Deuteronomy 21:1–17

If one be found slain,.... After public war with an enemy, Moses proceeds to speak of a private quarrel and fight of one man with another, in which one is slain, as Aben Ezra observes: in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it; where murders might be committed more secretly, and remain undiscovered, when they came to live in separate cities, towns, and villages, with fields adjacent to them, than now encamped together: lying in the field; where the quarrel begun, and where the fight was fought: or, however, where the murderer met with his enemy, and slew him, and left him; it being common for duels to be fought, and murders committed in a field; the first murder in the world was committed in such a place, Genesis 4:8. The Targum of Jonathan is,"not hidden under an heap, not hanging on a tree, nor swimming on the face of the waters;''which same things are observed in the Misnah (i), and gathered from some words in the text: in the land, and so not under a heap: lying, and so not hanging: in the field, and so not swimming on the water: and it be not known who hath slain him; the parties being alone, and no witnesses of the fact, at least that appear; for, if it was known, the heifer was not beheaded, later mentioned (k); and one witness in this case was sufficient, and even one that was not otherwise admitted. (i) Sotah, c. 9. sect. 2.((k) Maimon. Hilchot Rotzeach, c. 9. sect. 11, 12.

Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth,.... From the city or cities near to which the murder was committed, to make inquiry about it, and expiation for it; so Aben Ezra interprets it of the elders of the cities near, but others understand it of the elders of the great sanhedrim at Jerusalem; so the Targum of Jonathan,"then shall go out from the great sanhedrim two of thy wise men, and three of thy judges;''and more expressly the Misnah (l),"three go out from the great sanhedrim in Jerusalem;''R. Judah says five,"it is said "thy elders" two, and "thy judges" two,''and there is no sanhedrim or court of judicature equal (or even), therefore they add to them one more: and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain; that is, from the place where the slain lies, as Jarchi rightly interprets it; on all sides of it, from the four corner's, as the Targum of Jonathan, the cities round about the slain. Maimonides (m) says, they do not behead the heifer for, nor measure, but to a city in which there is a sanhedrim: if it is found between two cities (that is, at an equal distance), both bring two heifers (Maimonides (n) says they bring one between them, which is most reasonable); but the city of Jerusalem does not bring an heifer to be beheaded: the reason is, because it was not divided to the tribes (o). This measuring, one would think, should be only necessary when it was not certain which was the nearest city; and yet Maimonides (p) says, even when it was found on the side of a city, which was certainly known to be nearest, they measured; the command, he observes, is to measure. (l) Sotah, c. 9. sect. 1.((m) Hilchot Rotzeach, c. 9. sect. 4. (n) Ib. sect. 8. (o) Maimon Hilchot Rotzeachs, c. 9. sect. 8. (p) lb. c. 9. sect. 1.

And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man,.... And so suspected, as the Targum of Jonathan, of the murder; or the murderer is in it, or however belonged to it: even the elders of the city shall take an heifer; of a year old, as the same Targum, and so Jarchi; and in this the Jewish writers agree, that it must be a year old, but not two; though heifers of three years old were sometimes used in sacrifice, Genesis 15:9 a type of Christ, in his strength, laboriousness, and patience; see Numbers 19:2. which hath not been wrought with; in ploughing land, or treading out corn: and which hath not drawn in the yoke, which never had any yoke put upon it; or however, if attempted to be put upon it, it would not come under it, and draw with it: no mention is made, as usual, that it should be without blemish: because though in some sense expiatory, yet was not properly a sacrifice, it not being slain and offered where sacrifices were; hence it is said in the Misnah (q), that a blemish in it did not make it rejected, or unlawful for use: nevertheless, this heifer may be a type of Christ, whose sufferings, bloodshed, and death, atone for secret and unknown sins, as well as for open and manifest ones, even for all sin; and its being free from labour, and without a yoke, may signify the freedom of Christ from the yoke of sin, and the service of it, and from human traditions; that he was not obliged to any toil and labour he had been concerned in, or to bear the yoke of the law, had he not voluntarily undertaken it of himself; and that he expiated the sins of such who were sons of Belial, children without a yoke; and for the same reason, this heifer not being required to be without blemish, might be because Christ, though he had no sin of his own, was made sin for his people, and reckoned as if he had been a sinner; though indeed, had this been the design of the type, all the sacrifices which typified Christ would not have required such a qualification, to be without blemish, as they did. (q) Ut supra, (Sotah, c. 9.) sect. 5.

The elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley,.... Cities being generally built on hills, and so had adjacent valleys, to which there was a descent; but here a rough valley, or the rougher part of it, was selected for this purpose. As a valley is low, and this a rough one, it may be an emblem of Christ's being brought into this lower world, from heaven to earth, to do the will of his Father, which was to work out the salvation of his people; and of his coming into the lower parts of the earth, the womb of the virgin, at his incarnation, and to the grave at his death, Psalm 139:15, and of the low estate he came into by the assumption of human nature; through appearing in the form of a servant, being in indigent circumstances, and ministered to by others, and needing the assistance of angels in the wilderness and garden, by which it appeared he was made lower than they; by his being despised of men, and forsaken by his Father; all which are proofs of the low estate he was brought into, fitly signified by a valley, and which was a rough valley to him; in which he was roughly treated, his life being sought after in his infancy by Herod, which obliged the flight of his parents with him into Egypt; and being not received, but rejected by his own, as the King Messiah, whom they would not have to reign over them, and loaded with opprobrious names by them; and who often sought and attempted by various ways to take away his life; and when apprehended and examined before the high priest, and in Pilate's hall, was used in the rudest manner, being spit upon, buffeted, and scourged; and when led out to be crucified, was treated in the most barbarous and scornful manner, and was put to death in the most painful and shameful way; and, above all, was severely handled by the justice of God, being numbered among the transgressors, when the sword of justice was awaked against him, and he was not in the least spared, but wrath came upon him to the uttermost for the sins of his people; so that this world he was brought into proved a rough valley indeed to him. This some take to be an emblem of the hard heart of the murderer who had committed such a barbarous and cruel action as to kill a man; or of the hard heart of a sinner, into which Christ is brought through the ministry of the word; or of the infamous place, Calvary, where Christ was brought to suffer death; but the former is best. Some interpret it, a "strong stream" (q), or "rapid torrent"; so Maimonides (r) and others; and indeed in valleys there are generally streams or brooks of water, but this seems not so well to agree with what follows: which is neither cared nor sown; that is, neither ploughed nor sown, but quite an uncultivated place; and this the Jews understand not of what it had been, or then was, but what it should be hereafter; that from henceforward it should never be manured, but lie barren and useless; so it is said in the Misnah (s), the place is forbid sowing or tilling, but is free to dress flax in, or to dig stones out of it: so R. Joseph Kimchi (t) interprets this of a fat and fruitful valley, which was not to be tilled nor sown from thenceforward for time to come; the reason of which he thinks was, that they might be the more careful of their countries and borders, and how they encouraged bloody minded men to dwell among them; that no slain person might be found there, and so they lose a choice part of their possessions; and to the same purpose Maimonities (u): and this became true of the fruitful land of Judea and Jerusalem, after the sufferings and death of Christ there, Luke 21:24. and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley; with an axe, on the back part of it, in the midst of the valley, as the Targum of Jonathan, and the same is said in the Misnah (w): in this it was a type of Christ, who was put to death at the instigation of the elders of the Jewish nation, Matthew 27:1 and without the gates of Jerusalem at Golgotha; see Hebrews 13:11. (q) "ad torrentem fortem", Montanus. (r) Hilchot Rotzeach, c. 9. sect. 2, so Abarbinel in Muis. & Ben Melech. (s) Ut supra. (Sotah, c. 9. sect. 5.) (t) Apud D. Kimchi, Sepher Shorash, rad. (u) Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 40. (w) Ut supra. (Sotah, c. 9. sect. 5.)

And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near,.... Who were clearly of the tribe of Levi, as Aben Ezra notes; about whom there could be no dispute; for it seems there sometimes were persons in that office, of whom there was some doubt at least whether they were of that tribe; these seem to be such that belonged to the court of judicature at Jerusalem; see Deuteronomy 17:9, who were to be present at this solemnity, to direct in the performance of it, and to judge and determine in any matter of difficulty that might arise: for them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him; in the service of the sanctuary, by offering sacrifices, &c. and to bless in the name of the Lord; the people; see Numbers 6:23. and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried; every controversy between man and man respecting civil things, and every stroke or blow which one man may give another; and whatsoever came before them was tried by them, according to the respective laws given concerning the things in question, and were not determined by them in an arbitrary way, according to their own will and pleasure; see Deuteronomy 17:8.

