Deuteronomy 24
PATVer..l. rr HEN a man hath taken a wife, and married her. The Hebrew doctors make a difference between these two; understanding by taking a wife, his espousing her to be his wife; and by marrying her, his completing the contract, by lying with her. And it come to pass.] Either after he hath espoused her, or after he hath consummated the marriage! Tlmt she find no favour in his eyes.] i. e. He dislikes her; or, as it is expressed ver. 3. hates her.’ Which signifies’ either an absolute dislike to her, or comparatively with’ some person whom he likes better. Because he hath found some uncleanness in her.] This is assigned as the reason and ground of his dislike, which signifies something odious to him, though, perhaps, it might not be so to another, whom Moses supposes she might marry after this husband had discharged her. Some of the Jews, indeed, extend this liberty so far, as to fancy they, might, without any reason at all, for their mere pleasure, part with their wives. (See Buxtorf. dc Sponsal et JDivortiis, sect. 89.) But others are more modest, and acknowledge that these words \piatter of uncleanness] signify some weighty cause. Yet they distinguish between the first wife a man took, who might not be put away but for some uncleanness, and the second, who might be put away for a lesser reason. But there were great differences between the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai (whom the Talmudists so much talk of), about this matter oiuncleanness: yet both agree it hath a far lower signification here 5D2 Microsoft ® [chap. XXIV. than in the book of Leviticus, where it signifies adultery, incest, or such-like turpitude. For if adultery had been here meant, she might have been put to death; or the mere suspicion of it tried by the water of jealousy. (See Buxtorf in the book beforcnamed, sect. 90. and our Scldcn, lib. iii. Uxor. Hebr. cap. 20, 21.) Abarbinel thinks the two plainest causes of dislike signified by these words, were cither such behaviour as might make her suspected of impurity (as going with her faco uncovered, or her breast naked;, sporting with young men, or washing in the same place with them, or having her arms bax;c); or, secondly, when they were of such a different temper, humour, and disposition, that they disliked and nauseated each other’s company, and, consequently, lived in continual bTawls and contentions. And, besides such moral causes, they allowed also such natural as made a woman offensive; viz. leprosy, or some such disease in her body, as he did not discover before marriage. And sometimes they extend this as far as to a stinking breath. Then let Mm write her a bill of divorcement.] Whatsoever was the cause of the husband’s dislike, this law provides the wife should not be damaged by it, being made rather for her advantage than her husband’s; viz. to free her (as Dr. Hammond observes) from the pain and vexation of her husband’s unkindness, and the danger of seeing another taken in, and preferred before her; and she might be perfeictlyat liberty to leave one, who did not love* her, and take another husband who might possibly delight in her. (See Answer to six Queries, q. iii. chap. 2.) Some think that this custom of putting away wives, which they, did not like, prevailed before the law of Moses. Which opinion hath something to countenance.it, from the mention of divorces in several places (Levit. xxi. 14. xxii. 13. Numb. xxx. 9.) before the book of Deuteronomy was written, wherein he Orders a bill tol)e given in writing to discharge them. If this be true, it gives a good reason why God was pleased to grant this permission; because they were so settled in this practice, that it was safer still to indulge it to them, than quite to abolish it. Which he did with this caution, That husbands should not discharge their wives with, a word, bidding them begone out of doors (i. e. putting them away rashly, and in a sudden fit of anger ), but first write them a bill containing their pleasure herein. Which being a deliberate act might possibly hinder this divorce; to which they might be prone in a passion, but not after some consideration. * The form of this bill is in Mr. Selden, and exactly scanned, lib., iii. Uxor. Hebr. cap. 24. Who observes also, in another place of that book, (cap. 19.) that as, for five hundred years, or more, the Roman state flourished without the use of divorces, so for seven hundred years after the making of this law, there is no mention of any bill of divorce; so for seven hundred years after the making of this law, there is no mention of any bill of divorce among the Jews, that is, till the days of Isaiah, (see chap. 1. 1.) and but rarely afterward. And give it into her hand.’] Saying these, or some suchlike words, Behold, this is thy bill of divorce; otherwise it was not good: and there were to be at least two witnesses unto it, as the Jews say. Who make ten things necessary (which they think to bo founded upon the law itself) to make the bill legal. (See Selden, in the same book, cap. 25.), And send her out of his house.] This Dr. Hammond (in tho place abovementioned) looks. upon as an-obligation upon her husband to furnish her for her journey, to endow her, and make provision for her. For so the word irpoTrinttuv, to send oirf, signifies in tho New Testament, to provide a viaticum, 1 Cor. xvi. G. 11. Titus iii. 13. where it is explained, by letting nothing be wanting. But the Jews are of opinion, that the divorce was perfect and legitimate, before he sent her out of his doors: for it was