Ki Tetze

With God's help, you and I are beginning to study the weekly portion Ki Tetze, and we will read from verse 10 of chapter 21 of the book of Devarim.

Our weekly portion begins with an astonishing story that is hard to digest, hard to take in, and so it has given rise to many different commentaries. And in order to sort it out, we will try to look at it from different angles, to offer different readings, classical and less classical.

So, let us begin with verse 10 of chapter 21:

The classical commentary says a rather terrible thing here: lakachtá lechá le'ishá (took for yourself as a wife) means took her by force. Right on the spot, driven by passion, restless, worn out by the road, not shown any tenderness, tired, dusty, embittered, the Jewish soldier sank so low that, driven by his evil inclination, he saw a woman, could not restrain himself and raped her. This is the classical reading of what happened.

That is, you cannot simply abandon her at the scene of the crime, leave her there where you raped her. This is not the same as it usually used to be in times of war. Rape during war was, in fact, a natural phenomenon not only in those ancient times when the Torah was given, but also in the times of, say, Genghis Khan, who did not simply like to rape female captives, but liked to rape them before the eyes of their parents and brothers, thereby humiliating those around him and glorifying his power (as it seemed to him). This was so widespread that many historians say that a third of the population of Central Asia today – these are descendants of Genghis Khan.

Today, in the 21st century, there is in Israel a young woman, a sociologist, Tal Nitzan. She wrote a whole research paper on the topic: “Why do Israeli soldiers not rape Palestinian women?” One would think this is wonderful, I personally am proud of it. And I believe that Israeli soldiers do not rape Palestinian women because they were brought up well. I brought up my son so that toward a woman one must be delicate, polite, gentle. And I hope that such a thing will not arise in his heart and his thoughts. But Tal Nitzan, of course, considers herself smarter than everyone and says: “Why, that is because our Israeli soldiers do not even consider Palestinian women human beings.” They have complete dehumanization, otherwise they would, of course, rape – so strong is this idea in people's heads. And so the Torah says (according to the classical commentary): if a man raped a woman, he does not abandon her.

Among the peoples neighboring Israel, shaving the head meant mourning for the dead. For Jews this is forbidden. But here we give the woman the freedom to act according to her customs. She may shave her head as a sign of mourning. What and she did her nails means is not very clear, perhaps she trimmed her nails.

That garment in which she was taken captive, the garment of her captivity, which perhaps she could not change out of for a long time, in which she wandered through different places, as happens with female captives, a garment perhaps torn somewhere, perhaps soiled – what can she change it for? For what you give her. That is, you must give her clothing so that she can take off the garment of her captivity. And if you go in to her after the mourning, then she becomes your wife. That's it. This is marriage.

But there is also another possibility: having looked at her, having lived a peaceful life, having looked at the girls of your own people, having rested from the war, having washed the dust off yourself, perhaps you will no longer want this close-cropped woman. What then? Maybe simply drive her out or sell her?

The word shiláchta, (the verb leshaléach, to send out) in relation to a woman means to give her a letter of divorce, that is, to send her away on some official grounds, with some provision, with some rights.

That is, we are now holding to the classical reading: if a man, as it so happened, raped a woman, he brings her home, takes a closer look at her while she recovers from the trauma of captivity and of the death of her loved ones. And then, if he does not like her, he may let her go, divorce her as one divorces a wife, but he may not sell her for money, may not turn her into a slave, because he, so to speak, innitá (tormented her) by this very position, by this very situation, humbled her, insulted her, tormented her. The word innitá can be understood in different ways.

So, the classical commentary says: “The Torah takes into account a person's evil inclination.” This happens not only here. For example, there are instructions for how a person who stole should act, a person who has sinned in some way, there is an instruction for how to return. In chapter 19 we read that the Torah gives protection from the blood avenger without getting into the prohibition of blood revenge as such, although blood revenge is by no means approved by the Torah. And the classical commentators say: “War is war, anything can happen, and the Torah reckons with this.” From the point of view of the ethics of the Torah, from the point of view of the morality of the Torah, this interpretation is very hard to accept. If you reread the text, you can see that from the point of view of reading the text, too, this interpretation is not easy to accept.

Let us reread the story from the beginning: when you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD, your God, gives them into your hands, and among the female captives you saw a woman beautiful in appearance. If you read attentively, following every word, you can see that this is not about the heat of battle, about some passions in the streets of an occupied city. Most likely, it is about the Most High having already given the victory, and the people having already gathered all the captives, and the booty is being divided. And some soldier, some warrior looks, picks out his share of the trophies and says: “This woman here I want to take as a wife” – not as a slave, not as a maidservant, but as a wife. How do you take a foreign woman as a wife? How do you deal with this at all? How do you take care of her rights too, since we are not Genghis Khans? And her fate is already unenviable as it is, whether she will be your slave or your wife. And then the Torah says: “If you want to take her, if you want to take this captive as a wife for yourself, then observe all these conditions, give her time to grieve for her parents, so that it would not be an outrage or a sacrilege toward her loved ones, as was customary. Treat her as a human being, let her get used to this new situation. And if after that you do not want her, then even then treat her as a human being and send her away, but do not sell her.”

And why would a man suddenly (with such a reading) want to sell a woman whom he wanted to take as a wife? Why would a man want to sell his wife? Because he will say: “But I could have taken her as a slave! That's it, I've changed my mind, you will be a slave, and now I will sell you.” No. If you made her go through these ups and downs, if you made her prepare to marry you, then you have no right to sell her or to turn her into a slave. You are responsible for your words. Personally, this reading is closer to me. And this version was not invented by me, it is quite ancient and is found in a dispute of the rabbis in the Jerusalem Talmud. This version of reading the text is the clearest and most understandable for me.

