Deuteronomy 23

his Eiinuchus. But nobody thinks this to be the meaning here, that they should not entertain such a person as a proselyte; or that he should not come to worship God at the temple: for that was free for all nations if they renounced idolatry. But the meaning of this law is, either to forbid the Israelites to marry with such persons, or not to admit them to bear any office in the Jewish commonwealth.* The Hebrew doctors generally take it in the first sense/ See Selden, de Jure Nat* et Gent lib. v. cap. 16. and so do a great many among Christian writers. And there is an eminent example of the use of this phrase in this sense, Neh. xiii. 1 — 3. But some think it was superfluous to forbid this, because none would marry with such persons as were incapable to perform the marriage duty; and therefore they follow the second sense, it being certain that the Hebrew word kahal, congregation, signifies, in many places, not the whole body of the people of Israel, but the great assembly of ciders, into which no such person was to be admitted; because they were unfit for government, eunuchs being observed generally to want courage. Thus Simeon de Muis, and others, who seem to have great reason on their side. Yet it is so plain that the congregation of the Lord, in the following part of this chapter, signifies the people of Israel, who might not m^rry with the persons mentioned, vcr. 2, 3. 8. that I cannot but think it ought to be so interpreted here. For though such marriages were useless and unprofitable, as Maimonides speaks, yet they made a distinction between those who were made eunuchs by God (that is, born so) and those made by men: and this law, they say, is not to be understood of the former, but only of the latter. Some of which, it is certain, were left in such a condition, that they were desirous of marriage, as appears by the constitution of the Emperor Leo, who did not think it superfluous to forbid marriage with them. For it appears by it, that some women choose such husbands. See also Ecclesiasticus xxx. 20. but especially the book ascribed to St. Basil, De Vera Virginitate, tom.i. p. 719, &c. where there is too free a description of the unextingnishable lust of such eunuchs as were only deprived rtJv SiSvfjLwv, whose company he charges virgins to avoid, not only because they hoped to corrupt them without danger of discovery, but were insatiable in their desires. And on the other side, though they were unfit for marriage, yet it appears by many instances in history, that they were not unfit for government, nor wanted courage for the greatest undertakings. I need only refer the reader for this to Xenophon’s Cyropsedia, lib. vii. They that follow allegorical senses, free themselves from all these difficulties. (See Filesacus, lib. i. Selectorum, p.lCO. 185.) But one cannot think that Moses intended any of those things; though such pious use may be made of his words. tinction between (hem mid others should be abolished. This, one wonld have expected, should have been the sense of those who examine every word so nicely as the Jews do: for here being mention made only of an Ammonite and Moabite, that is, of the males of these two nations, they will not have their women concerned in this law: but say, that an Israelite might take one of them to wife, if she embraced their religion..For thus they expound this whole matter of marriages with proselytes of justice; that is, such of other nations as became entirely of the Jews’ religion. With such proselytes of some nations, whether men or women, the Israelites were never to make any marriages: with those of some other nations, they were prohibited only to marry with their men: with others, they were pro*- hibited to marry only for some generations;- and there were others, with whom they might marry as soon as they were made perfect proselytes. Of the first kind were the seven nations of Canaan, mentioned Deut. vii. 1. with the males or females of which they might never contract an affinity. To the second kind belong the Ammonites and Moabites; to whose males an Israelitish -woman was forbid by this precept to marry: but a man of Israel might marry any of their women, after they professed the Jewish religion; otherwise David, who descended from Ruth, a Moabitess, had been illegitimate. Of the third kind were the Edomites and Egyptians; with whom, and with their children, the Israelites might not marry; but their grandchildren might. And of the fourth kind were all other nations besides these mentioned. This is an abridgment of what our great Selden hath more largely shewn to be the sense of the Jews, in his fifth book de Jure Nat. et Gent. &c. cap. 14. which another excellent person, J. Christoph. Wagenseil hath confirmed, out of his inestimable MS. as he calls Etz- Hachajim, in Hilcoth Nidda, cap. 10. (See Excerp. Gem. in Sota, cap. 1. p. 143.). why no unclcimhcssi though in itself natural, might be found in their camp; but, out of reverence to the Divine Majesty, winch dwelt between the cherubims over the Ark, be removed afar off; And by such actions as these, Mai* monides well observes, God intended to strengthen and confirm the faith of the soldiers, that God, dwelling among them, would go along with them, and fight for them against their enemies, as it here follows* More Nevochim, par. iii. cap. 41. And thus Abarbinel discourses upon these words: " The camps of the Israelites ought to be holy, having a special providence of God among them: for they do not make war by mere human power and courage, but by the power of God and of his Spirit, on which they depend for deliverance from all evil, and victory over their enemics,"&<5. To deliver thee, and to give tip thine enemies before thee.] This is the constant sense of this phrase, of God’s being in the midst of them, to defend, protect, and deliver them from all evil, as I observed before. (See Deut. vii. 21. Josh, iii; 10. Psal. xlvi.6. Zachar. iii. 15.) Now this cleanliness being commanded with respect to the Divine presence, which dwelt among them, the Jews arc strangely mistaken in using such superstitions as they do in every place, when they have no such presence of the Divine Majesty in the midst of them. (See Schickard in Mischpat Hammeloch, cap. 5. Theor. 