And all the elders of that city that are next unto the slain man,.... The whole court of judicature belonging to it, all the magistracy of it; even though there were an hundred of them, Maimonides (x) says: shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley: in token of their innocence, and this they did not only for themselves, but for the whole city, being the representatives of it; see Psalm 26:6. Some think that this is a confirmation of the sense embraced by some, that it was a strong stream to which the heifer was brought; and there might be a stream of water here, and a valley also; though it would be no great difficulty to get from the city, which was near, a sufficient quantity of water to wash the hands of the elders with. This may denote the purification of sin by the blood of Christ, when it is confessed over him; and shows that priests and elders, ministers of the word, as well as others, stand in need of it; and that even those concerned in the death of Christ shared in the benefits of it. (x) Hilchot Rotzeach, c. 9. sect. 3.

And they shall answer and say,.... The elders of the city, at the time of the washing of their hands: our hands have not shed this blood; have been no ways concerned in it, nor accessory to it: the Targum of Jonathan is,"it is manifest before the Lord that he did not come into our hands, nor did we dismiss him, that has shed this blood;''which is more fully explained in the Misnah (y); for had they been aware of him, or had any suspicion of him or his design, they would have detained him, or at least would not have suffered him to have departed alone: neither have our eyes seen; it, or him; so the Targum of Jerusalem,"our eyes have not seen him that hath shed this blood;''by which expression is meant, that they had no manner of knowledge of the murderer, nor of any circumstance that could lead them to suspect or conclude who he was. (y) Ut supra, (Sotah. c. 9.) sect. 6.

Be merciful, O Lord, to thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed,.... Out of Egyptian bondage, and claimed as his own; and therefore it is requested he would be favourable to them, and show them mercy, and not punish them for a sin they were entirely ignorant of, though done by some one among them, whom as yet they could not discover. The words seem to be the words of the elders continued, who having made a declaration of their innocence, humbly request mercy of God, not only for themselves, but for all the people of Israel; yet, both the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan take them to be the words of the priests, and so does Jarchi, and the same is affirmed in the Misnah (z): and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge; impute not the guilt of innocent blood to a people in general, when only a single person, and he unknown, is chargeable with it: or put it not "in the midst" of thy people; let it not be placed to the whole, because it cannot be found out whose it is, though it is certain it is one in the midst of them: and the blood shall be forgiven them; that is, God will not impute it, and place it to their account, or lay it to their charge; but will graciously consider the beheading of the heifer as an expiation of it: it is said in the Misnah (a),"if the murderer is found before the heifer is beheaded, it goes forth and feeds among the herd; but if after it is beheaded, it is buried in the same place; and again, if the heifer is beheaded, and after that the murderer is found, he shall be slain;''so the Targums, and Jarchi on the next verse. (z) Ut supra. (Sotah. c. 9. sect. 5.) (a) Hilchot Rotzeach, c. 9. sect. 7.

So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you,.... Which otherwise, the person not being found out, and brought to just punishment for it, would devolve upon the whole. Aben Ezra interprets it the punishment of innocent blood, which, by the above method being taken, would not be inflicted on them: when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the Lord; as it was to observe this law concerning the beheading of the heifer, with all the rites and ceremonies belonging to it here enjoined; as well as every other command, statute, and ordinance of the Lord, which are all right to be done, Psalm 19:8.