But there is yet another version. The people of Israel lived for a very long time in galut, in exile – in Europe, Africa, Asia. In small shtetls and in large cities, persecuted (or simply disliked) Jews could not even dream that someday they would go out to war somewhere and divide booty. This was not in their picture of the world, it disappeared from the picture of the world together with thoughts of a Jewish state. Yes – dreams, dreams and prayers, but still, there was nothing like this as a lived experience. And on this basis the Hasidic understanding was born that here the war is the war with the evil inclination, and the woman beautiful in appearance is some sin, a temptation. And on this ground various commentaries branched out that speak of certain techniques of war with the yétzer hara (evil inclination), which the Torah supposedly describes here. This is a good thing – to look for some new facets of interpretation and to carry them over into the spiritual world. But I leave this version aside, because we focus more on the plain meaning of the Torah and on what it teaches us.

With verse 15 another topic begins, which may be connected with the first topic, begun in verse 10. The first topic can be understood like this: “Why do you need this headache called a foreign wife? You may end up in a situation where among your wives (and here there is clearly a reference to polygamy) the climate will not be very good.”

The word hated here should not be understood in that harsh sense in which it sounds in the Russian language. I hate her – a very cruel, strong word. The word senu'á can be understood as less loved, despised. He loves one woman, and the second – it is not at all clear why she is here.

Again a situation that by modern standards seems incredible. Even if some man is a bigamist, why would he take as a wife a woman whom he hates?

Well, first of all, it may turn out that the first wife was imposed on him by his parents, or he married out of some family obligations, to take care of a young girl who was left without anyone to look after her. And there are very many different reasons why a man married an unloved woman. Secondly, perhaps he did not get to know her fully, and when he got to know her better, he came to dislike her. In short, one should not marry two women, nothing good will come of it, but humanity learns this very slowly.

But here is the problem: the firstborn was born to the unloved one, and what now about the inheritance?

We know that the firstborn receives a double share. It is believed that a man's body, as it were, gathers within itself, accumulates within itself strength for the birth of the first child. If, say, eighteen or nineteen years of a man's life pass before the birth of the first child, then between the first and the second child five or six years may pass, and the strengths are unequal. The firstborn is the first fruit of a man's strength. In any case, such an approach to interpretation existed.

If we have set up in society an impartial court that does not look at persons and judges justly, then in the microcosm, in the small cell of society called the family, even if there are two wives in it, there must also be justice. And the personal preference of the father of the family, when he is engaged in the business of judging and distributing the inheritance, plays no role whatsoever: the firstborn is the firstborn. Whether you love his mom or do not love her has nothing to do with the matter; impartiality – in family life, too, it is impartiality.

With verse 18 yet another story begins:

And on the basis of this testimony:

Even though this son has not yet done anything, he is simply disobedient, but it is impossible to bring him up. Yes, he does not obey his parents, does not accept instruction. The Torah says: “He must be put to death.” The commentators note: “This is an astonishing situation, when a child, a son, a person is put to death not for the past, but for the future.” So as not to let him get up to the things that a person can get up to who does not accept upbringing, who rebels against father and mother, so that he does not sin in the future.

So that he does not sin in the future – this relates to a question people like to ask, a philosophical question: “Would you kill little Hitler?” The Torah says here that – yes, at least in the simple reading of the verse. The rabbis argue about this and say (many say) that this is altogether a purely theoretical story and there is no son so disobedient that this rule could be applied to him. This rule was never applied, it is pure theory. But there is one teacher who says: “But I sat on the grave of such a fellow and I know that it really was so.”

The last story of our chapter 21:

And here there is one more tradition, according to which an already executed person was hung on a tree for display: “This is how it will be with everyone, look and be afraid.” But this intimidation must know its measure, and about this the Torah says that it must serve as instruction, but not as mockery of the body.

This verse is also used in the New Testament with regard to Yeshua Mashiach, who bore the curse. Why so? What is this about at all? Any person, however much of a villain he may be, as a person, as a human body, carries within himself the image of God, is created in the image and likeness of God. When some disrespect toward a person's body takes place, he is hung on a tree truly as one punished, as one cursed. However, just as a person is unclean until evening, so the body is cursed until evening. When evening comes, this is no longer the body of a criminal, this is no longer a criminal who committed something. This is a body that is created in the image and likeness of God. That criminal is no longer there and there is no sense in his hanging any longer, because this will no longer be instruction for others, but mockery of the body – a curse of the image of God. And hanging (as one could say in our circles) is a desecration of the image of God, this makes the land unclean. The apostle applies these words to Yeshua Mashiach: the image of God must not be desecrated. Through this desecration Mashiach took the curse upon himself.

All this, like any unclean judgment, unclean relations in society, leads to the land being defiled. When we put a villain on display, put him out for the night, when he is already hanging there not in order to inform everyone that he has been executed, but, perhaps, as it were, for revenge, to satisfy some need for gloating, the land is thereby defiled. And unjust treatment of a woman defiles the land. And a disobedient son who does not yield to upbringing defiles the land. And the Torah says: “Do not defile your land.”

With God's help, you and I continue to study the weekly portion Ki Tetze, and we will read chapter 22 of the book of Devarim. Our chapter touches on several different topics, and it begins with a commandment which in Hebrew is called hashavát avedá (the return of a lost thing).

Let us read from verse 1.

What is this about? We come across a sheep, an ox on the street, on the road, we find some item, and we can say: “That's none of my business. Some poor fellow has lost a sheep, some poor guy has lost a little bull. Well… may the LORD have mercy on him!” The Torah says: “No, that won't work.” And you must first of all say: “Hey, Chaim! Chaim! Do you hear?! Your sheep has strayed from the flock!” and help him to get this sheep back. And if Chaim is not nearby?