18. p. 144, &c.).. Therefore shall thy camp be holy.] Free from all manner of defilements, though they be only of this sort* TJiat he see no unclean thing in thee.] In.these words, saith Maimonidcs (in the place beforenamed), he deters them from fornication; which is far worse than the forementioned uncleanness; but too common among the soldiers, when they are absent from their own homes. And therefore, that he might keep them from such impurities, he commands them such actions (he means covering their ordure) as might call to their minds the glorious majesty of God which dwelt among them. But though the Hebrew word, which we here translate unclean thing, properly signifies nakedness, and all those impure mixtures mentioned in the eighteenth of Leviticus, and therefore by Maimonidcs particularly applied to such uncleanness; yet Mr. Selden hath well observed, that it signifies all manner of filthincss; and therefore is well so translated by us, both here and in the next chapter, where be speaks of the matter of divorce. And so it is used by the prophet Nahum, iii. 5. (to name no more),, where the nakedness of Nineveh, which God saith he -would shew to all nations, signifies all the murders, robberies, deceit, and other great wickednesses, which bounded in that city. (See Uxor. Hebr. lib. iii. cap. 23.) And thus Abarbinol here extends it to all the horrid sins which were usually committed in the camp? of idolaters. And turn away from thee.] As princes are wont to do, when they seeany thing offensive to them. And the meaning is, he would not deliver them from their enemies (as he promised’before), but give them up into their hands. I conclude all this matter with the words of R. Zacharias,in Pirke Eliezer, cap. 44. " The.-pillar of thfe cloud (in which the glory of the Lord dwelt) encompassed the camps of Israel round about, and made ^thom like a city girt’about with a trail, that no enemy might assault them. But this cloud threw all uncleanness out of the camps of Israel, for they were holy:" and he quotes this place for it. prostituted their bodies in honour of Venus and of Priapus, and such-like filthy deities! of which sort there were both males and females consecrated to such impure services! and this was practised even in the days of Moses; as appears from the history of those who committed fornication with the daughters of Moab, who exposed themselves in honour of Baal-Peor; for their lying with them was accounted idolatry. And such there were at last among the Israelites, as appears from 1 Kings xiv. 24. 2 Kings xxiii. where we read, that the hotcses of the Sodomites (as we translate it) were by the house of the Lord. Which shews they were not vulgar, but consecrated Sodomites, or whoremongers. I need not mention thojieathen writers, who tell us this was a piece of religion among them. See our learned Dr. Spencer, lib. ii; de Leg. Hebr. Ritual, cap. 22. and Heideggerus, in his Histor. Patriarch, cxereit. i. sect. 2. where he observes, a great many very learned men understand this very place, not merely of vulgar whores, but of such as I have mentioned; which were famous in ancient times among the Phoenicians, Babylonians, and other nations, whom Strabo calls upoSovXovc, lib. viii. Geograph. where he saith, (p. 378.) that at Corinth there was a temple so richly endowed, that it maintained irXdovg fj x^lag hpodovXovg kratpag, above a thousand.of these consecrated whores: whom both men and women had dedicated to the goddess, 01 yap vavKkripot p$i<>g l%>ava<‘X’hjkovtqi, for seafaring men (who arrived in great numbers at this port) parted ivith their money easily. And, lib. xii. speaking of Comana, he saith, there were a multitude of women there, 7wv zpyaZofizvwv airb Gufxarog, ivho maintained themselves by prostituting their bodies; and most of them were Upai, sacred persons: this city being a little Corinth, to which great numbers of people resorted at their festivals,?ta to ir\i)0og rwv krapejv at Trig’A^poSirtje faav Upai, because of the multitude of harlots which were here sacred to Venus, p. 559. And the like account we find in Athenseus, lib. xiii. Deipnos. cap. G. where he saith, they that went to pray there, were wont, for the obtaining their petitions, to add, that they would bring some women to be devoted unto Venus; as Xenophon the Corinthian did, when he returned conqueror from the Olympics. separate it, and lay it by till he met with one, &e. (cap. 8. de Donis Pauperum, sect. 1.) For the. Lord will surely require it of thee J] Demand that which thou hast made to be his own. And it would be sin in thee.’] Be punished by God’s just judgment upon thee for the wrong thou hast done him.