sufficient to give her a bill in such a form, as plainly shewed their matrimony was dissolved; and that she was no part of his family, though he had not actually sent her away. Yet, if he kept her still in his house, after this bill was delivered into her hand, it was presumed they cohabited together, and he was to give her a new bill of divorce. In all which I cansee nothing like a command for putting away their wives, if they were disagreeable; which the Jews would fain extort out of these words. And so they spake unto our blessed Lord, Matt, xix.7. though in another place they spake of it only as a permission, Mark x.3. The plain intent of this law being this; That if a man did put away his wife (as they are suffered to do), she might marry another man; but if that new husband died, she might not return to her first husband again. See Buxtorf. de Sponsal. et Divortiis, p. 107, 108, &c. and to shew that. Moses rather supposed, than permitted divorces, p. 113, &c., them. Thus, after Solon had tempered the rigid law of Draco, which punished all theft with death, by ordering in most cases only the payment of double, he enacted the stealing of a great sum of money to be capital; nay, he made it a great crime to steal dung, because it was a tiling of great value in that country, which was very barren, and needed it for their ground. How much more valuable was a man in all men’s account, whom if any man stole, the law was wiry Oavarov tivai rrjv Zvpfav, that death should be his punishment; as Xenophon reports it. And he was accounted dv8ptnroh
Deuteronomy 24:2
And when she is departed out of his house. So that it is publicly known, she is no longer his wife. 1 She may go and be another man’s wife.] The bond of marriage being wholly broken by the bill of divorce, whereby he renounced all interest in her, and’ expressly said, in the very body of the bill (as we speak), it may be free tothee to marry with whom thou wilt. Much more was the bond broken by adultery, for which our Saviour gives a> man leave to put away his wife, and take another. See David Chytracus concerning this matter, p. 117, &c. where he reports a very wise resolution of Luther’s Pomeranus* and Melancthon, in the case of the criminal person.
Deuteronomy 24:3
And if the latter husband hate her, and winte Iter a bill of divorce, and give it her in her hand, and send her out of his house. This shews that no other way of putting away a wife was allowed, but only this. For, as Maimonides well observes, (More Nevochim, par. iii. cap. 49.) if it had been lawful to do it by bare words, or simply sending her out of his house, any woman might have left her husband, and said she was put away; both she, and he that committed adultery with her, pretending a divorce, when her husband had given her none. Therefore the law wisely provided none should be put away, but by such a bill as is beforementioned, whereby an. authentic testimony was given of it. Or if her latter husband die, xvhich took her to wife.] Whereby she became free again, as the apostle hath observed, Rom. vii. 2.
Deuteronomy 24:4
Her former husband, xvhich sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife. One would have thought there could have been no danger of any man’s desiring her again, whom he had solemnly sent away with dislike But such is the levity and fickleness of human nature (the Jews at least were so inconstant), that it seems men sometimes sought after that which they had rejected: and this was the punishment of their injustice, in putting away a wife Digitized by microsoft (5) CHAP. XXIV.] UPON DEUTERONOMY. without sufficient cause (as by this they acknowledged), that they might not again enjoy her. After that she is defiled.) This is the reason why the former husband might not marry her again (as the Jews take it)^because byher second marriage she was defiled. Which they say she was (so that he could not have her again), though she had been only espoused to a new husband, who had never lain with her. For they make no difference.between her second marriage and second espousals, but think a woman * contracted such a pollution by her second espousals, that she would not have been so much polluted, if she had played the whoie after her divorce. For in that case,they say, he might notwithstanding have married her again; but not after she had been married to another. Thus Mr. Seldcn reports their opinion, lib. i.Uxor. Heb. cap. 11. where he observes, that the Mahometans, who are wont in many things to ape the Jews, here quite differ from them; allowing a man liberty to take his wife again, though he had divorced her three times.. » Now the ground upon which a divorced woman was accounted defiled, or unclean, after another man had married her, 1 suppose, was, that this was looked upon as a solemn renunciation of her former husband on her part, who had been renounced by him by the bill of divorce; but he was not absolutely renounced by her till she married another, whereby she was totally alienated from him.. This made her unclean, not in herself, nor with respect to. her second husband, whom she married, nor with respect to any other man (who might marry her without any pollution), but only with respect to. her first husband, unto whom, by this law, she was made unclean; for so all things forbidden to the Jews were accounted, as appears from Acts x.14, 15. where all meats prohibited by the law are called unclean; and God is said to have cleansed them, by taking off that prohibition. For that is.ahomination before tlie Lord.] That is, toreturn