A little bull turned up, a little sheep turned up, a wallet turned up, a hairpin turned up – anything at all, but you do not know whose it is. You must take this little bull, this little sheep or this item and announce that you have found something. So, a person who has found his neighbor's ox or sheep takes them into his house. If it is a little bull or a little sheep, then it is clear that their upkeep also costs money, and with the passing of time it may happen that the upkeep of this little bull already costs more than the bull itself. Therefore, if it is an ox, if it is an animal that can work, it is used for work. One may use the found ox on one's own farm, and in this way it pays back what is spent on it. If it is a hen, a chick or something similar, one may sell it and return the money to your brother, your neighbor, so that he loses nothing and this commandment would not cost you too much.

That is, we must take the found item and, according to the rules, announce, let it be known that we have found it. How is this usually done? It is said: such-and-such a family (say, the Stein family) has found a cell phone and will return it to the one who lost it, who names its distinguishing marks. A person will call and say: “It was I who lost the phone.” He will be asked: “And what kind of phone was it? Where did you lose it?” And if the person describes this item correctly, it must be returned to him.

People are accustomed to this commandment from childhood. I often tell about how in Jerusalem you can see notices: “A little hairpin has been found,” “A little hair tie has been found.” And this is not because someone will really grieve over the loss of a little hair tie. This is in order to bring up children, to accustom them to this commandment.

There are many interesting aspects to this commandment. For example, what should you do if you have found a bag of groceries, and in this bag there is a stick of sausage? You do not know who lost it, you found it at a bus stop. On the one hand, you have to return it; on the other hand, there is such a concept as a person who has despaired. If a person has lost a bag with sausage somewhere, he will come to terms with the loss much faster than if a person has lost, say, a gold ring. He will look for the ring for a long time, but as for the sausage, the person will go and buy another one (there is a certain time after which the product spoils). If it is a perishable product, and you cannot keep it endlessly, then, one may say, after a certain time you may no longer look for the person who lost this product. There is such a time, which is called the time of despair.

There was a time when a humanitarian fund in one of the cities in the south of Israel was helping my family. This took the form that every Thursday evening we were brought a big box of food, including two frozen chickens. The end of the week, and somehow it happened that we were not in the city, we came back a week later. A neighbor called us, brought the box of food and two frozen chickens from the freezer. A good example of keeping the commandment of returning a lost thing.

There are cases when a person despairs immediately, and therefore, when you have found something, you need not return it. For example, when you have found something in a river. Remember Tanya, who is crying because she dropped her little ball into the river? It will not sink, of course, but the current will carry it away. And if, some seven hundred meters or a kilometer and a half downstream, it ends up with Anton, then Anton does not have to announce that he has found a little ball, because it is considered that what has fallen into a river is lost and the person is no longer even looking for it. And there are very many different rules for applying this commandment, but it is very important.

The sages interpreted it so that there are cases when there is no obligation to return what was lost. For example, if you have found a certain sum of money. Money, coins, seem to have no specific distinguishing marks – of course, if they are not in a wallet, if they are not in some identifiable bundle and so on. One can, of course, go through the bills and see whether there is a slip of paper, a note there. And I have met students who did this and found the one to whom this money needed to be returned. But, in principle, the sages interpreted it so that if you found money, it is your money.

On this subject there is a very interesting passage in the Talmud, when Rabbi Yochanan says: “Jerusalem was destroyed because in it they judged by the judgment of the Torah.” The students ask: “And by what courts should they have judged in Jerusalem: by the law of Hammurabi? By the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation? By what law could they have judged in Jerusalem? What did you expect?” And he says: “There was no mercy that would be exalted above the law.” It is like the story of a man who lost money at the market, and another man found it. The one who lost it cries and says: “You know that this is my money. Give it back to me! I will have nothing to feed my children with.” Today everyone has plastic cards and not everyone carries cash, but in those times a person could take all his money with him. And here the finder says: “Well, by law this is my money, I will not give it to you.” And so, because of this attachment to the letter of the law, when one ought to have acted by mercy (according to Rabbi Yochanan's words), Jerusalem was destroyed.

There is one more very important and interesting aspect to this commandment – a spiritual aspect. A person can get lost, your brother himself may turn out to be lost, therefore lehashív (to bring back), lashúv (to come back) – these are verbs that are connected with the word teshuvá. And a brother, the lost soul itself, can and must also be brought back to the Owner, the Maker; to bring back to a brother his peace with God. And in the spiritual sense this too can and must work.

Such an amazing commandment this is. Very much of everything has been written about it, there are very many interesting details in it. Say, a woman I know holds classes at home for parents with children. Every now and then it happens that someone has forgotten a sweater, someone – a cardigan, and finding the one who forgot it does not work, does not succeed. You know, she has bags of things that she keeps in case someone suddenly comes and claims them. Such funny incidents happen too.

That is, help both your brother and your brother's animal. You need to help the donkey or the ox get up, whether they fall under a load or whether something else happens to them (this also concerns a brother who got stuck with his car on the road). Take care of your brother's property the way you would want your property to be taken care of.

It seems an understandable verse; it says this: “A man must dress in men's clothing, a woman – in women's.” The original meaning is that a man should not disguise himself as a woman, should not sneak into the company of women for some lewd, not very pious or very impious purposes. The same applies to a woman as well. This commandment was greatly expanded, perhaps in places even exaggeratedly. Today there are kinds of clothing, say, women's pants, which a man would never in his life put on. You can see that these are pink little pants with rhinestones, and they fasten like women's, and it would seem this is women's clothing. Nevertheless, many set for themselves such a level of righteousness that they say: a sister must not put this on, because pants are still men's clothing (despite the fact that in those times baggy pants were women's clothing). Times change, the desire to put a woman into a strict framework does not change. I will not even discuss this.