Deuteronomy 21:14-17 14. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her. 14. Si non placuerit tibi uxor captiva, dimittes eam pro desiderio suo: nec vendendo vendes eam pecunia, neque negotiaberis de ea, quod afflixeris eam. 15. If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be her's that was hated: 15. Quum fuerint viroduae uxores, una dilecta et altera exosa, et pepererit ei filios dilecta et exosa, fuerit autem filius primogenitus exosae: 16. Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved first-born before the son of the hated, which is indeed the first-born: 16. Die quo haeredes instituet filios suos eorum quae habuerit, non poterit dare jus primogeniturae filio dilectae ante filium exosae primogenitum. 17. But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the first-born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the first-born is his. 17. Sed primogenitum filium exosae agnoscet, ut det ei mensuram duorum ex omnibus quae habuerit: ipse enim principium fortitudinis ejus, ipsius est jus primogeniturae. 14. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her. I have been compelled to separate this sentence from the foregoing context which I have explained elsewhere; [161] for Moses there gave instructions how a captive woman was to be taken to wife if her beauty attracted a Jewish husband. That law then had reference to chastity and conjugal fidelity, and especially to the purity of God's worship; but now Moses prescribes that, if a man have dishonored a captive woman, he should not sell her, but let her go free, and by this satisfaction wipe out, or at any rate diminish, the injury. Hence we infer that this rule of justice depends on the Eighth Commandment, Let none defraud another. This condition was at least tolerable for the captive; for, although chastity is a special treasure, yet liberty, which is justly called an inestimable blessing, was no trifling consolation to her. The penalty, then, of lust, was that the conqueror should lose his booty. 15. If a man have two wives. Inasmuch as it is here provided that a father should not unjustly transfer what belongs to one son to another, it is a part and supplement of the Eighth Commandment, the substance of which is, that every one's rights should be preserved to him. For, if the father substituted another son in the place of his first-born, it was unquestionably a kind of theft. But, since it rarely happens that a father unnaturally degrades his first-born from his precedence, if all are born of the same mother, God reminds us that He did not enact this law without cause; for, where polygamy was allowed, the mind of the husband was generally most inclined to the second wife; because, if he had loved the first with true affection, he would have been contented with her as the companion of his life and bed, and would not have thought of a second. When, therefore, the husband grew tired of his first wife, and desired a second, he might be coaxed by her blandishments to leave away from the children of his first marriage what naturally belonged to them. Hence, therefore, the necessity of the remedy whereby the father's power of altering the right of primogeniture is barred; for, although they might allege that they only gave what was their own, yet it was an act of ungodly arrogance to reject him whom God had deigned to honor. For he who arrogates such power to himself, or who assigns the birth-right to whom he will, almost arrogates to himself the ability to create. This right, as is stated in verse 17, was a double portion of the paternal inheritance. The reason which is added, is equivalent to saying, that the first-born is the principal honor and ornament of the father. Still, if there was a just cause for disinheriting the first-born, another successor might be substituted in his stead, as Jacob shewed in his case when he disinherited Reuben. (Genesis 49:4.) When it is said, "before the son of the hated," some expound it to mean "during his lifetime;" others retain the Hebrew phrase, "before his face." Their opinion, however, is probable, who take this particle comparatively, for "instead of her son." The wife is called hated, not that her husband is positively her enemy, but because he loves her least; for contempt is considered as hatred, and he is called an enemy who does not render conjugal benevolence. Footnotes: [161] Vide [16]vol. 2, p. 70.

THE TREATMENT OF A CAPTIVE TAKEN TO WIFE. (Deu 21:10-23) When thou goest to war . . . and seest among the captives a beautiful woman . . . that thou wouldest have her to thy wife--According to the war customs of all ancient nations, a female captive became the slave of the victor, who had the sole and unchallengeable control of right to her person. Moses improved this existing usage by special regulations on the subject. He enacted that, in the event that her master was captivated by her beauty and contemplated a marriage with her, a month should be allowed to elapse, during which her perturbed feelings might be calmed, her mind reconciled to her altered condition, and she might bewail the loss of her parents, now to her the same as dead. A month was the usual period of mourning with the Jews, and the circumstances mentioned here were the signs of grief--the shaving of the head, the allowing the nails to grow uncut, the putting off her gorgeous dress in which ladies, on the eve of being captured, arrayed themselves to be the more attractive to their captors. The delay was full of humanity and kindness to the female slave, as well as a prudential measure to try the strength of her master's affections. If his love should afterwards cool and he become indifferent to her person, he was not to lord it over her, neither to sell her in the slave market, nor retain her in a subordinate condition in his house; but she was to be free to go where her inclinations led her.

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies,.... This refers to an arbitrary war, as Jarchi remarks, which they entered into of themselves, of choice, or through being provoked to it by their enemies; and not a war commanded by the Lord, as that against the seven nations of Canaan, and against Amalek; since there were to be no captives in that war, but all were to be destroyed: and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands; given them the victory over their enemies, so that they were obliged to surrender themselves to them prisoners of war: and thou hast taken them captive, or "led his or their captivity (b) captive"; led them captive who used to lead others, denoting their conquest of victorious nations; see a like phrase in Psalm 68:18. (b) "et captivam duxerit captivitatem ejus", Pagninus, Montanus, Vatablus.

