Deuteronomy 21:18–22:12

Here is, I. A law for the punishing of a rebellious son. Having in the former law provided that parents should not deprive their children of their right, it was fit that it should next be provided that children withdraw not the honour and duty which are owing to their parents, for there is no partiality in the divine law. Observe, 1. How the criminal is here described. He is a stubborn and rebellious son, Deu 21:18. No child was to fare the worse for the weakness of his capacity, the slowness or dulness of his understanding, but for his wilfulness and obstinacy. If he carry himself proudly and insolently towards his parents, contemn their authority, slight their reproofs and admonitions, disobey the express commands they give him for his own good, hate to be reformed by the correction they give him, shame their family, grieve their hearts, waste their substance, and threaten to ruin their estate by riotous living - this is a stubborn and rebellious son. He is particularly supposed (Deu 21:20) to be a glutton or a drunkard. This intimates either, (1.) That these were sins which his parents did in a particular manner warn him against, and therefore that in these instances there was a plain evidence that he did not obey their voice. Lemuel had this charge from his mother, Pro 31:4. Note, In the education of children, great care should be taken to suppress all inclinations to drunkenness, and to keep them out of the way of temptations to it; in order hereunto they should be possessed betimes with a dread and detestation of that beastly sin, and taught betimes to deny themselves. Or, (2.) That his being a glutton and a drunkard was the cause of his insolence and obstinacy towards his parents. Note, There is nothing that draws men into all manner of wickedness, and hardens them in it, more certainly and fatally than drunkenness does. When men take to drink they forget the law, they forget all law (Pro 31:5), even that fundamental law of honouring parents. 2. How this criminal is to be proceeded against. His own father and mother are to be his prosecutors, Deu 21:19, Deu 21:20. They might not put him to death themselves, but they must complain of him to the elders of the city, and the complaint must needs be made with a sad heart: This our son is stubborn and rebellious. Note, Those that give up themselves to vice and wickedness, and will not be reclaimed, forfeit their interest in the natural affections of the nearest relations; the instruments of their being justly become the instruments of their destruction. The children that forget their duty must thank themselves and not blame their parents if they are regarded with less and less affection. And, how difficult soever tender parents now find it to reconcile themselves to the just punishment of their rebellious children, in the day of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God all natural affection will be so entirely swallowed up in divine love that they will acquiesce even in the condemnation of those children, because God will be therein for ever glorified. 3. What judgment is to be executed upon him: he must publicly stoned to death by the men of his city, Deu 21:21. And thus, (1.) The paternal authority was supported, and God, our common Father, showed himself jealous for it, it being one of the first and most ancient streams derived from him that is the fountain of all power. (2.) This law, if duly executed, would early destroy the wicked of the land. (Psa 101:8), and prevent the spreading of the gangrene, by cutting off the corrupt part betimes; for those that were bad members of families would never make good members of the commonwealth. (3.) It would strike an awe upon children, and frighten them into obedience to their parents, if they would not otherwise be brought to their duty and kept in it: All Israel shall hear. The Jews say, "The elders that condemned him were to send notice of it in writing all the nation over, In such a court, such a day, we stoned such a one, because he was a stubborn and rebellious son." And I have sometimes wished that as in all our courts there is an exact record kept of the condemnation of criminals, in perpetuam rei memoriam - that the memorial may never be lost, so there might be public and authentic notice given in print to the kingdom of such condemnations, and the executions upon them, by the elders themselves, in terrorem - that all may hear and fear. II. A law for the burying of the bodies of malefactors that were hanged, Deu 21:22. The hanging of them by the neck till the body was dead was not used at all among the Jews, as with us; but of such as were stoned to death, if it were for blasphemy, or some other very execrable crime, it was usual, by order of the judges, to hang up the dead bodies upon a post for some time, as a spectacle to the world, to express the ignominy of the crime, and to strike the greater terror upon others, that they might not only hear and fear, but see and fear. Now it is here provided that, whatever time of the day they were thus hanged up, at sun-set they should be taken down and buried, and not left to hang out all night; sufficient (says the law) to such a man is this punishment; hitherto let it go, but no further. Let the malefactor and his crime be hidden in the grave. Now, 1. God would thus preserve the honour of human bodies and tenderness towards the worst of criminals. The time of exposing dead bodies thus is limited for the same reason that the number of stripes was limited by another law: Lest thy brother seem vile unto thee. Punishing beyond death God reserves to himself; as for man, there is no more that he can do. Whether therefore the hanging of malefactors in chains, and setting up their heads and quarters, be decent among Christians that look for the resurrection of the body, may perhaps be worth considering. 2. Yet it is plain there was something ceremonial in it; by the law of Moses the touch of a dead body was defiling, and therefore dead bodies must not be left hanging up in the country, because, by the same rule, this would defile the land. But, 3. There is one reason here given which has reference to Christ. He that is hanged is accursed of God, that is, it is the highest degree of disgrace and reproach that can be done to a man, and proclaims him under the curse of God as much as any external punishment can. Those that see him thus hang between heaven and earth will conclude him abandoned of both and unworthy of either; and therefore let him not hang all night, for that would carry it too far. Now the apostle, showing how Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by being himself made a curse for us, illustrates it by comparing the brand here put on him that was hanged on a tree with the death of Christ, Gal 3:13. Moses, by the Spirit, uses this phrase of being accursed of God, when he means no more than being treated most ignominiously, that it might afterwards be applied to the death of Christ, and might show that in it he underwent the curse of the law for us, which is a great enhancement of his love and a great encouragement to our faith in him. And (as the excellent bishop Patrick well observes) this passage is applied to the death of Christ, not only because he bore our sins and was exposed to shame, as these malefactors were that were accursed of God, but because he was in the evening taken down from the cursed tree and buried (and that by the particular care of the Jews, with an eye to this law, Joh 19:31), in token that now, the guilt being removed, the law was satisfied, as it was when the malefactor had hanged till sun-set; it demanded no more. Then he ceased to be a curse, and those that were his. And, as the land of Israel was pure and clean when the dead body was buried, so the church is washed and cleansed by the complete satisfaction which thus Christ made.

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son,.... It is observed (w) that this law quickly follows, and is subjoined to that which relates to the marriage of a woman taken captive, because often from such marriages wicked and refractory children have sprung, and which they exemplify in the case of Absalom, whose mother they say David took in war and married: the character of such a son follows, and by which it may be known that he is stubborn and rebellious; stubborn in his nature, and rebellious in his actions; behaves contrary to the laws of God, and the instructions of his parents; what he should do, that he does not; and what he should not do, that he does; will not do what is commanded him, and will do what is forbidden him, notwithstanding all counsels, admonitions, and corrections given him: which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother; is disobedient to the commands of either of them; see Proverbs 30:17 and, when they have chastened him, will not hearken to them; when they have reproved him by words, and corrected him with blows; the Jews understand this of scourging or beating by the order of the sanhedrim, after admonition given; it is said (x),"they admonish him before three (a court of judicature consisting of three judges), and they beat him; but it seems rather to respect private corrections of their own by words and stripes, which having no effect, they were to proceed as follows.'' (w) Moses Kotensis Mitzvot Torah, pr. affirm. 122. Kimchi in 2 Samuel 3. 3.((x) Misn. Sandedrin, c. 8. sect. 4.

Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him,.... With their own hands, or cause him to be apprehended by others, in which they were to agree, and which the Jews gather from hence;"if (say they (y)) the father is willing (to bring him to justice), and the mother not willing, if his father is not willing and the mother is willing, he is not reckoned a stubborn or rebellious son, until they both agree:" and bring him out unto the elders of his city; according to the Misnah (z), the sanhedrim, or court of judicature, consisting of twenty three; for they say, that after he has been admonished and scourged by order of the bench of three, if he returns to his corrupt and wicked ways again, he is judged by the court of twenty three: and unto the gate of his place; or city, where the court sat; so the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, to the gate of the sanhedrim of his place. (y) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 8. sect. 4. (z) Ibid.

And they shall say unto the elders of his city,.... In open court, what follows, at the same time, according to the Targum of Jonathan, acknowledging their own sins, for which such a calamity had befallen them, saying,"we have transgressed the decree of the word of the Lord, because is born unto us a son that is stubborn, &c.''see John 9:2. this our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; one of an obstinate disposition, will have his own will and way, is perverse and refractory; honours not, but despises his parents, and is disobedient to their commands, unruly and ungovernable: the Jews gather (a) many things from hence, for which there is little foundation, as that they must be neither dumb, nor blind, nor deaf; though what they further observe is not much amiss, concerning this rebellious child, that the law respects a son and not a daughter, because a daughter generally is more tractable; and less capable of doing mischief than a son; and a son and not a man, for if at man's estate, and for himself, he is not under the power of his parents; and yet not a child or a little one, for that is not comprehended in the commands; he must be according to them thirteen years of age and one day, and he must be a son and not a father (b): he is a glutton and a drunkard; which, according to the Misnah (c), is one that eats half a pound of flesh, and drinks half a log of Italian wine; R. Jose says, a pound of flesh and a log of wine; but the decision was not according to him; the first rule stood: now half a pound of flesh, and half a log of wine, which was about three egg shells, or a quarter of a pint, would be at this day reckoned very little by our grandsons of Bacchus, as Schickard observes (d); but in an age of severer discipline, as he says, in the tender candidates of temperance, it was reckoned too much, and was a presage of a future glutton: and it must be further observed to denominate him a rebellious son, what he ate and drank was to be what he stole from his parents, and did not eat and drink it at home, but abroad, and in bad company; so Jarchi remarks on the text, he is not guilty until he steals, and eats half a pound of flesh, and drinks half a log of wine; in which he seems to have respect to the Jewish canon (e),"if he steals from his father and eats it in a place in his father's power, or from others and eats it in a place in their power, or from others and eats it in a place in his father's power; he is not reckoned a stubborn and rebellious son, unless he steals from his father, and eats it in a place in the power of others,''see Proverbs 23:20, the Jews seem to refer to this when they charged Christ with being a glutton and a winebibber, Matthew 11:19 being desirous of having him thought as such an one. (a) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 8. sect. 4. (b) Ut supra, (Misn. Bava Bathra, c. 8.) sect. 1. Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. (c) Ib. sect. 2.((d) Jus Regium Heb. c. 5. Theor. 17. p. 364. (e) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 8. sect. 3.

And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die,.... The populace; that is, after his trial is finished, and he is condemned to die; and he was not stoned until the three first judges were there (by whom he was admonished, and ordered to be beaten), as it it said, "this is our son", this is he that was beaten before you (f); and according to the Targum of Jonathan,"if he feared (God, and showed any token of repentance) and received instruction, and they (his parents) desired to preserve him alive, they preserved him; but if he refused and was rebellious, then they stoned him;''but the Jews say this law, and that of retaliation, were never put into execution: so shalt thou put away evil from among you; put a stop to, and prevent such an evil for the future, and remove the guilt of it; or, as the Targum of Jonathan, him that doeth that evil: and all Israel shall hear, and fear; it being to be publicly notified throughout the land, that such an one suffered death for such a crime, which would be a means of deterring others from the same; so Jarchi remarks,"here (says he) a proclamation was necessary to be made by the sanhedrim, as that such an one was stoned because he was stubborn and rebellious;''for the mystical sense of this see Ephesians 2:2. (f) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 3. sect. 4.

[121] Deut. xxi. 23. “For he that is hanged is accursed by God.” The instances we have of those that were hanged, are agreeable to this. Thus the heads of the people that joined themselves to Baalpeor were hung up before the sun, that the fierce anger of God might cease. Numb. xxv. 3, 4. So the seven sons of Saul were hanged, to remove God’s wrath from the land. Ahithophel, who was cursed by David in God’s name, hanged himself. Absalom was hanged in an oak for his rebellion against his father: “For it is written, Cursed is every one that setteth light by father or by mother.” The kings of the cursed cities of Canaan were hanged. Haman was hanged, for he was a type of antichrist. Judas hanged himself, having been declared accursed by Christ before.

And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death,.... This before mentioned, or any other that deserves death, any kind of death, as strangling, killing with the sword, burning and stoning, to which the Jews restrain it here: and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him, on a tree; is condemned to stoning, and after that they hang him, as the Targum of Jonathan; and according to the Jewish Rabbins, as Jarchi observes, all that were stoned were to be hanged, and only men, not women (g); for it is remarked that it is said "him" and not "her" (h): about this there is a dispute in the Misnah (i);"all that are stoned are hanged, they are the words of R. Eliezer; but the wise men say none are to be hanged but the blasphemer and idolater; a man is to be hanged with his face to the people, a woman with her face to the tree, they are the words of R. Eliezer; but the wise men say, a man is to be hanged, but no woman, to whom R. Eliezer replied, did not Simeon Ben Shetach hang women in Ashkelon? they answered him, he hung eighty women (at once), but they do not judge or condemn two in one day;''so that this was a particular case at a particular time, and not be drawn into an example: in the same place it is asked, "how they hang one? they fix a beam in the earth, and a piece of wood goes out of it (near the top of it, as one of the commentator (k) remarks), and join his two hands together and hang him;''that is, by his hand, not by his neck, as with us, but rather in the crucifixion; only in that the hands are spread, and one hand is fastened to one part of the cross beam, and the other to the other end. (g) Misn. Sotah, c. 3. sect. 8. (h) Maimon. & Bartenora in. ib. (i) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 6. sect. 4. (k) Bartenora in Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 6. sect. 4.