One way or another, originally the commandment has two possible interpretations. The first (what I spoke about) – when a man sneaks into the women's company or when a woman sneaks in among men, this is already a violation of a boundary, a violation of personal space, since this is an insult toward those among whom she (he) ends up. The second possible variant of interpretation is a magical one, when some sorcerer or magus imagined himself as some person, Kedorlaomer or Sosipater, and, being in this role, dressed in a woman's dress, thus trying to deprive Kedorlaomer or Sosipater of male potency. This is magic, this is far from understandable to everyone, and this is an unlikely commentary. Most likely, the matter is after all about lewd acts, when, indeed, a man disguises himself as a woman in order to look like a woman, and a woman disguises herself as a man in order to look like a man. It is hardly likely that originally this commandment included such a perversion as transvestites or transgender people (or whatever else they are called), that is, people who have not quite made up their minds about their sex and count themselves as belonging to the other sex, who like to dress in the clothing of the other sex. And nevertheless, of course, all these phenomena are to the same degree an abomination before the Most High.

In the modern Orthodox world, the Jewish world, a woman in most communities does not put on pants – she strictly puts on a skirt. This is connected not only with the prohibition that is stated here, but also with the fact that it is not customary for the movement of a woman's legs to be visible as she walks. This is how women built their idea of modesty. And, naturally, if someone wants to show modesty in this matter, who can stop it or call it unworthy? A woman who strives for a righteous life, who chooses the path of a righteous woman (we are not talking about others), has enough reason and common sense to choose clothing for herself in accordance with her ideas of modesty. Therefore for us, for men, it is better to refrain from criticizing women's way of dressing, because nowhere is it written that if a sister's pants tempt you, you need to tear the pants off her. It is written that you need to do something with your own eyes.

In verse 6 – the commandment of sending the brooding mother bird away from the nest.

Do not take for yourself, do not destroy everything at once. In any place where you encounter the phenomena of nature, do not destroy everything down to the root.

This is a disciplining, educating commandment. You came across chicks, you found eggs, but if you are on the road and not terribly hungry, then from these chicks there is “not a penny's worth of use – you won't fill a saucepan, and you won't stuff a pillow,” as the dove said to Fedot the archer. And, by and large, what can you get from them, from these chicks? From eggs there is perhaps more use, but all the same this is a commandment that urges you to take care of nature, not to destroy everything down to the root. What for? So that it may be well with you and your days may be prolonged. Just as respect for parents prolongs days, so this respect, this careful treatment of nature, prolongs days.

This commandment too has many mystical, allegorical commentaries. That is what always happens when we encounter a commandment that is difficult to perceive and to understand.

In the land of Israel houses were usually built with a flat roof. In the evening one could sit on the roof: someone played backgammon, someone studied Torah, someone hung out the laundry. The roof was part of the house, life was bustling there. And the Torah commands to put up a railing on the roof, so that people do not fall from it.

The commentators say: “If a person fell, it means that this is what the Most High had provided for him. People do not fall from the roofs of houses by chance. If some person fell from a roof, it means he deserved it by some sins.” And the answer to this question is this: yes, most likely, that is so, a person who is not sinful will not fall from a roof. But do you want this blood to be precisely on you, for your house to be the instrument of this person's execution? Most likely not. And the Torah says: “No, do not do so.”

In verse 9 there is already a completely different topic.

One may not sow two kinds of plants next to each other either in a field (we spoke about this in the book of Vayikra 19:19) or in a vineyard. Again, when it comes to commandments that we do not understand very well, there are commentators who say: “This is simply a law. Just do it this way, and that's it. That is how the Most High wanted it, we do not necessarily have to understand everything.” Other commentators try to understand the reason and say: “Perhaps some kind of plant is considered to bring luck to another kind of plant. And one could say: this grows wonderfully together with this, so let us mix them as a kind of agricultural magic.” Third commentators recall an existing tradition and say: “Over every plant there is an angel who makes it grow. And here suddenly the angels get mixed up, and there will be chaos among the angels and complete confusion. There is no need to do so.” And there are also commentators (this understanding is closer to me) who say: “Different plants feed on water from the ground to different degrees. It may happen that one plant takes too much moisture for itself and leaves none for the second plant, the forces will be unequal. Therefore there is no need to do so.”

Well, by and large, one can understand it in the same key: do not harness animals of different strength in one team, do not harness together a horse and a trembling doe, nothing will come of it for you.

Sha'atnéz – a fabric (and clothing made from it) woven from two kinds of threads interlacing orthogonally, which pass one under the other, in this case wool and linen. Shti (warp threads) va'érev (and weft threads) – another name for this.

And again there are many different commentaries on this matter. We will dwell on two. Some say: “This is connected with the fact that clothing of wool and linen is the privilege of the kohen. Do not dress in priestly garments, know your place.” Others say: “It is impossible to take wool, which is obtained as if by robbing an animal, taken from an animal, and mix it with linen, which a person grew himself.” Both of these commentaries, these understandings, are in my view rather incomplete. Perhaps such was the clothing of the neighboring pagan peoples, this too is one of the reasons.

Such a riddle (and not only for me) verse 11 remains. This commandment is a riddle.

This is the same commandment about tzitzit, those very tassels on clothing (Bemidbar 15:38). Why does it appear here? Because precisely with regard to the tassels one can say: we attach woolen tassels to linen clothing, this may be done. This verse comes as if in parentheses, as a permission to act so.