Deuteronomy 23:1

JtlE that is wounded in the stones. Bruised or compressed in those parts; as the manner was of making eunuchs, who are here spoken of, and were sometimes made that way when they were infants; or by taking them quite away; which was done in some when they were grown up. And there were those who had none of these parts left remaining; as it follows in the next “words. Or hath Ms privy member cut off.] In whole, or in part; which was not used till they found the other did not effectually answer their purpose in this unnatural practice. Wherein some thought they honoured their gods, particularly Cybele, the mother of the gods, unto whose service her priests devoted themselves by cutting off their genitals. So not only Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and several other of the ancient Christian writers testify, but many also of the pagan. (See Joh. Geusius de Victimis Humanis, par. ii. cap. 1.)’ Shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.] These persons were so much abhorred by some among the pagans, that Lucian saith they were excluded not only from the schools of philosophers, but, which was more, airh rtov lentov avnov, koI 7npippavrriQi(ov, kcu twv KOtvtov airtnTiov <xuA- \6yiov, from their holy ofiices, and their sprinklings, and all common meetings. So Diodes is introduced speaking in

Deuteronomy 23:2

A bastard.) The Hebrews do not understand by the word mamzer, one that was begotten in simple fornication, out of the state of marriage; but one that was begotten of such persons as the law forbade them to marry, or lie withal, under pain of being cut off; viz. those mentioned in the eighteenth of Leviticus. They only except this single case, if a man lay with a menstruous woman, and begat a child of her at that time, it was not a mamzer. Sec Selden, lib. dc Succession, in Bona Defunct, cap. 3. and lib. v. de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. 16. and Wagcnseil lately, in his very learned Annotation upon Mischna Sota3, cap. 4. sect. 1. where he observes, out of a MS. which he calls very precious (Etz-Hachajim in Iiilcoth Nidda)> that mamzer, whether male or female, was excluded from the congregation of the Lord. And they were mamzers who were born of any woman whom the law prohibited them to have knowledge. of; whether it was by violence or by consent, by error or advisedly, it made no difference. Shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.) Nor marry with an Israelite. So all the doctors, none cxccptccl; expound it, as Mr. Selden ohserves, lib. ii. de Successione in Pontific. cap. 2. p. 209. If any man of Israel married such a woman, or any woman of Israel married such a man, and they were found in bed together after espousals; they were both shipped, for violating this precept. But if they lay together without any espousals, this punishment was not inflicted on them. Even unto the tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.) That is, never, as the Hehrew doctors expound it. And Maimonides (More Nevochim, par. iii. cap. 49.) gives this reason for it, that people might be deterred from such marriages or conjunctions, which would leave an indelible blot upon their posterity. And, indeed, some heathens anciently put such a mark of infamy upon mere bastards, as to prohibit both males and females to come to their sacred offices. Such a law there was at Athens, mentioned by Lsseus; as Casaubon observes upon Athenaeus, lib. vi. cap. 6. p. 410.. There were some also of these mamzers, who were not manifestly born of such incestuous, or other forbidden mixtures, but were called dubious, because their fathers were not known, or being exposed, and found in the fields, or the streets, neither father.nor mother was known. Yet it being uncertain whence they were descended, the Israelites might not marry with them, for fear they should be polluted by those who, perhaps, were born of incestuous parents. But proselytes of justice, they say, might marry with mamzers; and, that they might not for ever be excluded from the congregation of the Lord, they contrived this remedy for the restitution of their blood. They might marry a slave (who was baptized and become a Jew), whose children were not reputed mamzers, but only slaves: who, being made Jews, and having their freedom given them, might lawfully marry with a Jewish woman; and then they were entirely incorporated into the congregation of the Lord: for proles t sequitur matrem, the issue follows the mother, (as that MS. of Wagenseil hath it, p. 565.) and there w r as no regard had to the father.,

Deuteronomy 23:3

An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, even to the tenth generation shall they not enter for ever.) These last words for ever, in this verse, the Jews think warrant them to interpret those words to the tenth generation, in the foregoing verse, as if he said, never. It is certain, indeed, that Moses intended to exclude the Moabites and Ammonites from marrying with the Jews for ever; for’ so Nehemiah understood him when he quoted this law, xiii. 1. as a reason against the Israelites’ marriages with them in his time, when more than ten generations were past. But then these words, for ever, being omitted in the foregoing verse, where he speaks of mamzers, it seems reasonable that they should not be so interpreted; but that, after ten generations were past, all dis-

Deuteronomy 23:4

Because they -met you not with bread and water, when ye came forth out of Egypt. This seems to belong to the Ammonites, who had no compassion towards the Israelites when they were distressed in the wilderness: but, though they Mere near of.kin to them, did not shew them that civility which is commonly expressed to mere strangers in their travels, (Gen. xiv. 18. xviii. 2. 31* xix. 1, 2:) We do not find any mention of this barbarity of theirs in the foregoing history; but we read how kind God ordered the Israelites to be to them, in not meddling with them, much less distressing them, as they passed by their country, (Deut ii. 19.) Which aggravated their inhumanity in not vouchsafing this common kindness to the Israelites, of giving them the refreshment of bread and water as they went by them. And because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor, of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee.] As the foregoing passage peculiarly refers to the Ammonites, so this doth to the Moabites; who, with the assistance of the Midianites, invited Balaam, by the promises of a great reward, to come from the eastern country and curse the Israelites. (See Numb. xxii. 5—7.) For these two reasons God laid this prohibition upon his people; in which Maimonides observes the Divine justice in proportioning punishments to offences. For Amalek coming out against the Israelites, when they were newly come forth from Egypt, to cut them off with tho sword, God commanded their memory to be blotted out, (xxv.l9:)but the Ammonites being only basely covetous, and the Moabites acting against them only by craft, and not by force, God inflicted no other punishment upon them but this, that his people should avoid all affinity with them, and shew no love to them, (More Nevochim, pair. iii. cap. 41.) And the MS. author of Etz-Hachajim, mentioned by Wagenseil, in the place forenamed, makes this the ground of the distinction mentioned before between the males and females of those countries: " Their males (saith he) might never marry with an Israelitish woman; bnt, by a tradition delivered down to us from Moses in Mount Sinai, we hold, that the women of those countries (if they embraced the Jewish religion) might be married to a man of Israel. For the women must be thought, in all reason, not to have been guilty, as the men were, of that which was the reason of this law; it not being the custom for women to bring out bread and water to travellers; nor did they send ambassadors to hire Balaam to come and curse the Israelites.” Accordingly we find Ruth, who was a Moabitess, married to Boaz, the ancestor of David.