And seest among the captives a beautiful woman,.... Whether a virgin, wife, or widow, according to the Jewish writers, even though another man's wife; so Jarchi (c), and Maimonides (d); the marriages of Gentiles being reckoned by the Jews no marriages: and hast a desire unto her; being captivated with her beauty; some understand this of the strength and rage of lust, but it rather signifies a passionate desire of enjoying her in a lawful way, as follows: that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; to be married to her in a legal manner; for though it was not allowed the Israelites to marry any of the seven nations of Canaan, nor indeed with any of other nations continuing in their idolatry; yet they might marry such as became their captives and servants, and were wholly in their own power; and especially if proselytes to their religion, and which this fair captive was to become before marriage, as is by some gathered from the following things to be done by her; though after all, this was only a permission, because of the hardness of their hearts, as is said of divorce; and that such marriages were not very grateful to God appears, as some have observed, from the ceremonies used before marriage, to render her contemptible; and the easy dismission of her afterwards, according to the sense of some interpreters. (c) Vid. T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 21. 2.((d) Hilchot Melachim, c. 8. sect. 3.

Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house,.... In order to make her his wife, after some things were done here directed to; for this is not to be understood of his taking her home with a view to defile her, as Maimonides (e) interprets it; who observes, that when a man's lust so rages that he cannot subdue it, yet he ought not publicly to satisfy his lust, but to have the woman into a private and secret place, as it is said: thou shalt bring her into the midst of thine house; nor was he permitted to lie with her in the camp, nor was it lawful for him to defile her a second time, until her mourning was at an end; though elsewhere (f) he gives a different sense of this passage, and supposes the man to have lain with the captive woman, before the introduction of her into his house; for it is a notion that prevails with the Jewish writers, that an Israelitish soldier might lie once with an Heathen woman taken captive, to gratify his lust, but might not repeat it; so it is said in the Talmud (g); yet it must be observed, that there are some, though but few, who are of opinion that the first congress was unlawful, and that he might not touch her until certain conditions were fulfilled, and they were married, as R. Jochanan (h); and which is embraced, supported, and defended by Abarbinel on the place, and in which he is undoubtedly right; and so it is understood by Josephus (i) and Philo (k); for this law gives no liberty nor countenance to the violation of the beautiful captive. The plain meaning is, that when a Jewish soldier was passionately in love with a captive, and was desirous of making her his wife, he was to take her home to his house, where she was to remain, to see whether his passion of love would subside, or the woman become a proselyte, or however till certain rites were observed, and then he was permitted to marry her: and she shall shave her head; either that she might be the less engaging, her flowing locks, or plaited hair, or modish headdress, being removed from her, which had served to excite a passion for her; or as a token of mourning for her present afflicted state and condition; and in afflicted circumstances it was usual to shave the head; see Job 1:20; and though it was forbidden the Israelites, yet not Gentiles; Deuteronomy 14:1. and pare her nails; this and the former some think were ordered to make her fit to be his wife, and were a sort of purification of her, and an emblem of her having renounced Heathenism, and having departed from it, and laid aside all superfluity of former naughtiness; but this phrase is interpreted in the Targum of Onkelos, "let her nails grow"; and so the Arabic version: and this the Jewish writers say was ordered to be done, that she might appear ugly and disagreeable to him, and be abhorred by him; so Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and Ben Melech; the same is observed by Maimonides (l), and is the sense of R. Akiba (m). Another of their writers (n) think it refers to a custom in some nations to dye their nails."The daughters of the Heathens (he says) used to adorn the nails of their hands and feet, and dye them with various colours, according to the custom of the Ishmaelites (or Turks); that there might be a variety in their hands, and men might look at them, take them and handle them until the fire of hell, and an evil concupiscence, burned; wherefore this is ordered that they might let them grow, without any preparation or die.''But perhaps this neglect of their nails, and suffering them to grow, was in token of mourning as well as shaving the head, as also sometimes even paring the nails was done on the same account. (e) Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 41. (f) Hilchot Melachim, c. 8. sect. 2.((g) T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 21. 2.((h) Apud Abarbinel in loc. & R. Sol. Urbin. Ohel Moed, fol. 14. 1.((i) Antiqu. l. 4. c. 8. sect. 23. (k) De Charitate, p. 706. (l) Ut supra. (Hilchot Melachim, c. 8.) sect. 5. (m) In T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 48. 2.((n) R. Abraham Seba in Tzeror Hammor, fol. 146. 2.