From verse 13 a different topic begins again.

Something happened between them at night, something was not to his liking, or something happened inside him.

There is such a slander, such an accusation, directed, as we understand, at the parents of this girl, who brought her up badly.

That is, customs that are rather unpleasant and rather incomprehensible for us in the 21st century, when they take the sheets on which there is the blood of virginity and bring them out to the gates. Here one needs to understand that, of course, not every girl bleeds when she loses her virginity, the hymen does not always close the entrance to the vagina and tear at the first intimacy. There are very many reservations, but the Torah speaks with the people without offering them a textbook on gynecology. The Torah speaks with a people that has certain concrete understandings, and with these understandings the Torah is given to it, given to grow into, in order to educate people. And very much of what we will read further in this chapter will seem strange to us, and this proves that the Torah has educated people.

This might have been not a sheet, but also some kind of slip, a nightgown in which she was with her husband on the first night.

Here it becomes frightening. It becomes frightening for me; for girls, as a rule, it becomes even more frightening. Well, and how is one supposed to live now? And in order to answer this question, one needs to look at it through the eyes of that time. Of course, every girl wants to have a beloved husband beside her, loving and tender, but it was far from always that it turned out that way. In our case, if the man had driven this girl away or sent her away for some reason, she would have ended up with a ruined reputation. And not only she, but also her sisters and brothers – those whom someone will want to take as wives, those who will want to marry; their reputation too would be ruined. Such a girl became untouchable, a disgrace to the family, from which it is very hard to wash oneself clean and clear oneself. Such a marriage, when the husband does not have the right to throw her out (there are conditions under which she can leave him, these are somewhat different questions), gives her complete social security. Even if she loses her mind, God forbid, if she grows fat, goes blind, becomes disabled, there will be social protection for her.

And today in Eastern countries, including in the east of the CIS, in Central Asia, for example, girls are kidnapped, raped, and then their own relatives tell them: “Well, where will you go now? Who needs you now? Who will take you?” And these women stay living with the rapists. This, unfortunately, is not a rare but a very widespread phenomenon, and such a thing can be encountered very often. Imagine how frightening it was at that time for a woman who was left with a dubious reputation, with an insult and so on. A terrible situation, terrible from all sides. And when we read this, we must say that – yes, the Torah takes into account certain shortcomings, problems of society, but at the same time the Torah is set on correcting it. And the fact that in the 21st century this seems horrible to us already shows that it works, that humanity has in many ways outgrown this barbaric, disdainful attitude toward women and has truly been brought up and has changed.

But there is another case: a man took a girl, and she really turned out not to be a virgin. We read about this situation from verse 20.

Well, I think commenting here… one may as well not comment.

Here it is interesting and again seemingly so strange, but this too is about the rights of a woman. I spoke about this when we touched on this commandment (Vayikra 20:10). In the laws of Hammurabi (ancient Babylon) and in the laws of Manu (ancient India) there is a similar law, but there the woman's husband can say: “Let her go, I ask that she be pardoned,” and she, as his property, receives a pardon. Here a woman is an independent person. The husband cannot say: “I forgive her, do not kill her. This is my thing, my wife: if I want, I forgive; if I want, I do not forgive.” Here the husband does not have such a right. The woman stands before the Most High, she answers independently for her deeds – true, at the cost of her life, but there really is a difference.

Such is the law. If a girl is being raped, God forbid, she must call for help. If she does not call for help, then one can consider that she consents. As they say, in reality everything is not the way it really is. There can be a mass of circumstances: for example, this man, the rapist, could have been threatening with a knife her, or her parents, or her little younger sister. And there can also be a mass of other circumstances that protect the girl, and they must be investigated. The whole question of the investigation is whether she resisted, whether she really objected to this rape.

Of course, one cannot fail to acknowledge that over the course of many centuries teachers were biased toward women. There is a well-known story about how a married woman came to a rabbi and said to him: “Rabbi, I was raped. What am I to do? Permit me to my husband, please.” The rabbi (it was Rabbi Yehuda) said to her: “Well, you did after all get pleasure from it in the end, didn't you?” She said to him: “You know what, Rabbi, if on Yom Kippur someone dips a finger in honey and runs it across your lips, will it taste sweet to you or not?” And he accepted this as an argument. This is told as a kind of story about magnanimity toward women and about the dignity of teachers. In my view, it characterizes Rabbi Yehuda abysmally, and it characterizes the attitude toward women in a completely lousy way (rather badly). But we learn, we change, and what was two thousand years ago is today already completely not so. Again I will repeat: the changes in the attitude toward women are evidence that the world is changing and the people is changing.

So, the woman is executed because she did not cry out and did not call for help in the city.

Verse 25 describes another situation.

Even if she did cry out, all the same no one would have come to help her, since this is a field, a deserted place – cry or don't cry… In this way the girl is cleared.

Again I will repeat: unfortunately, in those times the reputation of a woman who had gone through rape was ruined, her life destroyed. Whichever way you turn it, she will still be considered a loose woman. This happened in later times too, and doubt always arose. And, unfortunately, it does not always happen that this man becomes her husband. And very often it was so (this happens now too) that some man of high estate raped a commoner and said: “Who do you think you are? You are just a peasant woman, a commoner! Bear me a bastard, bear me a by-blow.” And such a thing also happens. But what we see here is serious social protection by the standards of the society of that time. This taught people that a woman must be protected. And therefore the level of protection that a woman receives today comes from that school. A woman must be protected socially at the level that society has grown up to and that is permitted in it. This is very hard to accept. And often young, hot-headed girls ask me: “How can this be? To live a whole life and look the rapist in the face? To look in the face of a man who raped you?” And this is truly impossible to understand through the eyes of a person of our civilization in the 21st century. But, again I will repeat, in the East even now every third or fourth girl gets married in just this way. Unfortunately, this is the sad truth. Not everyone has been brought up by the Torah. But the fact that for us today this is perceived as horror is the result of the Torah having brought us up.