Deuteronomy 23:5

Nevertheless the Lord thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the Lord thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee, because the Lord thy God loved thee. Balaam, indeed, did not curse the Israelites as the Moabites desired, and he intended; but no thanks were owing to him for that: but it was to be ascribed to the love of God to his people, who constrained him, against his will, to bless them* Ver. C. TIiou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.] By entering into any league with them, much less by taking them into conjugal society: but> on the contrary, they were to look upon them as dangerous enemies; “who, being near their neighbours, would watch all opportunities to ensnare or disturb them. Some of the Jews would have this to be an exception to the general rule, xx.10. that they might not offer them terms of peace, as they were bound to do to all men, but tbe seven nations of Canaan: though, if they desired peace* they were bound, they say, to grant it. (See Schickard, in his Mischpat Hammelech, p. 118.) But Grotius hath well observed, upon Matt. v. 43. that God did not give the Jews any right to their country, (as appears from Deut. ii\ 19.) and therefore the meaning here is, that they should not make any league with them of mutual assistance, which they called fcedern, <ru^juax^c»

Deuteronomy 23:7

Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite. So as never to enter into the society of marriagewith them, they being a circumcised people. For he is thy brother.] Nearer of kin to them than the Ammonites and Moabites; Esau their father being the twin-brother of Jacob.- And so MToses calls them, when he delivers God’s command to the Israelites not to meddle with them, Deut. iiw 8, " We passed by from our brethren -the children of Esau,"&c. Here it may be observed, that the word brother comprehended more than the Israelites, as our Saviour shews the wotd tieighbour did, Luke x. 29, &c. Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land.] That is, the Egyptians in a sore famine sustained them, their children, flocks, und herds, very kindly; the memory of which benefit God would not have forgotten, though in future generations they were cruelly oppressed by them.

Deuteronomy 23:8

The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the Lord in the third generation. When they had been proselytes for three generations, it was lawful to marry with them. Nay, some of the Jews are so liberal here of. their kindness, as to understand by banim, not children in general, but sons, with whom only, marriage is forbidden till the third generation; marriage with their daughters being lawful, as they think, as soon as they turned complete proselytes. Upon which account Solomon took Pharaoh’s daughter to wife. See Selden, lib. v. de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. 14, 15. where he observes, that all this, held good, only till the captivity of Babylon, when, all these nations being confused, they_ might marry with any of them if they became Jews. For wars, and colonies, and deportations, had made such a mixture of people, that one could not be known from another. This Wagenseil hath lately confirmed out of several Hebrew authors, whom Mr. Selden did not trouble himself to mention; and particularly out of the MS. Etz- Hachajim, which he most highly commends. (See p. 149. upon Sota.) They all agree, likewise, that none of these laws extended to proselytes, who might marry with any of these nations. (See Selden,. ib. cap. 18.) Vcr. 9. When the host goeth forth against thine enemy, then keep thee from every wicked thing J] This was a rule to be observed at all times; but then especially, when they had the greatest need of the Divine help (for which wicked people could not reasonably hope), and when there was -the greatest danger of being wicked, in a time of such licence as soldiers commonly take. There is a sentence very like this in Agathias, lib. ii. (mentioned by Grotius towards the conclusionof his Prolegomena to the book de Jure Belli et Pacis),‘Adiida yap tcai Qtov aSepairtvaia tpevicra jitv del teal dcrvufopa, /iaX«0Ta. Si IvryirpoattoXehuv teal Trapararrtc^au Injustice and neglect of God’s semice are ever to. be avoided as most pernicious; but espeeially in a time ofxvar, and when men are upon the point of giving battle. Which he proves elsewhere, by the illustrious examples of Darius, Xerxes, and the Athenians in Sicily.

