p. 491.) But there was something farther in it, as Ihave observed upon Lev.. xix. 19. to which I refer the reader." And shall only add here, that the Jews carried this so far, as not to sew a woollen garment with linen thread; nor on the contrary.

Deuteronomy 22:12

Thou shalt make thee fringes^. What these were, is sufficiently explained upon Numb. x v. 38, 39. (See there.) Upon the four quarters of thy vesture.] They wore long garments in those countries, as most people do still at this day. And I suppose the garments of the Jews had usually. four skirts: but perchance they sometimes had more or fewer than four; and, in this case, if they had but three,: their doctors have resolved they wete not bound to. make any fringes for them; but, if they had five or six, they were bound to annex them to the four most remote quarters, in which the intermediate were included. But this is a very, unreasonable subtilty; the intention. of the law being, that they might be put in remembrance of God’s commandments by these fringes, which therefore were to be worn in the skirts of their garments, though they had been divided into no wings or quarters at all.. WJierewith thou covewst thyself] Which they commonly wore: and itseems to, signify the uppermost garment, which covered all the rest, and was most seen; whereby they were distinguished from the people of other nations: for that was one end of these fringes, to.be a distinctive mark that they were of the Jewish religion. And therefore, I do not see any reason in the determination of their doctors, who say, women-servants and little children were not bound to wear fringes: for though little children could not think of the commandments of God, yet it.was fit they, should wear the note of their religion.. There is no reason, m neither in their resolution, when they say, that.if women: and servants (who were bound as much as others toobservethe laws of God) would wear fringes, though they were not obliged by their constitutions, yet they might not put themt * on with the common form of benediction which they used.; But I think they observe rightly enough, that these fringes., were so peculiar to the Jews, that the Samaritans, though acquainted with the law, did not wear them. Nor do the, Jews themselves at this day use them upon their upper, garments for that being no longer four-cornered (because, it made them a laughing-stock), they wear only under their, Other garments a kind of square frock, with the aforesaid: tassels or pendants fastened to it; (as Leo Modena relates" in his History of the Jews, par. i. chap. 5.) Only in their, synagogues or schools, at morning prayer, every man puts over his head a square woollen garment, with the tassels fastened at each corner, which they call tdlith. Concerning, which Bartoloccius,inhis late Rabbinical Lexicon, torn, i; hath a long dissertation, p. 576, &c.

Deuteronomy 22:13

If a man take a ivife, and go in unto lier. Have carnal knowledge of her.: ^ 5 C Microsoft® [chap. XXII. i And hate her.] Do not like her; but is desirous to be rid of her.

Deuteronomy 22:14

And give occasion of speech against her. Tho LXX. translate it imQ$ avry TrpotpavriKovg \6yovg, lay to her charge such things (fox so words sometimes signify) as are opprobrious. And bring up an evil name upon her J] Or, as the Hebrew words are, bring forth a name of evil, or infamy: which signifies, as Mr. Selden observes, (lib. iii. Uxor. Hcbr. cap. 1. p. 321.) the action itself, which he brought against her in the court of judgment. This appears from the words following. And say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid-] This was the form wherein the, action was laid against her (as the same Selden there observes), in these words, as the Jews say; " Having lain with this young woman, not of full age, as her husband, I found not in her the tokens of virginity;. and making inquisition into the matter, it appears to me that she hath been guilty of adultery, after I had espoused her: and these, are eye-witnesses of Kcr guilt.".