Such is the difficult chapter 22 of the book of Devarim.

With God's help, we continue to study the weekly portion Ki Tetze, and we will read from verse 1 of chapter 23 of the book of Devarim.

Any woman who was married to the father is forbidden to the son. If she was married to the father, she became part of the father's flesh, and to go in to her, to uncover her nakedness, is like uncovering the nakedness of one's own father. And this, God forbid, is of course forbidden.

We are very close with our parents. Often we know some of their weak spots, some of their painful situations in life. It is forbidden to dig around in this; it is forbidden in general for any person to press on some sore spots of another; this too means uncovering his nakedness. If we know what a person's weakness is, what his struggle is, what his inner problem is, then there is no need to uncover it. This is true not only in regard to the father, but also in regard to any person.

Here the Torah repeats a law that was already mentioned earlier. That is precisely why we say that the book of Devarim (in Greek Deuteronómion, the Repeated Law, in Russian – Second Law), what we read here, is a repetition of commandments that have already been spoken about. As is well known, repetition is the mother of learning.

So, the father's wife is in any case forbidden to the son. Certain things that he may happen to see by chance thanks to closeness are forbidden to be uncovered, to be disclosed, and one can extend this commandment, as I already said, to any other person.

This is a disability that does not deprive a person of any rights. He is equal in everything except one thing: he cannot marry, because he will not be able to satisfy his wife on account of his disability, and the satisfaction of a woman is part of married life, part of life together. This is a physical damage that hinders marriage. There are also damages that are not physical, which the Torah will speak about further on.

A mamzér also does not have the right to marry an Israelite woman, a Jewish woman (or to marry an Israelite man). Who is a mamzér? A mamzér is a child born of a married woman and a man who is not her husband, the fruit of a married woman's infidelity, and only this case. When an unmarried woman enters into an extramarital relationship with someone and gives birth to a child, then, although this liaison is unlawful, the child born of such a liaison will not be a mamzér. In the Talmud there is a dissenting opinion, the dissenting opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that a mamzér is a person who is born of a non-Jew and a Jewish woman. This opinion remains just that, a dissenting one; it does not become law. But according to the law, I will repeat, a mamzér is the fruit of a married woman's infidelity with a strange man.

As a rule, the solution to this situation is (after all, in reality the child is objectively not to blame for what liaison he was born from; he did not decide how he would be born) that a mamzér may marry a female proselyte who is entering the community of Israel, and enter together with her, or marry a freed female slave. There are legal solutions to these situations, they exist, but we will not go into them.

Today, since the judges of Israel, the rabbis, do not consider themselves to be at the proper spiritual level, they say: “We do not judge, we do not discuss these questions today.” Even if a woman comes and says, testifies: “I gave birth to this child as a result of infidelity, and here is a DNA test, and here is the marriage certificate, here are all the documents,” the rabbi will say: “Well, documents are documents, but we believe in testimony. Do you have two kosher witnesses that you conceived not from your husband? Not even that you were unfaithful to your husband, but that you conceived not from your husband? You have no witnesses? Well, that means we do not accept your testimony.” This is not an unwillingness to judge by the Torah; it is an understanding that we are at a different spiritual level. If in the times of the giving of the Torah infidelity was an extraordinary event, sensational, so to speak, then in our days it has become almost an everyday matter. The level of the judges has also changed very much, and therefore the teachers say: “We are not ready to judge this way today.” Well, and besides that, no one has canceled mercy toward children either.

There are also conditions that do not give a person the possibility of entering into marriage with Israelites.

And in regard to the mamzér we also read about ten generations. Ten generations is, of course, a terribly long time. Which of us remembers our ancestors ten generations back? Which of us can answer for the actions of our ancestors committed ten generations ago? I think far, far from everyone; hardly anyone at all will be able to. I know my ancestors up to seven generations back; this too is a rarity, I was simply lucky, it just happened that way, while most people know up to four or five generations back. But here there is a prohibition for ten generations, and, besides that, at the end it is written forever. Why then is it written both ten generations and forever? Perhaps four or five hundred years will pass from the moment of the giving of the Torah, and someone will say: “Let's forgive these Moabites, these Ammonites, it's a thing of the past; whoever brings up the past, may he lose an eye; let's already accept them.” The Torah says: “No, this rule is in force forever.” And it must also be said that the Ammonites and the Moabites here are men. We know at least one woman, a Moabite – Rut, who entered the community of Israel, built a wonderful house in Israel, became the ancestress of David and entered the genealogy of Mashiach. This tells us that a Moabite woman may be accepted into the community of Israel. For what, then, are the Ammonites and the Moabites punished?

That is, do not ask how they are doing; one can translate it that way. This is the punishment for the Moabites and the Ammonites. And next, let's read something interesting.

Look what an amazing difference. The Egyptians threw Jewish children into the Nile, killed Jewish children. The Moabites and the Ammonites hired Bil'am, who wanted to destroy the Jews spiritually. Yeshua Mashiach said: “Do not fear the one who wants to kill your body; fear the one who can kill your soul.” The punishment is greater for those who tried to tear the people of Israel away, to lead them away from the Most High, than for those who physically killed Jews. And the Egyptians we accept already after three generations, but the Moabites and the Ammonites – never. Such is the difference in approach.

From verse 10 another topic begins.