His body shall not remain all night upon the tree,.... Which is to be understood of any and everyone that was hanged, and not of the rebellious son only; of whom Josephus (l) says, that he was to be stoned by the multitude without the city, and having remained a whole day for a spectacle unto all, was to be buried at night; and indeed such a person was not to remain hanging on the tree any part of the night, but to be taken down at sun setting; so the Targum of Jonathan,"ye shall bury him at sun setting;''so says Maimonides (m), they hang a man near the setting of the sun and loose him immediately, and if he continues they transgress a negative precept, "his body shall not remain", &c. yea, according to him and to the Misnah (n), and which agrees with the practice of the Jews to this day, not only those that were put to death by the sanhedrim, but whoever suffered his dead to remain unburied a night transgressed a negative command, unless he kept him for his honour, to get for him a coffin and shroud: but thou shalt in any wise bury him in that day: by all means, if possible; malefactors were not buried in the sepulchre of their fathers, but there were two burying places provided by the sanhedrim, one for those that were stoned and burnt, and another for those that were killed with the sword and strangled (o); and even the instruments of their death were to be buried also, as Maimonides (p) relates, the tree on which he is hanged is buried with him, that there may be no remembrance of the evil, and they say, this is the tree on which such an one was hanged; and so the stone with which he is stoned, and the sword with which he is killed, and the napkin with which he is strangled, all are buried in the place where he is put to death, but not in the grave itself: for he that is hanged is accursed of God: plainly appears to be so, having committed some foul sin which has brought the curse of God upon him, and which being hanged on a tree was a plain proof and declaration of; and therefore having hereby suffered the rigour of the law, the curse of it, his body was ordered to be taken down; for the words are not a reason of his being hanged, but a reason why being hanged, and so openly accursed, he should not remain hanging, but be taken down and buried: the meaning is not, as Onkelos gives it, that"because he sinned before the Lord he is hanged,''and particularly was guilty of blasphemy; which is given as the reason of his being hanged, and as the sense of this passage; on the mention of which it is said (q),"it is as if he should say, wherefore is he hanged? because he cursed God, and the name of God was found profaned:''but though this, or any other capital crime, may be allowed to be the reason of the man's being hanged, and so apparently accursed; yet this is not the reason of his being loosed from thence, but his having bore the curse and satisfied the law: and hence this is applied to Christ by the apostle, in Galatians 3:13 showing, that his hanging on the tree was an indication and proof of his being made sin and a curse for his people, or that he bore the curse of the law for their sins, and that the taking of him down from the tree, and burying him, signified the removing the curse from him and his people for whom he suffered; or that thereby he redeemed them from the curse of the law, as the apostle expresses it: that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance: which is another reason for taking down the body from the tree and burying it, lest the land of Canaan, which the Lord had given them for an inheritance, and which was typical of the undefiled inheritance, 1 Peter 1:4 should be polluted, both in a natural sense, through the putrefaction and corruption, and the disagreeable smell of a dead body, and in a ceremonial sense, as every carcass was defiling, if a person but entered where it was; and therefore a dead body was not to be left hanging openly in the air, and rotting there. (l) Antiqu. l. 4. c. 8. sect. 24. (m) Hilchot Sanhedrin, c. 15. sect. 7. (n) Sanhedrin, c. 6. sect. 5. (o) Sanhedrin, c. 6. sect. 5. (p) Ut supra, (Hilchot Sanhedrin, c. 15.) sect. 9. (q) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 6. sect. 4.

Here are several laws in these verses which seem to stoop very low, and to take cognizance of things mean and minute. Men's laws commonly do not so: De minimis non curat lex - The law takes no cognizance of little things; but because God's providence extends itself to the smallest affairs, his precepts do so, that even in them we may be in the fear of the Lord, as we are under his eye and care. And yet the significancy and tendency of these statutes, which seem little, are such that, notwithstanding their minuteness, being fond among the things of God's law, which he has written to us, they are to be accounted great things. I. The distinction of sexes by the apparel is to be kept up, for the preservation of our own and our neighbour's chastity, Deu 22:5. Nature itself teaches that a difference be made between them in their hair (Co1 11:14), and by the same rule in their clothes, which therefore ought not to be confounded, either in ordinary wear or occasionally. To befriend a lawful escape or concealment it may be done, but whether for sport or in the acting of plays is justly questionable. 1. Some think it refers to the idolatrous custom of the Gentiles: in the worship of Venus, women appeared in armour, and men in women's clothes; this, as other such superstitious usages, is here said to be an abomination to the Lord. 2. It forbids the confounding of the dispositions and affairs of the sexes: men must not be effeminate, nor do the women's work in the house, nor must women be viragos, pretend to teach, or usurp authority, Ti1 2:11, Ti1 2:12. Probably this confounding of garments had been used to gain opportunity of committing uncleanness, and is therefore forbidden; for those that would be kept from sin must keep themselves from all occasions of it and approaches to it. II. In taking a bird's-nest, the dam must be let go, Deu 22:6, Deu 22:7. The Jews say, "This is the least of all the commandments of the law of Moses," and yet the same promise is here made to the observance of it that is made to the keeping of the fifth commandment, which is one of the greatest, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days; for, as disobedience in a small matter shows a very great contempt of the law, so obedience in a small matter shows a very great regard to it. He that let go a bird out of his hand (which was worth two in the bush) purely because God bade him, in that made it to appear that he esteemed all God's precepts concerning all things to be right, and that he could deny himself rather than sin against God. But doth God take care for birds? Co1 9:9. Yes, certainly; and perhaps to this law our Saviour alludes. Luk 12:6, Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? This law, 1. Forbids us to be cruel to the brute-creatures, or to take a pleasure in destroying them. Though God has made us wiser than the fowls of heaven, and given us dominion over them, yet we must not abuse them nor rule them with rigour. Let go the dam to breed again; destroy it not, for a blessing is in it, Isa 65:8. 2. It teaches us compassion to those of our own kind, and to abhor the thought of every thing that looks barbarous, and cruel, and ill-natured, especially towards those of the weaker and tender sex, which always ought to be treated with the utmost respect, in consideration of the sorrows wherein they bring forth children. It is spoken of as an instance of the most inhuman cruelty that the mother was dashed to pieces upon her children (Hos 10:14), and that the women with child were ripped open, Amo 1:13. 3. It further intimates that we must not take advantage against any, from their natural affection and the tenderness of their disposition, to do them an injury. The dam could not have been taken if her concern for her eggs or young (unlike to the ostrich) had not detained her upon the next when otherwise she could easily have secured herself by flight. Now, since it is a thousand pities that she should fare the worse for that which is her praise, the law takes care that she shall be let go. The remembrance of this may perhaps, some time or other, keep us from doing a hard or unkind thing to those whom we have at our mercy. III. In building a house, care must be taken to make it safe, that none might receive mischief by falling from it, Deu 22:8. The roofs of their houses were flat for people to walk on, as appears by many scriptures; now lest any, through carelessness, should fall off them, they must compass them with battlements, which (the Jews say) must be three feet and a half high; if this were not done, and mischief followed, the owner, by his neglect, brought the guilt of blood upon his house. See here, 1. How precious men's lives are to God, who protects them, not only by his providence, but by his law. 2. How precious, therefore, they ought to be to us, and what care we should take to prevent hurt from coming to any person. The Jews say that by the equity of this law they were obliged (and so are we too) to fence, or remove, every thing by which life may be endangered, as to cover draw-wells, keep bridges in repair, and the like, lest, if any perish through our omission, their blood be required at our hand. IV. Odd mixtures are here forbidden, Deu 22:9, Deu 22:10. Much of this we met with before, Lev 19:19. There appears not any thing at all of moral evil in these things, and therefore we now make no conscience of sowing wheat and rye together, ploughing with horses and oxen together, and of wearing linsey-woolsey garments; but hereby is forbidden either, 1. A conformity to some idolatrous customs of the heathen. Or, 2. That which is contrary to the plainness and purity of an Israelite. They must not gratify their own vanity and curiosity by putting those things together which the Creator in infinite wisdom had made asunder: they must not be unequally yoked with unbelievers, nor mingle themselves with the unclean, as an ox with an ass. Nor must their profession and appearance in the world be motley, or party-coloured, but all of a piece, all of a kind. V. The law concerning fringes upon their garments, and memorandums of the commandments, which we had before (Num 15:38, Num 15:39), is here repeated, Deu 22:12. By these they were distinguished from other people, so that it might be said, upon the first sight There goes an Israelite, which taught them not to be ashamed of their country, nor the peculiarities of their religion, how much soever their neighbours looked upon them and it with contempt: and they were also put in mind of the precepts upon the particular occasions to which they had reference; and perhaps this law is repeated here because the precepts immediately foregoing seemed so minute that they were in danger of being overlooked and forgotten. The fringes will remind you not to make your garments of linen and woollen, Deu 22:11.