And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her,.... Her beautiful garments, and gay apparel, in which she was taken captive; and which tended to stir up the stronger affection for her, and greater desire after her; and therefore, as some think, were ordered to be removed, to abate the ardour of love to her. Jarchi observes, that the daughters of the Gentiles used to adorn themselves in war, that they might cause others to commit fornication with them; and another writer before referred to says (o), the daughters of Heathens used to adorn themselves in raiment of silk, and purple, and fine linen, and needlework, to allure and entice men with them; and therefore the law obliges to put off her beautiful garments, and clothe her with old worn out ones, that she might be less agreeable to him; though the putting off her fine clothes, and being clad with sordid ones, might be only as a token of mourning; as it was customary at such times to lay aside richer clothing, and put on sackcloth, Jonah 3:6. and shall remain in thine house: shut up there, and never stir out, as the same writer interprets it. Maimonides (p) says, that she was to be with him in the house, that going in and out he might see her, and she become abominable to him; though perhaps it was only that he might have an opportunity of observing her manners, and of conversing with her, in order to make a proselyte of her; so the Targum of Jonathan interprets it of dipping herself, and becoming a proselytess in his house; or else, as the rest, her abiding in the house, and not going out, might be on account of mourning, as follows: and bewail her father and her mother a full month; who were either dead in the battle, or however she had no hope of seeing them any more, being a captive, and likely to be settled in another man's house in a foreign country, and so take her farewell of her father's house in this mournful manner. The Jews are divided about the sense of these words; some take them simply to signify her parents, others her idols, according to Jeremiah 2:17. The Targum of Jonathan is,"and weep for the idols of the house of her father and her mother;''meaning not for the loss of them, but for the idolatry of her father's house she was now convinced of, being become a proselytess, according to the paraphrast; but the last seems only to have respect to the loss of her father and mother, which she was to bewail a whole month, or "a moon of days" (q); as many days as the moon is going its course, which it finishes in twenty seven days, seven hours, and forty three minutes, and this is called the periodical month; but is longer in passing from one conjunction of it with the sun to another, called the synodical month, and its quantity is twenty nine days, twelve hours, and forty four minutes. Maimonides (r) says, she was to stay in his house three months, one month of mourning, and two after that, and then he was to marry her. The reason of this the Targum of Jonathan explains, by paraphrasing the words thus,"and shall stay three months, that it may be known whether she is with child;''that is, by his lying with her before when taken with her beauty, that so he might distinguish this child begotten on her in Heathenism, from what he might have by her after marriage, which is supposed to be the case of Tamar and Absalom; but as there is no foundation in the text for a permission to lie with her before marriage, so neither for these additional months; only one month was required, which was the usual time for mourning for deceased relations; see Numbers 20:29. and after that thou shalt go in unto her; and not before: and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife he continuing to love her, and she having become a proselytess. (o) R. Abraham Seba in Tzeror. Hammor, fol. 146. 2.((p) Ut supra. (Hilchot Melachim, c. 8. sect. 2.) (q) "luna dierum", Montanus, Piscator, Grotius. (r) Ut supra (Hilchot Melachim, c. 8.), sect. 6.

And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her;.... Either some time after marriage: then thou shalt let her go whither she will; by a bill of divorce, as the Targum of Jonathan, who understands it in this sense, and as the connection of the words seems to require; or else before marriage, at the month's end, or any time before, that if his affections cooled towards her, and all the above methods tended to abate his love of her, then he was obliged to dismiss her, or to grant her her freedom, and let her go wherever she pleased; she was no longer his captive, nor his servant: but thou shalt not sell her at all for money; as he might have done if he had not made such a proposal to her, and obliged her to the observance of such rites and ceremonies as he did, in order to make her his wife: thou shalt not make merchandise of her; which seems to express the same thing, and therefore something else is rather intended; as that he should neither make any gain of her by selling her to another, nor retain her in his own service, nor make use of her as a slave; so Jarchi says, that in the Persian language they call service by this word, and which also he says he learnt from an eminent writer of theirs, R. Moses Hadarsan; with which Maimonides (s) agrees, who explains it, shall make no use of her service, or serve himself by her; he should have no profit by her, either by sale, or servitude: because thou hast humbled her; which phrase it must be owned is often, used of unlawful commerce with a woman, of defiling her, or violating her chastity; and so may seem to confirm the notion of those who think that he lay with her before he took her to his house, and therefore, upon a refusal to marry her afterwards, was obliged to this loss; though the word signifies any kind of affliction, as this was a very great one, a great mortification to her, to be taken into his house, to have her head shaved, and her nails pared, or suffered to grow, and her fine clothes changed for sordid ones; and all this with a profession of a design to marry her, and yet after all is deceived and disappointed by him; wherefore for such a conduct toward her he was obliged to give her her freedom. (s) Ut supra. (Hilchot Melachim, c. 8. sect. 2.)