to her first husband, and to be his wife again: for this, saith Abarbinel, was to imitate the Egyptians, who changed their wives, and took them again into their houses; which was the occasion of great filthincss. But this intimates, that ifshe had not been married to any other man, but kept herself free, she might have been his wife again, if he had a mind to be reconciled to her. And this shews also, that God intended to discpurage them from putting away their wives, by making them incapable, after they had been married to another, for ever to enjoy them again, though they grew very rich, or otherwise desirable, which inclined many, no doubt, to consider well before they parted with them. And thou shall not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveththee, &c] The people of the land might, by such a large indulgence, have been tempted to pollute it with many sins, and thereby bring God’s judgments upon it. (Sec Jcr. iiul.) For, as Isaac Arama glosses, if this had not been prohibited, a gate. had been opened unto vile men, to make a trade of changing, their wives, and thereby filled the land with whoredoms. Ver. 5; Wlien a man hath taken a new wife.] The Hebrews think, (as I observed before, xx. 7.) that, whether he had married a virgin or a widow, he was to have the. privilege here mentioned; yea, they extend it to him who had WWpcd his brother’s wife; but not to him who had married her whom he put away, and might take again, if she had not been married since that to another man. For she could not be said to be a new wife. He shall not go out to ivar.] Sec Deut. xx. 7.’ Nor be charged ivith any business.] No public employment was to be put upon him, which might occasion his absence from his wife; not so much as watching, or such-like. For the better understanding of which, it must be remembered, what was said about the fearful and timorous, who were bid to return home from the army, lest they disheart* cned their brethren, xx. 8. And yet these men were bound to furnish the army with victuals and water, to clear the w T ays, and take up their quarters; but a new bridegroom was free from all these. Only they made a difference between a war by the Divine commandment, and one undertaken voluntarily: unto the former of which they think this immunity doth not extend, but 6nly to the latter. In the margin these words are translated, nor any thing pass upon him, that is, he shall not pay tribute.. But he shall be free at home for one year. ~\ The same time of freedom it was thought reasonable to grantunto buildersand planters, because they are joined with new-married men in the speech the priest made before they went to bat– tlc> xx. 5 — 7. • And shall cheer up his wife whom he hath taken.]’ Make much of hcr> as we speak, and so endear himself to her by his kindness, that there might be no occasion of a divorce. For the prevention of which this law seems to have been intended; that by so long a conversation together, without any interruption, they might have so perfect an understanding one of another, and such a mutual confidence might be settled, that he might not easily entertain any jealousies oif her, when he should be absent in the wars, or elsewhere. Ver. G. No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge.] This is a law of the same nature with that Exod. xx. 26, 27. for the preservation of mercy, beneficence, and clemency towards the poor, as Maimonides speaks, More Nevochim, par. iii. cap. 3D. For he taketh a man’s life to pledge.] That is, his livelihood; by which he maintains himself and his family, and keeps them from starving. By this reason it was unlawful to take any other thing for a security, by the w r ant of which a man might be in danger to be undone. For instance, they did not allow any man to seize upon the oxen which were at plough. He who broke this law was scourged. -
Deuteronomy 24:7
If any man be found stealing any of his.brethren the children of Israel. If he were either taken in the fact, or it was plainly proved against him. So the very words of the Athenian law were,‘Eav rig fyavtphg ytviyrai ai’SpanoliZofitvoQ, if a man be an apparent man~stealer.\ And maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him.’] This was the end of man-stealing, to make a gain of him, either by exchanging him for some commodity, or selling him for money. Then that thief shall die.] This crime was punished with death, though stealing of beasts or other things was not, (see Exod. xxi. 16.) because it was very heinous on a double account, both by depriving the community of one of its members, and making him a slave in another country. And, indeed, the most moderate lawyers did not know how to securo men in the possession of.things very valuable, but by inflicting such a punishment on those that stole
Deuteronomy 24:9
Remember what the Lord thy God did ilnto Miriam by the way, after that ye were come forth out of Egypt. This seems to be mentioned, that they might not think much to be shut up seven days, when they were but suspected to have the leprosy, and seven days more to make farther trial, and to be put out of the camp, when it appeared plainly they had this disea-se, (Lev. xiii. 4, 5. 45, 4G.) since so great a person as Miriam was excluded so long from the society of God’s people, (Numb. xii. 15.) And this may be looked upon as an admonition to tako care, lest they spoke evil of dignities (which brought this punishment on Miriam), or disobeyed the commands of the priest, which might bring the like, or some other judgment upon them.