Deuteronomy 23:10

Jf there be among you any man that is not clean, by reason of uncleanness that chanceth to him by night. This seems to be only one instance of unclcanness, from which they were to keep themselves carefully; though it was no moral impurity, nor a voluntary pollution. By which it was easy for them to understand how watchful thoy were to be over themselves, in all other cases, especially such as had an inward turpitude in them. Then he shall go abroad out of the camp.] There is no such thing required before in Lev. xv. 1G. where the same pollution is mentioned. The reason, I suppose, was, that he speaks -there of what happened to them in their own houses; where they had private chambers, into * which they might retire, and keep themselves from defiling others: but here, of those that.were abroad in the army, where it was hard to keep their fellow-soldiers from touching them, without removing out of the camp. He shall not come within the camp.] This some understand, particularly Drusius, of not coming within the camp of Cod, and of the Levitcs, that is, to the tabernacle: but it seems to be an exclusion of him from the whole camp of Israel, as I have expounded it.

Deuteronomy 23:11

But it shall be, when evening cometh on, he shall ivash himself with water; and when the sun is down he shall come into the camp again.*. See Lev. xv. 16. The end of all this, as Maimonides observes, More Nevochim,par.iii. cap. 61. was, that every man might have this fixed in his mind, that their camp ought to be as the sanctuary of God (into which every one knows no man might enter in his uncleanness), and not like the camps of the gentiles, in which all manner of corruption, filthiness, rapines, thefts, and other wickednesses, were freely committed.

Deuteronomy 23:12

Thou shalt have a place also without the. camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad. A place distant from all company; where they might case themselves, as.itas explained in the next verse. For natural modesty directed all men on such occasions to seek privacy; and it tended, as all cleanliness doth, to the preservation of health: which was one reason, of ordering them to find a place* without the camp, that there might be no offensive smell among them. And hereby, as Maimonides observes, they were distinguished from brute beasts, which commonly ease themselves any where, and before any body. But, besides all this, Moses himself gives us the principal rea^. son of this command, peculiarly respecting the Israelites, (ver. 14.)

Deuteronomy 23:13

Thou shalt have a paddle. An instrument wherewith to dig up the ground, and cover it again; Epiphanius, Haeres. Ixxvii. calls it iraaaaXov oiSrjpovv, an iron paddle. - Upon thy weapon.] Their sword, I suppose..: And it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad.] It was not in their choice when they would do this, but when their needs required: yet the Jews will have it, that they were to accustom themselves to do this business in the morning, as soon as they were up. Thus the Jews at this day, (as Leo Modena tells iis, in his history of them, par. i. chap. 6.) afterward washing their hands, that they may go clean to their prayers. Tliou shalt dig therewith] A hole in the ground. And shalt turn back, and cover that which cometh from thee.] That there might be no appearance nor scent of it remaining. This is still practised by the Caribbcans; among whom there is never any such thing as ordure seen. So the authors of the History of the.Caribbee Islands tell us, book ii. chap. 14. where they observe, also, out of Busbequius, that the Turks use the’ same cleanliness in their camps, making a hole with a piece of iron, wherein they bury their excrements. And in this matter the Esscnes were extremely superstitious; for, as Josephus relates, they would not case themselves at all on the sabbath-day, because they looked upon it as a labour to dig in the earth, and excrements not fit to be seen on that day. Vcr. 14. For the Lord thy God walkeih in the midst of thy camp.] At this time the ark, which was the token of the Divine presence, was settled in the midst of their camp; and, whithersoever they moved, was carried along with thqm: two standards going before, and two following, and the ark between them in the midst,* as appears from the tenth of Numbers. It is likely, also, that it was carried in aftcrlimcs in the midst of them, when they went to war; as some think it was when they went against the Midianitcs, (Numb. xxxi. 6.) and when they encompassed Jericho. Now this presence of God among them was the reason

Deuteronomy 23:15

Th6u shall not deliver unto his master the ser rant which is escaped from his master itnto thee.* The Hebrew doctors understand this of a servant of another nation who was become a Jew k Whom his master, if he went to dwell out of Judca, might not carry along with him against his will; and if he tied from him, when he had carried him, he Inight not be delivered to him, but suffered to dwell in the land of Israel. Which they understand also of a servant that fled from his master out of any of the countries of the gentiles into the land of Israel; which was to be a safe refuge to him. (Sec Selden, lib. vi. de Jure Nat. et Gent, juxta Discipl. Hebr. cap. 8. p. 711.) Vcr. 1G. He sJiall dwell with thee, even among you.] Having embraced the Jewish religion. In the place ivhich he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best.’] He was not to be abridged of his liberty, but permitted to settle himself where he pleased, in any part of their country. Thou shall not oppress him.] For there was an express law against all manner of injuries or hardships put upon strangers, (Lev. xix. 33, 34.)