If a man have two wives,.... Which is supposed, but not approved of, though permitted because of the hardness of men's hearts; for it was not so from the beginning, when only one man and one woman were created, and joined together in marriage; but as it was connived at, and become customary, a law is made to prevent confusion, and preserve order in families: one beloved and another hated; or less loved, yet continued his wife, and not divorced. Aben Ezra observes, this follows upon the former, because it is there said, that though first he had a desire to her (the captive beautiful woman), yet afterwards had no delight in her: and they have borne him children both, the beloved and the hated; as Rachel and Leah did to Jacob, who were, the one very much beloved by him, and the other less: and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated; or not so much beloved as the other, as was the case in the above instance.

Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath,.... By a will in writing, or byword of mouth, or by a deed of gift, actually bestowing his goods upon them, and dividing among them what he is for the present possessed of; see Luke 15:12, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn; that is, when such is the case, that the son of his wife he has the least value for is really his firstborn, he may not, through favour and affection to the wife he loves better, prefer her son, and declare him to be the firstborn, by devising to him or bestowing on him the double portion of his goods; for so to do would not be right, or agreeably to the will and law of God; for though previous to this law the birthright was given to Joseph, the eldest son of Rachel, the most beloved wife of Jacob, before Reuben who was the son of Leah, less beloved by him, and was in fact his firstborn; yet this was owing to the sin of Reuben, and by the appointment of God; see Genesis 49:3.

But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn,.... Own him and declare him to be so, both by his will and the division of goods by him; or he shall "separate" him, as Onkelos; distinguish him from all his other sons, and make known to all, as the Targum of Jonathan, that he is his firstborn: by giving him a double portion of all that he hath; or, "that is found with him" (t); which he was in the possession of when he made his will, or divided his goods; and so refers not to what might come into his hands afterwards, or should be his in reversion afterwards; in this the firstborn had not his double portion, only in what his father was for the present possessed of; so that if a man had two sons, his goods were divided into three parts, and the firstborn took two parts, and the other the third; if three sons, they were divided into four parts, of which the firstborn had two parts, and the others each of them one; if four sons, they were divided into five parts, and the firstborn took two, and the other three one apiece, and so in proportion; the division was made according to their number: for he is the beginning of his strength; as Jacob said, of Reuben; see Gill on Genesis 49:3 the right of the firstborn is his; before this law was given, there was a birthright, or a privilege belonging to the firstborn, which gave him the preeminence in the family to his brethren; but whether he was entitled to a double portion of goods, previous to this law, is not certain; however, by this it was his right, and might not be alienated from him; for, according to the Jewish canons (u),"if a man say, such an one my son, the firstborn, shall not take the double portion, and my son such an one shall not inherit with his brethren, he says nothing, cause he disposes contrary to what is written in the law.''This law of the firstborn in the mystery of it may respect our Lord Jesus Christ, the firstborn of God, and the firstborn of Mary; and who had a double portion of the gifts and grace of the Spirit, or rather the Spirit without measure, the oil of gladness he was anointed with above his fellows, and is the firstborn among many brethren, among whom in all things he has the preeminence; and also the elect of God, the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven, who have a double portion, both temporal and spiritual things, the promise of this life and that to come, grace here and glory hereafter; and the ultimate glory is but one inheritance, they all share alike in, being equally children, and all firstborn; and it may have regard also to the Jewish and Gentile churches, the former was the beloved wife, the latter some time not beloved, and yet the children of the Gentile church have a larger measure of the Spirit than those of the jewish church had; see Romans 9:25. (t) "quod inventum fuerit ei", Pagninus, Montanus., (u) Misn. Bava Bathra, c. 8. sect. 5.