A nighttime occurrence is a nocturnal emission, an involuntary ejaculation of seed. That is, a person who has ritual impurity cannot be in the camp. Even if it is not a city but a temporary dwelling in field conditions, where perhaps there is not always the possibility to wash, to purify oneself, to eat one's fill, and one could say: “War is war.” The Most High says: “War is war, but it has its own laws. Take care to keep the ritual purity of your camp. Even if there is no altar nearby and no one will be bringing sacrifices, keep the purity of your camp.”

The person must go through the traditional process of purification.

Even in field conditions, when we dig trenches, set up tents and so on, we are not released from keeping watch over the purity of our camp. And therefore we must designate a special place, set up a place where the unclean will go out.

Once again, even when we are in field conditions, both ritual purity and hygiene must be observed. The camp must look dignified, because it is the camp of God's people.

What is meant is that if a slave has run into your camp, if a runaway slave has run to you, a Canaanite one or, all the more so, a Jewish slave who escaped from a non-Jewish master, then do not return him to his master: the one who came to ask you for political asylum or refugee status, do not oppress.

A slave who ran away to us, who asked to come to us, we accept, we do not hand him over to his owner, we let him live freely in our midst and do not oppress him.

One needs to understand this word (kedeshá, kadésh). Some understand it as ritual temple prostitution (female and male), so to speak, charitable, for the benefit of the temple. At many temples there were women and men who provided services of a sexual nature for donations to the temple, and God forbid that a Jew should have such a custom.

Another variant of reading this verse: let there be no prostitute among you, men and women who provide services for money. Again this is in some way connected with the military camp, because to the warriors or with the warriors there can come, so to speak, combat prostitutes. This was customary among many peoples, and it is forbidden. But the broader understanding and, in my view, the most correct understanding of this verse is the prohibition of male and female prostitution in the people of Israel, because the land of Israel, the community of Israel must be holy.

If a harlot receives for her services a little sheep, a lamb, a young bull, a little goat, a he-goat, it does not matter, she cannot bring as a sacrifice what was obtained through sin, what was obtained in an unclean way. Very often criminals or some people who live dishonestly and get their money in a way that is, to put it mildly, not very righteous, have such a manner, such a custom: to give donations to the temple, to the synagogue, in order to clear their conscience this way. And the Torah says here: “No, it is impossible to bring as a sacrifice a little sheep received for harlotry.” One can extend this and say that one may not bring into the house of the LORD what was earned in an unclean way.

And what does the price of a dog mean? A dog is an unclean animal, and naturally one cannot bring the dog itself into the Temple. But one can sell a dog and bring the money received into the Temple. Or buy a lamb with the money received and bring it into the Temple. But if the root is unclean, if at the root there is an unclean animal, then, even having exchanged it for a little sheep, we cannot bring this little sheep into the Temple. What is brought into the Temple must be clean in its root, at its very beginning. It is impossible to do a kind of giyur, to turn an unclean little dog into a kosher animal, even by exchanging it for a lamb or a sheep. On the outside everything will seemingly look clean, but in reality it is an abomination to the LORD. Take care that what you bring to the LORD has come to you in a clean way. It is precisely the proximity of this verse to the previous one that gives the commentators the understanding that verse 18 is speaking precisely about temple prostitution. What is brought into the Temple, what is brought to the Most High, must be clean from the outset and completely. Neither a dog nor a harlot can be in this chain.

It is forbidden to give a neighbor, to give a brother money, food for a percentage, at interest. If I give someone fifty shekels and tell him to return fifty-two shekels, then a problem arises – this is a sin; in exactly the same way, if I give someone a pack of sausages and say: you will return two – this is a sin; whatever it may be, I am forbidden to act this way.

There is also another aspect, it is called avák ribít (dust of interest). If I lent a person money for some period, let us say, for a year, then during this year I can call him and say: “Listen, please give me a ride to such-and-such a place; please nail up a little shelf for me; please go to the market for me.” Because I gave this person money, because he owes me, I am invisibly taking interest for my money. This too is forbidden. Even if I expect that this person, when we meet, will shake my hand longer, look at me more politely and smile more, I am thereby seeking interest – this is forbidden. If you do give money, then do not expect that you will get something for it.

Mishlách yad – this is a profession, a professional action, business. Naturally, a person may have doubts. All right, when I give ten shekels or twenty shekels, that does not make any difference. But if I suddenly give, let us say, a million (if I had one), I can reason: “Here, I will give it to him now for a year; in that time I could have earned. But this way he will put it into circulation, and he will earn money. Why should he earn from my money? And why should I lose these earnings?” With the money that I have left, with the property that I have left, instead of the interest that I could have earned, I receive a bonus – the blessing of the Most High. I believe that the Most High will bless me more than I would have earned on this. My relationship with my neighbor in all aspects is always my standing before the Most High, beginning with the simplest. When I teach my children respect for their father, I am not teaching it for myself, it is not I who need respect, it is the Most High who wants them to respect and honor me: as a commandment of God I instruct them in this. And the same here too, with money on loan, the same love your neighbor as yourself before the Most High, for the sake of the Most High love, and from Him expect blessing. All settling of accounts is with the Most High, not with the neighbor.

If you promised something to the Most High, do it for the Most High, so that there is no sin on you.

Do not strive to make vows to the Most High. We do not always know what we will really be able to do and what we will not be able to do, therefore it is better not to make vows, there will be no sin in this. This is the best way to build a relationship with the Most High.

That is, what I promised – this is a voluntary matter; nobody, as they say, pulled me by the tongue. I decided it myself, and once I have decided, I am obliged to fulfill it before the Most High.