Deuteronomy 23:17

There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a Sodomite of the sons of Israel. Or a whoremonger of the sons of Israel; as the last part of the verse may be translated, with the same reason that the foregoing words are translated, no whore of the daughters of Israel. So Bonfrerius truly observes, ami sto the Vulgar Latin and the LXX. translate it, and several other versions mentioned by Mr. Selden, lib. iii. Uxor. Hebr. cap. 23. p. 487. Which sort of persons Moses would not have to be tolerated among the Israelites, as they were among the Egyptians; many of which, if we may believe Sextus Empiricns, were so far from thinking it a* reproach for women to prostitute themselves, that they looked upon it as honourable, and gloried in it, rb rag yvvaiKag iratpttv, &C. 7ra£>a toiq ttoXXoig Alyim- Titjv fik-Xtcc, &c. (lib. iii. Py*. Hypot. cap. 24. p. 152.) <c And great reason there was for this prohibition, because by whoredom families arc confounded and destroyed (as Maimonidcs observes); and their issues are looked upon by all men as aliens; so that none will own them as their kindred, and their neighbours become strangers to them; than which nothing can be worse for them, and for their parents. For which cause (saith he) all public stews were disallowed an>ong the Israelites; who had this benefit by it, among others, that many brawls and quarrels/fightings and bloodshed, were prevented; which frequently happened, when several men were assembled at the same time, contending for the same woman. For so the Scripture saith, Jeremiah v. 7. They assemble by troops in the harlots houses. For the preventing of these and such-like mischiefs, and that the distinction of families might be preserved, both whores and whoremongers are here condemned; and no other conjunction permitted, but with a man’s own wife, publicly married: For if a private marriage had been sufficient, many would have kept women in their houses as their whores, and pretended they were their wives. Therefore, after a man had privately espoused a woman, he was bound publicly to keep his weeding.” Thus that great man, More Nevochim, par. iii. cap. 49. and see Selden, lib. v. de Jure Nat. ct Gent, juxta Disc. Hebr. cap. 4. p. 5*>4. How much more abominable then Mere such persons as

Deuteronomy 23:18

Thou shall not bring the pnee of a whore. If such.persons, as are mentioned in the foregoing verse, offered unto God what they had got by prostituting their bodies, it was not to be accepted, but rejected as abominable. For this was a custom among the idolatrous nations, as appears by a great many of their writers; who tell us, they were wont to dedicate some part of that which they received for the use of their bodies at the temples of their pretended deities. Particularly Herodotus mentions it, as’done among the ancient Babylonians, lib. i. p. 199. “Which explains what we read in Barueh, vi. 42, 43. where see XJrotius’s Annotations., j Nor the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God.] There was a peculiar reason for this, besides the yileness of this creature, (which Maimonides only mentions, More Ncvochim, par. iii. cap. 46.) which was, as Bochartus, and some other great men think, because a dog was highly honoured among the Egyptians, from whom the Israelites were lately co.me. For the Nile was wont to overflow and enrich their country at the rising of the dogstar, and a dog was the symbol of one of their principal VOLr. x. deities, called Anubis, who was represented with a head like that of a dog. (See Hierozoicon, par. i. lib. ii. cap’. 50. p* 690, &e.) If. we can think this vile idolatry was so ancient as the days of Moses, which it is certain prevailed afterward, this may pass for a very likely reason why God would not accept so much as the price for which a dog was sold or exchanged; for so the LXX. expound it: as, for example, if a man gave a lamb for a fine dog, God would not have that lamb offered at his altar; as Maimonides explains it* For any vow.] There was the greatest obligation lay upon men to make good their vows, wherewith upon any occasion they had bound themselves; but God would havo them discharged from such vile obligations as these..• For even both these are abomination nnto the Lord thy God.] It is hard to give an account why these two (the price of a whore and of a dog) arc associated in the same law; unless it be in opposition to some such rites as those beforementioned among the EgyptiiTrts. Who, in aftertimes, it, is certain, had such harlots sacred to Isis, as many think are spoken of in the beginning of this verse; and a dog was no where else sacred as. a symbol of Anubis, or Mercury. Though this maybe said with some probability, that these two are joined together, because a whore and a dog are both alike impudent; Joscphus thinks th at the price of a dog here mentioned, was money given, iv bx^u Kwbg, for the loan of a good dog to breed withal, as Mr. Seldcn observes in his History of Tithes, p. 57. Where he notes, also, that the Jews would not admit the tenths of usury or of war to be offered. But the Talmudists expound it quite otherwise, as I have done, for the price of a dog, either sold or exchanged for some other.thing; which the same great man approves of as the truer interpretation, (lib. v; de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. 4. p. 557.)

Deuteronomy 23:19

Thou shall not lend upon usury to thy brother. i. e. Unto an Israelite. (See Exod. xxii. 25. Lev. xxv. 36.) Usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing tliat is lent upon usury.] Here the word nesech is used for all sorts of usury; whether that which was made by the loan ofmoney, called here nesech ceseph, or that which was made by the loan of food, and such-like things, called nesech okeL But, commonly, there are two words used to express this matter, viz. nesech, usury, and tarbith, which we translate increase. Which are not two kinds of usury, one more griping, the other more moderate, as some have conceived; for the same usury is called nesech with respect to the debtor, to whom it is grievous, and tarbith to the creditor, to whom it is beneficial. (See Salmasius, in his book de Usuris, cap. 7. p. 188.) Yet there is some difference between nesech and tarbith; else one cannot tell why they are so often both mentioned in the same place. And rtesech properly signifies the interest, as we speak, which was paid for money; and tarbith, the interest of corn, and other fruits of the earth; as the same author shews in that book, (cap. 50. p. 614, &e.) And in the next book (de Modo Usurarum) he shews, that, as the LXX. and R. Levi ben Gersora thus understood the difference, so do the ancient fathers, particularly Origen and St. Jerome, (cap. 8. p. 320, &c.)