Deuteronomy 22:15

Then shall the father and the mother of the damsel take and bring.forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity. If the accusation, as they say, was to be made good by witnesses of her adultery, then her defence was to be made, no doubt, by, contrary witnesses, who endeavoured to disprove the testimony which. was brought against her. For so they are constrained to interpret the words we. translate tokens of her virginity; as I shall shew upon ver. 17. The Hebrews have many nice subtilties about the word damsel, with which I shall not trouble the reader. (See Selden, in the forcnamed place, lib. iii. Uxor. Hebr. cap. 1.). Unto the elders of the city.] The court consisting of twenty-three judges; who had the cognizance of common, capital, and penal causes, in every city. In the gate.] Where the court sat, as. I observed before uponxvi. 18.. And this may be added to what I noted there, that by this may be explained those words in the book of Job, v.,4- concerning the children of the wicked, that they are crushed in.thz gate, i. e. lose their cruise, and are condemned in the court.of judgment, and those of the wise man, Prov..xxii. 22. Oppress not the afflicted in the gate r i.e. do him justice, and not let bim be overthrown, because he wants money to.defend his cause. This ap-5 pears to be the sense from the, very next words, (ver. 23.) For the Lord will plead their cause, &c- Ver. 1G. And the damsel’s father, sltall say. unto the elders, I gave. my daughter unto this man to wife.] The Jews say, the mother had no power to espouse her daughter, hut the father only, before she was of ogc. Mischna Sotac, cap. 3. sect. 8. where Wagenseil. notes, that the mother, and brethren also, had some power in this matter; but such, that the daughter, within a time limited, might make the contractvoid.. And he hateth her.] Hath no affection which a husband ought to have to a wife. If she had no parents alive, the judges appointed her a guardian: and Josephus saith the. next of kin were to patronize her, as if they had beeriher parents.

Deuteronomy 22:17

, Andy lo! he hath given occasion of speech against her. Sec ver. 14. He doth not add what there follows, and brought up an evil name upon her (i. e. accused her publicly before you of adultery), because it is sufficiently comprehended in this. Saying, I found not thy daughter a maid.] As such and such give evidence. And yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity.] I have good witnesses to the contrary; which are here ready to be produced before the court, to disprove the former testimony. And they.] That is, tho witnesses which the father produces. Shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.] Though such tokens of virginity, as are commonly understood by these words, might always be found in those countries (being very consonant to the opinion of the chiefest Arabian physicians, as Mr. Selden observes out of Avicenna, and of the Africans and other people at this day, as many authors testify, see Joh. Geusius de Victimis Humanis, par. i. cap. 9. and par. ii. cap. 2. and Wierus L. Medicarum Observationem, sect, de Hymene), especially in such virgins as the Jews say were here meant, who were under thirteen years of age; and though all that some physicians and lawyers in these parts. of the world have said to the contrary is of no consideration; yet there are weighty reasons to incline us to think, that no man of common sense would bring such an action against his wife, wherein he, was sure to be cast, whether his cause was right or wrong, if these were the evidences whereby. it was to be tried. For if he accused her falsely, ho knew her friends were able to produce the sheet wherein they lay when they were married, with such tokens upon it as would disprove him, and render him guilty of defamation.- And if he had a just ground to accuse her, because he knew they could produce no such tokens; yet this was no proof she had been vitiated since sho was espoused to him; for she might have been corrupted before; and then he could not attain his end, which was to be rid of her, not by way of divorce (for then he must have given her a dowry, which he was desirous to save), but by having her put to death as an adultrcss, which ver. 21. shews to. be the present case. Such evident reasons as these have constrained the Jews to understand these words, not according to the very letter of them, but figuratively, of such witnesses produced by her parents, as convinced the other of falsity so evidently, that they made it appear as plainly as a piece of cloth that is unfolded, and laid before men’s eyes to view it. And they tliink the Hebrew word simlah, which we translate the cloth, favours this exposition: for it never signifies a sheet, or linen-cloth, (which is wont to be called sadin, Judg. xiY. 12. Prov. xxxi. 24.) but such cloth as men’s garments are made of, which commonly is woollen, not linen. And so it is used in this book, Dcut. x. 18. and in this.very chapter, ver. 5.* So that the. sense is, They shall produce evident proofs, and lay them before the court, tike a piece of cloth, which is spread for all that please to look upon it. Whether this be the truth or not/ 1 will not’ dispute, but refer the reader to Mr. Selden, lib. iii. Uxor. Hcbr. cap. 1, 2.