Deuteronomy 22:4 4. Thou shalt not see thy brother's ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them; thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again. 4. Non videbis asinum fratris tui aut boves ejus jacentes in via, et abscondes te ab eis: erigendo eriges cum eo. By this law also, God exhorts His people to exercise the duties of humanity towards brute animals, in order that they may be the more disposed to assist their brethren; for we must bear in memory what Paul teaches, where God commands oxen to be kindly treated, viz., that He does not care so much for them in this, as for mankind. (1 Corinthians 9:9.) God prescribes elsewhere, that if any should see the ox or ass of his brother, or even of his enemy, going astray, he should catch it, and restore it to its master, (Deuteronomy 22:1-3, and Exodus 23:4;) but here He had another intention, i.e., that believers should testify their forgiveness of their enemies, by being merciful to their animals. If it had been simply said, that our enemies were to be helped, and that we must contend with them by acts of kindness, to overcome their ill-will, all cruelty would have been sufficiently condemned; but when God commands us not only to succor our enemies, to point out their way to those who are straying, and to lift up those who are fallen, but would also have us exercise these kindnesses to their very beasts, He more emphatically and strongly expresses how very far removed from hatred and the desire of vengeance He desires His children to be. Wherefore we see that what Christ afterwards taught His disciples is taught also in the Law, that we should love our enemies. (Matthew 5:44.) Nor is it merely the desire of vengeance which is here restrained, but something more is required, viz., that believers should conquer the ill-will of their enemies by kindnesses: since to bring back a straying ox or ass is a proof of sincere affection. But, in these two passages, what relates to the Sixth Commandment is represented in a more striking manner, viz., that assistance should be rendered to an ox or an ass, weighed down by its burden. Interpreters [50] are not agreed as to the meaning of the words, and Jerome has departed most widely from them. But others, who desire to translate them more accurately, read them interrogatively, -- If thou shall see an animal fall under its burden, etc., wilt thou hesitate to help? The other sense seems more appropriate, -- If thou shall; have seen and have hesitated to help, still do thou help: for in this way God anticipates a person, if, perchance, impelled at first by hatred, he should dislike to help his enemy: and then commands him to correct his guilty thought. The meaning, therefore, will be, -- if the sight of thine enemy should delay thee from aiding his beast, lay aside thine ill-will, and unite thyself with him, that you may together be humane and merciful to the wretched animal. Thus an opportunity was given to enemies for their mutual reconciliation. There is another difficulty in the word gzv, [51] gnazab, which, although it means to leave, still, in my judgment, is used for to assist, or to give help: although it is not translated amiss, to let fro, or to loose: or, if it be preferred, to strengthen; in which sense it is sometimes found. Footnotes: [50] Margin A V., Exodus 23:5, "Wilt thou cease to help him? or, and wouldest thou cease to leave thy business for him; thou shalt surely leave it to join with him." The Vulg. translation is, "Si videris asinum odientis te jacere sub onere, non pertransibis, sed sublevabis cum eo:" and this precisely accords with LXX., ou pareleusHu auto [51] Exodus 23:5 zv, in its primary and most usual sense, signifies to leave; but a thing may be left from dislike or weariness; hence it signifies (2) to forsake. On the other hand, it may be left, because it has been brought into that state, in which it needs no further help or security; and hence (3) it sometimes signifies to complete a defense, as Nehem. 3:8; 4:2; to relieve from a difficulty, as in this place -- W. The whole of this criticism is omitted, not only in the French translation, but also in the Latin edition of 1563, pp. 390, 391.

Deuteronomy 22:6, 7 6. If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or upon the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young: 6. Quum occurrerit tibi nidus avium in via in quavis arbore, aut super terram ubi pulli vel ova, et mater cubet super pullos aut super ova: non accipies matrem cum filiis: 7. But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days. 7. Sed dimittendo dimittes matrem, pullos autem capies tibi, ut bene sit tibi et producas dies. Since by this precept God instructed His people in the, law of kindness, it is a Supplement to the Sixth Commandment. Regard was had, indeed, to the preservation of the breed; but, besides, when birds are sitting, as being very lean, it is certain that they are not wholesome food; still there is no question but that it was God's intention to accustom His people to study humanity. For, if there be one drop of compassion in us, it will never enter into our minds to kill an unhappy little bird, which so burns either with the desire of offspring, or with love towards its little ones, as to be heedless of its life, and to prefer endangering itself to the desertion of its eggs, or its brood. Wherefore, it is not to be doubted but that in this elementary lesson, God prohibited His people from savageness and cruelty.

Deuteronomy 22:8 8. When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence. 8. Si aedificaveris domum novam, facies tabulatum per circuitum in tecto tuo: nec pones sanguinem in domo tua, si quispiam ceciderit ex eo. This precept also has reference to the preservation of human life. We know that the roofs of the Jewish houses were fiat, so that they might freely walk upon them. If there were no railings round them, a fall would have been fatal; and every house would have often been a house of mourning. God, therefore, commands the edge to be fortified with battlements, or railings, or other inclosure, and accompanies the injunction with a severe denunciation; for He declares that the houses would be defiled with blood, if any one should fall from an uninclosed roof. Now, if guile were thus contracted by mere incautiousness, it hence appears how greatly He abominates deliberate cruelty; and, if it behooved everybody to be thus solicitous as to the lives of their brethren, it shows how criminal it is to injure them purposely and in enmity.