Deuteronomy 23:20

Unto a stranger. One that was not an Israelite, whether he dwelt out of their land, or in it; if he were not a proselyte to the law; of whom they might not take any usury, but use him as a brother. 5D Microsoft® [chap. xxih. TIioii mayest lend upon usury.’] Some of the Jews would have this to be an affirmative precept, obliging them to make the usury of a gentile, if they lent him any money. For this Maimonidcs quotes a passage out of Siphri; which others say he mistook. See J. Wagenseil, in his Annotations upon Lipman’s Carmen Memoriale, p. 598. where he shews that ho was of this cruel opinion. But this is not the common sense of the Jews, and their wise men have been so modest also as to decree, That though their law did here permit them to take usury of a gentile, yet they were not to practise it, unless it were that they might provide for themselves, that they might live more safely among the gentiles. And they add this reason for this limitation; Lest the Jews, by this way of commerce and traffic, should grow too familiar with the gentiles, and learn their manners: only men that studied the law, and thereby weTe out of danger of being enticed to their religion, might freely lend them money upon usury; for this very end, as they think, that they might make a gain of it, and enrich themselves. See Selden, lib. vi. de Jure Nat. et Gent. cap. 10, where he observes, that the Mahometans forbid usury only among thcmselves,notto strangers. Which Salmasius shews js thus limited in the Alcoran by these words, in their own territories. That is, if Mahometans live among Christians, they may take usury of them; but of Christians who live among them they may not take any, no more than of a Mussulman, as they call themselves. But unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury.] He repeats this again, that they might not fail to be kind one to another in this matter. And the author of Etz-Hachajim, mentioned by Wagenseil, saith, according to their ancient doctors, this is six times forbidden in the law, not to take usury of their brethren, (p. 601. upon Sota.) And, indeed, as there was nothing more rational than this, that their neighbours making great gain by merchandise (such as the Sidonians, Tyrians, and those that lived upon the Red Sea, and the Egyptians), they should not borrow money of the Israelites for nothing; so it was no less reasonable the Israelites themselves, whose chiefest profit was by husbandry and breeding of cattle, should have money lent them freely by one another, without any interest, their land not being a country of traffic, whereby money might be improved, as in other countries. For, by the laws of other nations, (as Grotius observes on Luke vi. 45.) that usury was odious which was practised upon husbandmen. Abarbinel also is so tender in this point, as to say, that usury hath something in it so unequal (at least as it is commonly practised), that God did not permit the Israelites to exercise it among all their neighbours, but only upon those of the seven nations of Canaan. And thus far he is in the right, that every one who was not a Jew, was not to T>e deemed a stranger: an Edomite, for instance, is called their brother in the seventh verse of this chapter; and, therefore, this precept, thou shalt not lend upon usury’ to thy brother, is tobe extended to Edomites. In like manner, saith he, neither do the Ishmaelitcs como under the name of strangers, nor other people but those of the seven nations.. And this opinion Leo Modena follows in his History of the present Jews, par. ii. chap. 5. where he saith, by the word stranger, in this place, none other can be meant but only those seven nations, from whom God commanded them to take away $vcn their lives. And that it is only their present distress, in which they have no other way of livelihood left, that makes them think it lawful to lend upon usury to those among whom they live. In which I think he is mistaken; though this doctrine is better natured than that of some of the Jews, who are so full of hatred to us Christians, whom they call Edomites, that they deprive us (as Wagenseil observes in the place abovenamed) of the name of brethren, and think it lawful to oppress us with usury. Of which number are R. Bechai, and the author of the old Nitzacon, set forth by Wagenseil (ancientcr than that of Lipman’s, setforth by Theodoric Hackspan), who was so full of malignity, that he shut his eyes against the light which he plainly saw. For he could juot deny that the Edomites were their brethren; and, consequently, that Moses required the Jews not to take usury of them; and that it was anciently unlawful. But then he pretends, that they forfeited this privilege by not coming to help to preserve Jerusalem and the temple from being destroyed, yea, by rejoicing at their ruin. And fearing this would not satisfy, he hath devised this justification of their usury> that the Edomites have made themselves strangers by the neglect of circumcision. (See p. 139.) Tliat the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand xtnto.in the landtvhither thou goest to possess it.] Charity to their poor brethren had many promises of a gTeat reward: and this law was made peculiarly for the relief of such persons, as appears by those places beforementioned, both in Exodus arid in Leviticus. It extended indeed to all; but chiefly was intended as a provision for the poor and needy, whom they were not to neglect: for God ordered them to live together as brethren, children of the same father! And indeed they were all, rich and poor, descended from one and the same original. And therefore he designed there should be no indigent person unrelieved among this people, upon whom he had heaped so many blessings; and, delivering them from the slavery of Egypt, had planted them in the good land promised to their fathers. To which purpose all those precepts were given, which require them to lendgratuitously to their pooT brother; to restore the pledge left with thciii; to leave the corners of their fields unreaped; not to gather the gleanings of the harvest and vintage; to observe the year of release and of jubilee; and such-like peculiar provisions for the comfort of the poorer sort, that they might share in the happiness which God bestowed upon his elect people.