Deuteronomy 24:10
When thou dost lend thy brother any thing, thou shall not go into his house to fetch his pledge. This was a very merciful provision for the poor, whose houses he would have so privileged, that no man might enter into them without tjieir consent, and there choose what he pleased for the security of his debt: but he was to take what the borrower could best spare. »
Deuteronomy 24:11
Thou shalt stand abroad. Keep without door. And the man to whom thou dost lend shall bring out the pledge abroad unto thee.] So the debtor, not the creditor, was to choose what pledge he would give; for he best knew what he could, with most convenience to himself, part withal; and if it was sufficient, the lender had reason to be satisfied with it.
Deuteronomy 24:12
And if the man be poor, thou shalt not sleep with his pledge:. But restore it before night. Which, is to be understood of such things as were necessary for the preservation of his life or health, as the following words demonstrate.?
Deuteronomy 24:13
In any case thou shalt deliver him the pledge again when the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his own raiment. And not be forced to borrow of others a necessary covering to defend him from the cold; and not be able, perhaps, to procwre it. (See Exod. xxii. 2G, 27.) Which law seems to have been intended to keep them from taking any pledge of a very poor man. For to what purpose should they every morning fetch a pledge, and every evening carry itback again, which would only create them a great deal of trouble? And bless thee.] Pray God to bless thee. And it shall be righteousness unto thee before the Lord thy God.] Procure thee a blessing from God, who will esteem it an act of great mercy: which is often called by the name of righteousness in the holy books, Psal. cxii. 0. " Prov. x. 2, &c. Nay, such-like actions are properly called tzedekah, or righteousness, according to the opinion of Maimonides, who observes, (More Ncvochim, par. iii. cap. 53.) that this word doth merely signify giving toovery man his own. " For when a man pays the hireling his wages, or a debtor pays his creditor, that is not called tzedekah; but what a man doth out of pure love to virtue and goodness (as when a man cures a poor wretch of his wounds), is properly called by that name. From whence it is said, concerning the restoring of a poor.man’s pledge, it shall be to thee for righteousness." That is, saith Dr. Hammond (in his Practical Catechism), that degree of mercy which the law required of every Jew, without which he could not be accounted righteous: but there was a degree of* Digitized by ftjicroSoft ® CHAP. XXIV.] UPON DEUTERONOMY. bounty beyond this called chasidah, which was an excess of righteousness or goodness.
Deuteronomy 24:14
Thou shalt not oppress a hired servant. Either by putting more work upon him than he is able to do, or by detaining his wages when it is done. The latter of these is most properly here denoted, as Const. I/Empereur observes out of D. Kimchi, who, in his Book of Roots, saith, the difference between p^y (which is the word here) and bu doth not lie in this, that the former signifies to defraud, the latter to take away by violence; but the former signifies to detain by force, and the other to take away by force what belongs to another. And for the proof* of it, alleges this place in Deuteronomy, which he thus translates, Tliou shalt not detain by force the wages of the hireling. Which is expressed more clearly, Malachi iii. 5, Annot. in Bava-kama, cap. 9. sect. 7. p. 247. Tliat is poor and needy.’] And therefore the more to be pitied, and not oppressed, either by giving him less wages than another man, when he ought rather to have greater, or by keeping back his hire beyond the time wherein it ought to be paid: for, as the ancient lawyers say, " Minus.solvit, qui tempore minus solvit;" as it is observed by Grotius upon James V. 4.’ Whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that axe in thy land within thy gates.] No difference was to be made between a natural Jew and a proselyte of the gate, according to the general law, Lev. xix. 34. For such oppression might tempt them to do very wicked things: for instance, expose or kill their children, when they were notable to maintain them; after the manner of the heathen, who were frequently guilty of this, and thought it no crime when their poverty constrained them to it. See Petrus Pectus, lib. iii. Miscell. Observ. cap. 17. where he produces many proofs of it, both out of Greek and Roman authors.