Deuteronomy 22:9-11 9. Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. 9. Non seres vineam tuam diversis speciebus seminum, ne forte pollatur fructus seminis quod sevisti, et fruetus vineae. 10. Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. 10. Non arabis cum bove et asino pariter. 11. Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolien and linen together. 11. Non indues te diversa specie, lana et lino pariter. Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard. These four precepts, which all condemn strange medleys, I doubt not to be supplements of the First Commandment; and the reason, which is subjoined in Deuteronomy, directs us to this, where God declares that the produce of the seed and of the vineyard is polluted, if there be divers mixtures. Whence it appears that nothing else is demanded but that they should cultivate purity. The word indeed, which Moses uses, means to "sanctify," qds kadesh; but, by antiphrasis, it is taken for to "contaminate." To the same effect is what follows, that they should not plough with an ox and an ass together; for this diversity is forbidden on no other account, but because men contract some defilement as soon as they depart from simplicity. Yet, if any one thinks otherwise, I shall not strongly contend with him. It might indeed be objected, that when God forbids animals to be used promiscuously, so that those of different kinds should not be mixed together, He has regard to chastity, [30] and that, by forbidding the fields to be sown with divers seeds, and garments to be woven of divers materials, He would prevent frauds. But the more simple explanation is, that the people were thus retained in purity, lest they should accustom themselves to corrupt habits, and lest they should bring in strange rites from various quarters, or seek, with depraved curiosity, for mixtures which might at length invade the worship of God. For if animals of different species are joined together, the integrity of nature is corrupted, and an adulterine offspring is produced, which degenerates from the institution of God; but, if various kinds of seed should be mixed together, or if a garment should be woven of linen and wool, there would be no danger of deception or fraud in so manifest a matter. It is probable, therefore, that the end which, as I have said, was proposed by God was, that, by cultivating natural and simple habits all their life through, they should keep themselves pure and uncorrupted from every strange vice. On this account Scripture compares strange doctrines to leaven, since by their additions or curtailings they corrupt the pure word of God. (Matthew 16:11.) And this was by no means a useless discipline; when, in trifles, and almost things of nought, the rein was applied to them, so that they should not decline from purity in the very least degree. It was a small matter to interweave a thin thread with a thicker one, and perchance such a process would have been profitable for their general advantage; in some fields, too, a better crop is grown, if the seed is compounded of pure wheat, and some other sort of grain (siligine), as also the union of the horse and ass has been approved of, since thus mules are produced. But God would not allow these things amongst His ancient people, lest, sinking by degrees to greater license, they should at length addict themselves to the practice and customs of the heathen. He therefore uses this preface: "Ye shall keep my statutes," (Leviticus 19:19;) from whence we gather that the people were surrounded with fixed barriers, lest they should defile themselves with foreign vices, and imitate the nations, from which they had been separated. Wherefore this is the sum, that they should abide in God's statutes. Footnotes: [29] Heading in French, "Autre dependence de se tenir nettement en Cachant ses pouretez." [30] "Au septieme commandement de la Loy, qui est d'observer chastet;" to the Seventh Commandment of the Law, which is to observe chastity. -- Fr.

Deuteronomy 22:12, 5 12. Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself 12. Fimbrias facies tibi in quatuor oris operimenti tui quo operies te. 5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God. 5. Mulier non feret arma viri, nec induet vir muliebre vestimentum: quia abominatio Jehovae Dei tui est quicunque haec facit 12. This also was a part of, or accessory to, chastity, to have regard to modesty in dress; for since the thighs were then without covering, a door was thus opened to many improprieties, if the upper garments were not closed, and many, as if by accident, would have abused this, if it had been allowed, as an incentive to licentiousness; for we see that many rush into such excesses of lasciviousness, as to glory in their shame. God, therefore, would have the flaps of their gowns thus drawn together by ties or latchets, that not even by chance could those parts be uncovered, which cannot be decently or modestly looked upon. But if divine provisions were made even with respect to their garments, so that the elect people should cultivate decency, and diligently guard against everything immodest, it is abundantly clear that not only were adulteries condemned, but whatever is repugnant to purity and chastity. This passage is improperly referred to the fringes which were sewed to their garments to renew the recollection of the Law, since decency and delicacy are here alone regarded. 5. This decree also commends modesty in general, and in it God anticipates the danger, lest women should harden themselves into forgetfulness of modesty, or men should degenerate into effeminacy unworthy of their nature. Garments are not in themselves of so much importance; but as it is disgraceful for men to become effeminate, and also for women to affect manliness in their dress and gestures, propriety and modesty are prescribed, not only for decency's sake, but lest one kind of liberty should at length lead to something worse. The words of the heathen poet are very true: [97] "What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, Her sex deserting?" Wherefore, decency in the fashion of the clothes is an excellent preservative of modesty. Footnotes: [97] The quotation is from Juvenal, Sat. 6:252: "Quem praestare potest mulier galeata pudorem, Quae fugit a sexu." The Fr. translation is forcible: "qu'une femme, qui contrefait le gendarme, et fuit son sexe, ne gardera nulle honte."

THE SEX TO BE DISTINGUISHED BY APPAREL. (Deu 22:5-12) The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment--Though disguises were assumed at certain times in heathen temples, it is probable that a reference was made to unbecoming levities practised in common life. They were properly forbidden; for the adoption of the habiliments of the one sex by the other is an outrage on decency, obliterates the distinctions of nature by fostering softness and effeminacy in the man, impudence and boldness in the woman as well as levity and hypocrisy in both; and, in short, it opens the door to an influx of so many evils that all who wear the dress of another sex are pronounced "an abomination unto the Lord."

If a bird's nest chance to be before thee--This is a beautiful instance of the humanizing spirit of the Mosaic law, in checking a tendency to wanton destructiveness and encouraging a spirit of kind and compassionate tenderness to the tiniest creatures. But there was wisdom as well as humanity in the precept; for, as birds are well known to serve important uses in the economy of nature, the extirpation of a species, whether of edible or ravenous birds, must in any country be productive of serious evils. But Palestine, in particular, was situated in a climate which produced poisonous snakes and scorpions; and the deserts and mountains would have been overrun with them as well as immense swarms of flies, locusts, mice, and vermin of various kinds if the birds which fed upon them were extirpated [MICHAELIS]. Accordingly, the counsel given in this passage was wise as well as humane, to leave the hen undisturbed for the propagation of the species, while the taking of the brood occasionally was permitted as a check to too rapid an increase.

thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence--The tops of houses in ancient Judea, as in the East still, were flat, being composed of branches or twigs laid across large beams, and covered with a cement of clay or strong plaster. They were surrounded by a parapet breast high. In summer the roof is a favorite resort for coolness, and accidents would frequently happen from persons incautiously approaching the edge and falling into the street or court; hence it was a wise and prudent precaution in the Jewish legislator to provide that a stone balustrade or timber railing round the roof should form an essential part of every new house.

Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together--Whether this association, like the mixture of seeds, had been dictated by superstitious motives and the prohibition was symbolical, designed to teach a moral lesson (Co2 6:14), may or may not have been the case. But the prohibition prevented a great inhumanity still occasionally practised by the poorer sort in Oriental countries. An ox and ass, being of different species and of very different characters, cannot associate comfortably, nor unite cheerfully in drawing a plough or a wagon. The ass being much smaller and his step shorter, there would be an unequal and irregular draft. Besides, the ass, from feeding on coarse and poisonous weeds, has a fetid breath, which its yoke fellow seeks to avoid, not only as poisonous and offensive, but producing leanness, or, if long continued, death; and hence, it has been observed always to hold away its head from the ass and to pull only with one shoulder.

thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts--The essence of the crime (Zep 1:8) consisted, not in wearing a woollen and a linen robe, but in the two stuffs being woven together, according to a favorite superstition of ancient idolaters (see on Lev 19:19).

thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters--or, according to some eminent biblical interpreters, tassels on the coverlet of the bed. The precept is not the same as Num 15:38.

Thou shall not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray,.... Or "driven away" (r); frightened and starved away from the herd or from the flock by a wolf or dog; and the ox and sheep are put for every other creature a man has, as camels, asses, &c. which last sort is after mentioned; and a brother means not one in the natural relation of kindred only, for it is supposed, in the next verse, that he might not only be at a distance, but unknown; nor by religion only, or one of the commonwealth or church of the Jews, for what is enjoined is a piece of humanity the law of nature requires and directs unto, and is even to be done to enemies, Exodus 23:4 and hide thyself from them; make as if he did not see them, and so be entirely negligent of them, and takes no care and show no concern about them, but let them go on wandering from the herd and flock from whence they were driven, and to which they cannot find the way of themselves: thou shalt in any case bring them again to thy brother: to his herd or flock, or to his house, and deliver them into his own hands, or to the care of his servants. (r) "expulsos", Montanus; "impulsos", Munster; "depulsos", Piscator.

And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee,.... Does not live in the same neighbourhood, but at some considerable distance; so that he cannot soon and easily be informed of his cattle, or they be sent to him: or if thou know him not; the owner of them, what is his name, or where he lives: then thou shall bring it into thine house; not into his dwelling house, but some out house, barn, or stable: and it shall be with thee; remain in his custody, and be taken care of by him; and, as the Targum of Jonathan says, "be fed and nourished by him"; for, according to the Jewish canon (s), whatsoever could work and eat, that should work and eat, and whatsoever did not work and eat was to be sold; for which there was a set time, as the commentators say (t), for large cattle, as oxen, twelve months; for lesser cattle, as sheep, goats, &c. three months, here it is fixed: until thy brother seek after it; though in the mean while the finder was to make use of means, whereby the owner might be informed of it; for whatsoever was lost, in which were marks and signs by which inquiries might be made, were to be proclaimed (u); (and it is asked) how long a man was obliged to proclaim? until it was known to his neighbours; same say (he must proclaim it) at three feasts, and seven days after the last feast, so that he may go home three days, and return three days, and proclaim one day; if (the owner) tells what is lost, but does not tell the marks or signs, he may not give it him; and a deceiver, though he tells the signs, he may not give it him, as it is said, "until thy brother seek after it"; until thou inquirest of thy brother whether he is a deceiver or not: and elsewhere it is said (w), formerly if a man lost anything, and gave the signs or marks of it, he took it; but after deceivers increased, it was ordered to be said to him, bring witnesses that thou art not a deceiver, and take it; and in the same place it is observed, that there was at Jerusalem a stone, called Eben Toim, "the stone of strays", and whoever had lost or found anything repaired thither, and gave the signs and marks of it, and took it: and thou shalt restore it to him again; he having made it fully to appear to be his, and having defrayed all expenses in advertising and keeping it; but if no owner appear to claim it, or not to satisfaction, the finder was to keep it as his own; but otherwise he was by all means to restore it, or, as in Deuteronomy 23:1 "in restoring thou shalt restore them" (x), that is, certainly restore them; and continually wherever it so happens: the Jewish canon is (y),"if he restores it, and afterwards it strays away, and he restores it again and it strays away, even though four or five times, he is bound to restore it; as it is said, "in restoring thou shalt restore them"; Maimonides says (z), that even an hundred times he is bound to restore them.'' (s) Misn. Bava Metzia, c. 2. sect. 7. (t) Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. (u) Misn. ib. sect. 5, 6, 7. (w) T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 28. 2.((x) "reducendo reduces eos", Pagninus, Montanus. (y) Misn. ut supra, (s)) sect. 9. (z) Hilchot Gazelah ve abadah, c. 11. sect. 14.

In like manner shall thou do with his ass,.... As with his ox or sheep when astray, and found, keep it until it is owned, and then restore it; this is expressly mentioned in Exodus 23:4. and so shalt thou do with his raiment; if that is lost and found, it must be restored to the owner, he describing it; a garment is particularly mentioned, it is said (a), because in every garment there is a mark or sign by which the owners can inquire about it; for it is made by the hands of men, and does not come from anything common: and with all lost things of thy brother's, which he hath lost, and thou hast found, shalt thou do likewise: this comprehends everything that is lost, that is properly so; it is asked (b);"what is a lost thing? if a man finds an ox or a cow feeding in the way, this is not a lost thing; an ass whose instruments are inverted, and a cow running among the vineyards, this is a lost thing:" thou mayest not hide thyself: from seeing it and taking care of it, in order to restore it to the right owner; or dissemble a sight of it, and pretend he never saw it, and so entirely neglect it. In some instances the Jews allow they were not obliged to take any notice or care of it, as,"if a man find a cow in a cow house (which is not shut), he is not obliged (to take care of it); if in a public place, he is obliged; if it is in a burying ground he may not defile himself for it (c).'' (a) Bartenora in Misn. Bava Metzia, c. 2. sect. 5. (b) Misn. ib. sect. 9. (c) Ib. sect. 10.

Thou shall not see thy brother's ox or his ass fall down by the way,.... And lie under his burden, not being able to rise with it of himself, nor with all the assistance about it, without further help: and hide thyself from them; cover thine eyes, or turn them another way, and make as if thou didst not see them in distress: thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again; that is, help the brother and owner of it, the ox and ass; assist him in getting them up again, and lay on their burden, and fasten them aright, which either were rolled off by the fall, or were obliged to be taken off in order to raise them up; and if this was to be done for an enemy, then much more for a brother, as is required; see Gill on Exodus 23:5, or "lifting up, thou shall lift them up with him" (d); that is, most certainly do it, and lift with all his strength, and as often as there is occasion; if they fell down again after raised up, help is still to be continued, even, as Maimonides (e) says, though it was an hundred times. (d) "erigendo eriges", Pagninus, Montanus. (e) Hilchot Rotzeach, c. 13. sect. 5.