Deuteronomy 23:21

When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God. In a thing lawful and possible; and by a person who had power to make, and was not subject to the authority of another who had power to make it void. (See Numb. xxx. 2.) Thou shalt not slack to pay it.] Lest they should prove less able, and so be unwilling to perform what they had vowed, or should perhaps foTget it. If they lost the thing they vowed, while they delayed, they were bound to give the value of it. Which was one difference between a vow and a free-will-offering; that in th6 latter case (as Maimonidcs saith), if that which he designed was stolen or dead, ho was not bound to make reparation. The same author applies this to a vow a mftn made of giving an alms to a poor body, suppose a shekel, which he was to bestow immediately, if any poor body was at hand; if not, he was to

Deuteronomy 23:22

But if thou shall forbear to vow, it shall be ho sin in thee. God was so very merciful, as Maimonides observes, that if a man was not able to offer him an ox, or a lamb, he accepted of turtles and young pigeons, of which there was great plenty in that country. Arid if this was beyond his ability, but he had a desire to testify his affection to God by a free-will-offering, he was pleased to accept an oblation of bread baked in an oven, or pan, or any other usual way. And if this was too heavy, he accepted of bare flour, without putting him to the charge of baking it. For he would have men to be easy in his service, and all their offerings to be free a.nd cheerful; and therefore tells them here, that if they vowed nothing at all to him, he would not take it ill of them, nor impute it to them as a sin; (More Nevochim, par. iii. cap. 46.)

Deuteronomy 23:24

When thou contest into thy neighbour’s vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure. This the Hebrew doctors take to be a law made in favour of poor labourers, who were hired to work in their vineyards in the time of vintage, whom the owners might not hinder from eating as many grapes as they pleased (and the same held good in olives, figs, dates, and all other fruit), as long as they were at work, but not after they had done working. And if their masters would not suffer them so to do, they were to be scourged with forty stripes save one; for it was not reasonable to deny them this liberty, when the very oxen were not to be muzzled whilst they trod out the corn. (Sec Selden, lib. vi. de’Jurc Nat. et Gent. cap. 2. p. 670.) Which must be confessed to be as good a natured law as that of Plato’s was harsh and unnatural, which enacted a servant* should receive as many stripes as he ate grapes or figs. (See Eusebius, lib. xiii. Prfcpar. Evangel, cap. ult.) But I see no reason at all to restrain this indulgence only to hirelings, of whom there is no mention at all in this law; and therefore Josephus seems to me to have justly enlarged this benefit (lib. iv. Archa>ol. cap. 8.) to all travellers on the highway, though they were not Israelites (to whom, and to proselytes of justice alone, the Jews confine this privilege), but mere strangers of any other nation, who had occasion to pass by a vineyard, and needed a refreshment; Which permission may seem to have caused great inconvenience, if not mischief in it, because they might tread down the vines, and make great, waste among the grapes. Therefore by coming into their neighbour’s vineyard, is not meant going into every part of it, with a liberty to pick out the best grapes; but only stepping aside out of their way into the skirts of the vineyard, which lay near the road, and satisfying their hunger, without entering further into the vineyard. This made it no damage to the owners, considering tho great plenty of fruit in that country.’ But thoushalt not put any in thy vessel.] They were only to eat for their present necessity or delight, but not to carry any away with them for the benefit of others, or their own refreshment at another time. And, therefore, might not put any in their pouches, or their garments, or bosoms, or so much as carry away in their hands what they could not eat.

Deuteronomy 23:25

Wlien thou contest into the standing-corn of thy neighbours, thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand. As the disciples of bur Saviour did, when they walked through the corn, (Matt. xii. 1.) which they might have justified by the strictest rules of the ph’aris’aieal doctors, who granted this privilege unto Jews, but not unto gentiles.; But thou slialt not move a sickle into thy neighbour’s stand* zng-corn.] They might not cut down any corn, but only pluck with their hands as much as was necessary to satisfy their hunger, or for their pleasure.

That which is gone out of thy month thou shall keep and perform; even a free-will-offering, according as thou hast vowed, &c. This was to make them consider well beforehand what their ability was,- and not rashly resolve and promise anything: for though they were not bound to vow the smallest matter, yet having once vowed,- they were no longer free, but bound to make it good, though it proved very chargeable to them. Yet there is a traditional doctrine among them practised at this day, that if any man or woman make a vow which afterward they wish unmade, and it be not to the prejudice of any third person that it should be broke, in this case they rimy go to a rabbin, or to any other three men, who bearing their reasons why they repent of having made such a vow, and judging them good, they may free them from their obligation, saying to such a person thrice, Be thou absolved from this vow, &c. and so he is discharged. Thus Leo Modena,inhis History of the present Jews, par. ii. chap. 4.