Deuteronomy 22:18

And the elders of that city shall take that mtmJ. If they were convinced that he had accused his wife falsely, he was to be delivered into the hands of the officers who executed the sentence of the court.

Deuteronomy 22:20

But if this thing be true, and the tokens ofviryinity benot found for the damsel. If the witnesses which appeared for her could not prove the falsity of their testi-.mony who appeared against her. Ver. 2L. Then shall they bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house.] Where she was to be punished, as a disgrace to her parents, who had taken no better care to preserve her chastity while she lived with them. And tlie men of her city shall stone her with stones, that she die.] This was the punishment of such adulteresses, except only of a priest’s daughter, who, if she was guilty of this crime, was burnt alive, (Lev. xxi. 19.) And it plainly shews he speaks here of a woman corrupted between the time of her espousals and her husband’s completing the marriage: otherwise he could not have had this capital action against her, none being put to death for simple fornication. And this Maimonides saith, in Seder Zeraim, that, from Moses to his time, it was never doubted, the woman he Here speaks of was one that proved false to heV husband after she was contracted to him. Because she hath wrought folly in Israel] A great wickedness; as the word folly signifies in Scripture, and as the Vulgar translates it. To play the ivhorein her father’s house.] Where she remained after her espousals, as in a safe place, till her husband brought her home to his own house. So shdli thou put evil away from among you.] See chap, xix. 19. Ver 22. If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, &c] It is not said what death, either here, or Lev. xx. 10. But the Jews say they were to be strangled: which is an opinion so settled among them, that Buxtorf saith he never saw any Hebrew book which assigned any other punishment for adultery but this. Stoning, indeed, was the punishment of her that, after her espousals, played the whore (as was noted before) between that time and her Inarriage: but after the marriage was completed, if she were guilty of this crime/ this was the only punishment, according to their tradition. (See upon Lev. xx. 10. ixhd Buxtorf. de Sponsal. et Divortiis, p. 32, 33. and Grotius, in John viii. 5.)

Deuteronomy 22:23

If a damsel, that is a virgin, be betrothed to it husband. But not yet known by him: for there was generally some space between the esp6usals and-the bringing her home to her husband’s house. And the time allowed was, more or less, according to her age. (See Seldcn, lib. ii. Uxor* Hebr. cap. 8.) And a man find her in the city, and lie tvith her.] If he lay with her anywhere else, the crime was the same; but ft was not so easy to corrupt her in her father’s house, or among her friends, ^Vhefe she remained till the completion of the marriage, as it was to do it abroad in the city, or in the field,

Deuteronomy 22:24

Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city. That is, to the court of judgment, which sat there; as I noted upon xvi. 18. And ye shall stone them with stones, that they die.] After they had been sentenced to this death by the court. The damsel, because she cried not out.] Which was a demonstration she was not forced, but lay with him by consent. Being in the city.] Where the neighbours might have heard her cry; and the force, if there had been any, prevented. The man, because lie hath humbled hisneighbour'6 ivife.J For so she was by such a contract, as made her only his; This is supposed to be the case of the woman taken in adultery, mentioned John viii. 5. (See my notes upoh Lev. xx. 10.) So thou shall put aivay evil from among you.] See ver.

Deuteronomy 22:25

Andifa man find a betrothed damsel in the field. Where nobody was near, as in the city. And the man force her, and lie ivith her.] It was presumed, by the circumstances of the place, that she did not consent, but was under a force; as slie also affirmed, and he could not prove the contrary. Then the man only that lay withher shall die.] Because he only was guilty of a crime, as it follows in the next words. Ver> 20. But unto the damsel thou shall do nothing; there 5 C ° Digitized vy Microsoft ® [chap. XXIII. is in the damsel no sin worthy of death.’] To make her liable to suffer death: for it was her misfortune, as we speak, not her fault, that she was ravished. For asivhen a man riseth against his neighbour, and slaycfh him.’] lie not being able to defend himself. Even so is this matter.] It is here observed by many (particularly by Grotius and De Dieu), that chastity is equal unto life.