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man,.... It being very unseemly and impudent, and contrary to the modesty of her sex; or there shall not be upon her any "instrument of a man" (f), any utensil of his which he makes use of in his trade and business; as if she was employed in it, when her business was not to do the work of men, but to take care of her house and family; and so this law may be opposed to the customs of the Egyptians, as is thought, from whom the Israelites were lately come; whose women, as Herodotus (g) relates, used to trade and merchandise abroad, while the men kept at home; and the word also signifies armour (h), as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides (i) illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus (k) explains it,"take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman;''nor is he to be found fault with so much as he is by a learned writer (l), since he does not restrain it wholly to war, though he thinks it may have a special regard to that; for no doubt the law respects the times of peace as well as war, in neither of which such a practice should obtain: but the Targum of Jonathan very wrongly limits it to the wearing fringed garments, and to phylacteries, which belonged to men: neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; which would betray effeminacy and softness unbecoming men, and would lead the way to many impurities, by giving an opportunity of mixing with women, and so to commit fornication and adultery with them; to prevent which and to preserve chastity this law seems to be made; and since in nature a difference of sexes is made, it is proper and necessary that this should be known by difference of dress, or otherwise many evils might follow; and this precept is agreeably to the law and light of nature: it is observed by an Heathen writer (m), that there is a twofold distribution of the law, the one written, the other not written; what we use in civil things is written, what is from nature and use is unwritten, as to walk naked in the market, or to put on a woman's garment: and change of the clothes of sexes was used among the Heathens by way of punishment, as of the soldiers that deserted, and of adulteresses (n); so abominable was it accounted: indeed it may be lawful in some cases, where life is in danger, to escape that, and provided chastity is preserved: for all that do so are an abomination to the Lord thy God; which is a reason sufficient why such a practice should not be used. Some from this clause have been led to conclude, that respect is had to some customs of this kind used in idolatrous worship, which are always abominable to the Lord. So Maimonides (o) observes, that in a book of the Zabians, called "Tomtom", it is commanded, that a man should wear a woman's garment coloured when he stood before the star of Venus, and likewise that a woman should put on a coat of mail and warlike armour when she stood before the star of Mars; which he takes to be one reason of this law, though besides that he gives another, because hereby concupiscence would be excited, and an occasion for whoredom given: that there was some such customs among the Heathens may be confirmed from Macrobius (p), and Servius (q) as has been observed by Grotius; the former of which relates, that Philochorus affirmed that Venus is the moon, and that men sacrificed to her in women's garments, and women in men's; and for this reason, because she was thought to be both male and female; and the latter says, there was an image of Venus in Cyprus with a woman's body and garment, and with the sceptre and distinction of a man, to whom the men sacrificed in women's garments, and women in men's garments; and, as the above learned commentator observes, there were many colonies of the Phoenicians in Cyprus, from whom this custom might come; and to prevent it obtaining among the Israelites in any degree, who were now coming into their country, it is thought this law was made; for the priests of the Assyrian Venus made use of women's apparel (r), and in the feasts of Bacchus men disguised themselves like women (s). (f) "instrumentum virile", Pagninus, Junius et Tremellius; "instrumentum viri", Vatablus. (g) Euterpe, sive, l. 2. c. 35. (h) "Arma viri", Munster. (i) Hilchot Obede Cochabim, c. 12. sect. 10. (k) Antiqu. l. 4. c. 8. sect. 43. (l) Cunaeus de Repub. Heb. l. 2. c. 22. (m) Laert. Vit. Platonis, l. 3. p. 238. (n) Cunaeus ut supra. (l)) (o) Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 37. (p) Saturnal. l. 3. c. 8. (q) In Virgil. Aeneid. l. 2.((r) Jul. Firmic. de Relig. Prophan. p. 6. (s) Lucian.

If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in any tree, or on the ground,.... Which are the usual places in which birds build their nests; and this, as Jarchi observes, excepts such nests that are prepared, that is, that are purposely made for fowls kept at home; and with which agrees the Jewish canon, which says (t)"the letting go (the dam out of) the nest is not used but of a fowl, and it is not used but of what is not prepared; what is that which is not prepared? such as geese and hens, whose nest is in an orchard; but if their nest is in the house, and so doves kept at home, a man is free from letting (the dam) go;''that is, he is not obliged to let it go; and this is to be understood of clean birds only; so the Targum of Jonathan,"the nests of clean birds;''agreeably to the same canons and the explanation of them (u),"an unclean bird is free from letting go; so an unclean bird, that sits upon the eggs of a clean bird, also a clean bird that sits upon the eggs of an unclean bird, are free from letting go,''or persons are not obliged to let such go: whether they be young ones or eggs; that are in the nest; and the Jewish canon is (w),"if there is but one young one, or one egg, a man is obliged to let go the dam, as it is said a nest: a nest is a word of a large sense:" and the dam sitting upon the young or upon eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young; according to the above canon,"if she is flying at the time her wings reach the nest, a man is bound to let her go; but if her wings touch not the nest, he is free from letting her go--if the young ones are capable of flying, or the eggs rotten, he is free from letting her go, as it is said, and the dam sitting, &c. as the young are alive, so the eggs must be firm and sound, rotten ones are excepted; and as eggs have need of their dam, so the young have need of their dam; those (therefore) that can fly are excepted:''the dam is not to be taken with her young upon any account; yea, it is said (x), not even to cleanse a leper; and whoever does take her is to be beaten: this law was made partly to preserve the species of birds, and prevent the decrease of them; for a dam let go might breed again, and to this purpose are the verses ascribed to Phocylides (y), which contain the substance of this law, and this reason of it: and partly, as Maimonides observes (z), that the dam might not be afflicted at the sight of the spoil of her young; for this law does not prohibit the taking of her in any other place but in her nest, nor after her young are taken, but not together; and, as the same writer remarks, if the law would have such care taken of beasts and birds, that they might be freed from sorrow and distress, how much more of man? Wherefore the intention of this law is to teach humanity, compassion, and pity in men to one another, and to forbid cruelty, covetousness, and such like vices; as also to instruct in the doctrine of Providence, which has a respect to birds; and our Lord may be thought to have this law in view, Luke 12:6. (t) Misn. Cholin, c. 12. sect. 1.((u) Ib. sect. 2.((w) Ib. sect. 3.((x) Misn. Cholin, c. 12. sect. 5. (y) , &c. Poem. admon. l. 80, 81. (z) Moreh Nevochim, par. 3. c. 48.

But thou shall in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee,.... Or "in letting go, let go", or "in sending, send away" (a); that is, willingly, certainly, entirely, frequently, always; so the Jewish canons (b),"if anyone lets her go, and she returns, even four or five times, he is obliged to let her go, as it is said, "in letting go, let go";''nay, Maimonides says (c), even a thousand times; the canon proceeds,"if anyone says, lo, I take the dam and let go the young, he is obliged to let her go; if he takes the young, and returns them again to the nest, and after that returns the dam to them, he is free from letting her go;" that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days; the Targum of Jonathan is,"that it may be well with thee in this world, and thou mayest prolong thy days in the world to come:''the same blessing that is promised to observers of the fifth command, which is one of the weightier matters of the law, is made to this; which the Jews say (d) is but as the value of a farthing, or of little account in comparison of others; wherefore, as Fagius rightly observes (e), God, in bestowing such rewards, has regard not to the works of men, but to his own grace and kindness; for what merit can there be in letting go or preserving the life of a little bird? (a) "dimittendo dimittes", Pagninus, Montanus, Vatablus; so Ainsworth. (b) Misn. Cholin, c. 12. sect. 3.((c) In Misn. ib. (d) Misn. ib. sect. 5. (e) In loc.