Deuteronomy 24:15
At his day thou shalt give him his hire. Which was due to him, either by contract, or by natural equity; and whether he had agreed to serve him for a day, or a month, or a year. At the time when his wages was due, it was to be punctually paid, unless he were willing to have it remain in his hands. For this was not an act of. mercy, but -of justice, to pay a hireling his wages. Neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor;] This shews he speaks particularly of one that served for a day’s wages, and could not forbear the payment of it, because he was so poor as not to be able to provide himself and family necessaries without it. And setteth his heart upon it.] Eagerly expects it, as the support of his life. So the Vulgar translates it, With it he supports his soul, that is, his life. Lest he cry unto the Lord.] Make grievous complaints to him who made both rich and poor. And it be sin unto thee.] God will hear his cry, and severely punish thee. (See James v. 4.) Ven 10. The father shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children.be put to death for the father: every man shallbe put to death for his own sin.] This is a rule of common reason, which was anciently expressed in this vulgarsaying, Noxa caput sequitur: and is excellently expressed by Dion Chrysostom, haarog airy ylvtrat ri^ arvxiag mnog, Let every man be the author of his own’misfortune. Which Amazia, king of Judah, thought extended to the children of traitors, unto whom he allowed the* benefit of this law, as we read in so many words, 2 Kings xi v. 6. 2 Chron. xxv. 4. And not only Philo, but Dionysius Halicarnassaeus condemns the custom of those nations who put to death the children of tyrants or traitors. See Grotius, lib. ii. de Jure Belli et Pacis, cap. 21. sect. 13, 14. where he observes, that God indeed threatens to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children; but in this case, “Jure dominii non psenae utitur,” he uses the right of dominion, not of punishment.
Deuteronomy 24:17
Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the. stranger, nor of the fatherless. Nor of the widow, who is joined with them, ver. 19. For such persons commonly have none to stand by them, and plead their cause;, and. therefore the judges were to take the greater care to see them have justice done, (Exod. xxii. 21. xxiii. 9.) Nor take the widow’s raiment to pledge.] Which is to be understood of one that is poor; as appears from ver. 12.. (See Exod. xxii. 21. 20, 27.)
Deuteronomy 24:18
But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bond- man in Egypt, and the Lord redeemed thee thence: therefore J command thee to do this thing.* The remembrance of theirr owti miserable condition in Egypt, till God took pity upon them, was to work compassion in them t6wards others in like forlorn estate; otherwise they did not remember as they ought. This is often urged as a reason for shewing mercy to strangers, and such-like helpless persons, particularly in Lev. xix. 33, 34. and in this book, x. 19, 20. xv. 15.
Deuteronomy 24:19
When thou cxtttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go back agam to fetch it. There are many merciful laws about the poor. (See* Lev. xix. 9, 10. xxiii. 22.) They are all put together by Mr. Selden, lib. vi. de Jure Nat. et Gent; cap. 6. where the exposition the Talmudists give of this law seems to me to be so strict, that it could do little good. For they say a sheaf was not taken to be forgotten, unless not only the owner of the field, but all the labourers forgot it: and if none of them remembered it, yet if any man that passed by that way came and gave them notice of it, it was not looked upon as left by forgetfulness. Yet they are so kind as to extend this law, not only to the sheaves of com left in the field, but to bunches of grapes, and other fruit, which were left behind in their vineyards or orchards. And it seems no unreasonable interpretation of this law, that if an owner of a field, or his workmen, called to mind, before they were gone quite out of the field, that a sheaf was left in-such a. place, they might go back and fetch it; but not, if they did not remember it till they came into the city. They that would sec more cases about this matter, may look into Maimonides de Donis Pauperum, translated by Dr. H. Prideaux, (cap. 5.) “and his very learned annotations upon it. Josephus seems to me to have interpreted this law most charitably, lib. iv. Archaeolog. cap. 8. where he saith, they were not only not to go back to fetch what they had forgot, but to leave on purpose corn, and grapes/ and olives, &c. for the benefit of the’poor. It shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless^ and for the widow.] Who are commonly put together as proper objects of charity: and are (as Mr. Selden speaks) a kind of paraphrase upon the word poor. That the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thy ha?id.] Make their land stilLvery fruitful: which was a reward of. their charity..