Deuteronomy 22:27

For he found her in the field. Far distant from all company.‘And the betrothed damsel cried.] For help, as she affirmed, aud as it was presumed; because, if she had consented, some other place might have been found, more convenient for their purpose than the field. And there ivas none to save her.] None appeared to rescue her, as she desired.

Deuteronomy 22:28

If a man find a virgin. In the field, beforementioned. JWiich is not betrothed.] To a husband. And lay hold of her, and lie with her, and they be found.] There be witnesses of it; or they themselves confess it. This case is different from that in Exod. xxii. 1(>, 17. in many respects. For that law speaks of one that was drawn in to" consent to the man’s lying with her by enticing words (whicli is expressly there mentioned), and fair promises, perhaps, of marriage; but here Moses speaks of one that laid hold of her, i. e. deflowered her by force and violence. In this case the man was bound to marry her, if she and her father pleased (for both their consents were required, though the’xnan that deflowered her could not refuse); but in the former case the man himself might choose whether lie would marry or not, which he could not refuse in this; and besides, was bound to pay fifty shekels, as a mulct upon him for the crime, as follows in the next verse. (See Selden, lib. i. Uxor. Hebr. cap. 1G.)

Deuteronomy 22:29

Then the man thai lay with her shall give nnto the damsels father fifty shekels of silver. Here is another difference between this case and that in Exodus; where the man was bound to settle a dowry upon her; but here to pay a fine unto her father. The reason is plain; because there was no need of settling a dow r ry in this case, as in the former; for the dowry was settled upon her in that case, lest the husband might lightly and wantonly put her away by divorce, aud she have nothing to maintain her; of which there was no danger here, because this law saith expressly, in the conclusion of this verse, that he may not put her away all his days. Yet there are those who think it likely, that in this case also ho settled a dowry of fifty shekels upon her, besides what he paid to her father; for otherwise the condition of a virgin deflowered by force, was worse than hers deflowered by her own consent. They have some exceptions concerning this payment to her father, which are not very material, nor certain. But this is considerable, that this fine was the same, whether the woman was of noble or of mean parentage, neither more nor less was paid by the law. But in afterthnes, the Sanheilrin, they tell us, added some other mulcts besides this here* mentioned; because it seemed so small, that the honour of a virgin was not thought sufficiently repaired by it. Therefore, he that enticed a virgin paid other two; one for the shame and dishonour he had done her; and the other for the loss of her virginity, and vitiating her body. And he that forced a virgin paid a third besides these two, upon the account of the pain unto which he was supposed to have put her. And in these three they proportioned the penalties to the quality of the person, and other considerations, which mado them vary. (See Selden, in the forenamed place, p. 123.) And she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her.] Though she wero blind, or lame, or leprous, he could not refuso her; if she and her father required him to marry her. He may not put her away all his days.] This was a third part of his punishment for the force he had committed, that he should be forced not only to take her to wife, but constrained also to keep her as long as she lived, and not have the liberty of giving her a bill of divorce, as other men might do, who were desirous to part with their wives. If it be asked, how it could be known whether she was enticed or forced; they answer, as was observed before, that it was reasonably presumed that he forced her, if the thing was done in the field, or in a place far from inhabitants; but if in the city or town, that she consented, unless the contrary was evidently proved.’

Deuteronomy 22:30

A man shall not take his father’s wife. That is/ shall not marry her. > Nor discover his father’s skirt.~] Nor so much as lie with her. For this is a modest phrase, borrowed from the an-’ cient custom in those countries; where the bridegroom, when he brought his bride into the chuppa, as they called,it, or bridal chamber, spread the skirt of his robe over her, to signify his right to her, and power over her, and that he alone might lawfully enjoy her. (Ruth iii. 9." Ezek.otvi. 8.) And this verse seems to me to be here inserted as a short memorandum, that they should be careful to observe all the laws which he had delivered against incestuous marriages in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus. (See there, ver. 8. and xx. 11.)