When thou buildest a new house,.... Which is to be understood of a house to dwell in, not of a granary, barn, or stable, or such like, and every house that is not four cubits square, as Maimonides observes (f): then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof; in the Talmud (g) it is asked, what is the meaning of, or why is it said, "thy roof?" to except synagogues and schools; the gloss upon which is, synagogues, &c. do not belong to any single person, and besides are no dwelling place. A battlement, as Jarrift describes it, was a fence round the roof; or, as more fully described by Kimchi (h), it was an edifice made for a roof round about it, ten hands high, or more, that a person might not fall from it; so Ben Melech from him. The reason of this law was, because the roofs of houses in those countries were flat, on which they used to walk for diversion and recreation, or retire for devotion, meditation, prayer, and social conversation; such they were in the times of the Canaanites, Joshua 2:6 and in the times of Saul and David, 1 Samuel 9:25 and in the times of the New Testament; See Gill on Matthew 10:27; see Gill on Matthew 24:17; see Gill on Mark 2:4; see Gill on Acts 10:9, and so in later times, and to this day. Rauwolff (i), traveller in those parts, relates, that at Tripoli in Phoenicia,"they have low houses, ill built, and flat at the top, as they are generally in the east; for they cover their houses with a flat roof or floor, so that you may walk about as far as the houses go, and the neighbours walk over the tops of their houses to visit one another; and sometimes in the summer they sleep on the top of them.''Now to prevent falling from thence, and mischief thereby, such a battlement as before described was ordered: that thou bring not blood upon thy house; be not the occasion of blood being shed, or contract guilt of blood through negligence of such a provision the law directs to, the guilt of manslaughter, or of shedding innocent blood in thy house, as the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem; hence the Talmudists (k) extend this to other things, and by this law also they suppose men are bound to guard against all dangers in any other way; as if a man had a well or pit of water in his courtyard, he ought either to put a cover over it, or to make a fence round it as high as this battlement (l): if any man fall from thence; that is, if a man walking on the roof of an house should make a slip or a false step, and stumble and reel, and so be falling, and fall from thence; which might have been prevented, even his falling from thence or to the ground, if such a battlement had been made. (f) Hilchot Rotzeach, c. 11. sect. 1.((g) T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 136. 1. So Maimonides, ib. sect. 2.((h) Sepher Shorash. rad. (i) Travels, par. 1. c. 2. p. 17. Ed. Ray. (k) T. Bab. Bava Kama, fol. 15. 2.((l) Maimon. Hilchot Rotzeach, c. 11. sect. 4.

Thou shall not sow thy vineyards with divers seeds,.... As wheat and barley between the rows of the vines; and this is to be understood only of divers sorts of corn, and of divers sorts of herbs, but not of trees; hence we read of a fig tree in a vineyard, Luke 13:6, and this only respects what is sown with design, and not what is casual, as the Jews interpret it (e);"if a man passes through a vineyard, and seeds fall from him, or they are carried out along with dung, or with water; or when a man is sowing, and a storm of wind carries it behind him (i.e. to a vineyard behind him), it is lawful;''that is, it may be let grow, and the fruit of it enjoyed; the same here is said of the vineyard as of the field in See Gill on Leviticus 19:19, lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard; be defiled; that is, lest not only the increase of these divers seeds sown, but also the increase of the vines among which they are sown, become unlawful, and unfit for use, and so a loss of all be sustained: the Targum of Jonathan is,"lest it be condemned to burning;''or thou art obliged to burn it; for, according to the Jewish canons (f), the mixtures of a vineyard, or the divers seeds of it, and the increase thereof, were to be burnt; and the commentators of the Misnah (g) frequently explain this phrase by "lest it be burnt". (e) Misn. Celaim, c. 5. sect. 7. (f) Misn. Temurah, c. 7. sect. 5. (g) Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Terumot, c. 10. sect. 6. Orla, c. 3. sect. 7. Kiddushin, c. 2. sect. 9.

Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together,.... They might be used separately, but not together; nor was it uncommon in some countries for asses to be employed in ploughing as well as oxen. Pliny (h) makes mention of some fruitful land in Africa, which when it was dry weather could not be ploughed by oxen, but after showers of rain might be ploughed by a mean little ass; so Leo Africanus (i) says, the Africans only use horses and asses in ploughing. The reason why they were not to be put together was either (as some think) lest the law should be broken which forbids the gendering of cattle with a divers kind, Leviticus 19:19 but Aben Ezra thinks the reason is, because the strength of an ass is not equal to the strength of an ox; and therefore he supposes this law is made from the mercy and commiseration of God extended to all his creatures; though perhaps the better reason is, because the one was a clean creature, and the other an unclean, and this instance is put for all others; and with which agree the Jewish canons, which run thus,"cattle with cattle, wild beasts with wild beasts, unclean with unclean, clean with clean (i.e. these may be put together); but unclean with clean, and clean with unclean, are forbidden to plough with, to draw with, or to be led together (k).''The mystery of this is, that godly and ungodly persons are not to be yoked together in religious fellowship: see 2 Corinthians 6:14. (h) Nat. Hist. l. 17. c. 5. (i) Descriptio Africae, l. 2. p. 104. (k) Misn. Celaim, c. 8. sect. 2.

Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts,.... The Jews say nothing is forbidden under the name of sorts but what is spun and wove, as it is said, "thou shalt not wear sheatnez", a thing that is carded, spun, and wove (l); which Ainsworth translates "linsie woolsie", and is explained by what follows: as "of woollen and linen together"; of which See Gill on Leviticus 19:19, whereas Josephus (m) observes, this was granted to the priests only to wear such garments. Bochart (n) affirms it to be false; but that great man is mistaken; the blue, purple, and scarlet, in the priests' garments, were no other than dyed wool; and it is a sentiment in general received by the Jews, that the priests wore no other but woollen and linen in their service; see the note on the above place; otherwise this law is so strictly observed, as not, to sew a woollen garment with linen thread, and so on the contrary (o). (l) Misn. Celaim. c. 9. sect. 8. (m) Antiqu. l. 4. c. 8. sect. 11. (n) Hierozoic. par. 1. l. 2. c. 45. col. 491. (o) Leo Modena's History of Rites, &c. l. 1. c. 5.

Thou shalt make thee fringes,.... Though a different word is here used from that in Numbers 15:38, yet the same things are intended, and Onkelos translates both by one and the same word, and which is no other than a corruption of the Greek word used in Matthew 23:5. Though there have been some, whom Aben Ezra takes notice of, who supposed that this is a law by itself, and to be observed in the night, as that in Numbers 15:38 was in the day; but these he warmly opposes, and calls them liars: upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself; upon the four skirts of the uppermost vesture, called Talith; See Gill on Numbers 15:38.

Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds--(See on Lev 19:19).