This means, eat as much as you like, but do not overeat. As much as you need to be satisfied, that much eat. This is about the time of the grape harvest. You came to the vineyard, you work in your neighbor's vineyard as a hired worker, and you may eat as many of his grapes as you like, without putting them into your vessels. In the field, in the vineyard, eat as much as you want. It is not permitted to forbid a worker to eat where he works. If you are sorting tomatoes, laying them out in boxes, eat as many tomatoes as you want. If you are grilling shawarma, eat as much of it as you want. Where you work, you may eat – you may not take it home, you may not take it with you as a reserve. And this is in the case that we came for the grape harvest, because it speaks of one's own vessels, and that means there are vessels of the owner. If we came there to dig around the vines or to do something else like that, for example, to build a little fence there, then this does not apply to us: we are not working at the grape harvest.

Do not use machinery to gather the ears of grain; have a conscience. What you gather for yourself, do by hand; there is no need to mechanize this process. There is no need to come with your own shopping bags, nor to drive up with your own combine harvester: what you can do by hand, that is what you do. On the other hand, this of course also applies to the owner of the field, who must understand that his workers will eat at his place; it is impossible to deprive them of this. This is one more law of morality and ethics.

Here chapter 23 ends, and we will continue reading a little from chapter 24.

In this verse, in this beginning of the story, there are already many elements important for us. First of all, the reason for the divorce: he found in her something unclean. And on this matter there is a dispute of the sages, in which Yeshua Mashiach also took part. There are three main opinions: the house of Shammai (Beit Shammai), one of the leading teachers of Israel, says: only adultery can be a reason for divorce, only if the husband discovered in his wife the shame of adultery. The house of Hillel (Beit Hillel), head of the Sanhedrin for forty years, says: “Even if her food got burnt, that is already a reason to say that you are all thumbs, I'm leaving you (that is, not I'm leaving you, but you leave me).” Some try to soften such a position and say that this is in the case when the woman chose the burnt food and served it to her husband, and took for herself what was not burnt, that is, this is a display of disrespect. But this is a justifying, apologetic commentary of sorts. In reality Hillel's position is this: for any reason at all – whether the shirt is not starched or simply not washed, whether the ceiling is not whitewashed – one may divorce one's wife. There is also a third, special opinion, that of Rabbi Akiva, who says: “Even if he found another, more beautiful than her.” That is, the wife here has nothing to do with it at all, she has no shortcoming, but the husband found another, and he may divorce. Such were the positions.

It must be said that when a man sends a woman away, he gives her money according to the ketuba (the marriage contract), that is, she does not leave empty-handed; she receives some kind of social protection. Besides that, here it is written gave the letter of divorce into her hands. That is, the wife must agree to accept this get, one has to come to an agreement with her, and she can be sent away only on some terms of mutual consent. Just as a man takes a wife with consent, he can also send her away only with consent. This is the reason why in Israel there are many such situations where a man or a woman drags out the divorce process because they refuse to give or to accept the letter of divorce. Yeshua Mashiach spoke on this matter completely unambiguously: only adultery can be a reason for divorce.

So, the man found some reason to send his wife away.

Here we run into a contradiction. Yeshua Mashiach said that whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. This phrase can be understood in different ways. Since here marrying a divorced woman is not designated as a sin, is not condemned in any way, perhaps we must look for a somewhat different understanding of Yeshua's phrase. And one of the possible understandings is that Mashiach is speaking of the case when a man says to a woman: “Angelina, you are married to Pankrat, therefore you are forbidden to me, I cannot be with you. Divorce your Pankrat, and I will marry you.” In this case whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. This is one of the possible understandings of the text. It ties in with certain Talmudic understandings, with other commentaries. Nevertheless, this is only one of the possible understandings. Very often you hear commentators, or those who have received a revelation, say: “Here is the only correct understanding.” We cannot always know which understanding is the only correct one, even if it is confirmed by some tradition, by what we have been taught. Therefore it is always better to leave room for other interpretations and to be ready to accept some interpretation that is hard for us to accept. Naturally, different churches have different customs. Not only will I not condemn any of the customs, I will not even discuss the customs of other communities. Each community establishes its own criteria of righteousness.

Here the Torah describes a situation where a woman married another man, without mentioning in any way that this is a sin for him or for her.

So, if a man divorced his wife, gave her a get and they separated, he can take her back years later. But he cannot take her back if she married another and was defiled with another. It is quite likely that, if such a possibility existed, the shadow of the second husband would be invisibly present all the time between the spouses, in their life and on their bed. From this the Torah protects; this would be an unclean marriage. It is interesting that Islam, which very often distorts, mangles some Jewish laws it happened to hear, in this case says the opposite, that a woman can return to her husband only if she has been married to someone else. This gave rise to very many legal oddities in the history of Islam. And, looking into this, you really begin to understand what an abomination it is when a wife, having been married to another, returns to her husband. Today in Israel a divorce is not granted just like that, and they try to reconcile the family. Either of the spouses can ask for shlom-bayt, a process of returning peace to the family, mentoring families are appointed, and so on. In general, this can turn out to be a complicated, long process, and it is often not so easy to get divorced. The family is a value for the people of Israel and, of course, in the eyes of the Most High it is a value, therefore it cannot be destroyed just like that. The institution of marriage is very important for the Torah. There is a story that tells how, because of the destruction precisely of the family institution, because the attitude toward the family, or rather, the attitude toward the wife became disdainful, because of this the Temple was destroyed.

A Talmudic story tells of a carpenter and his apprentice; I cited it in the book of Shemot, but I will repeat it here. Once upon a time there was a carpenter who had an apprentice, perhaps a good and kind apprentice. And this carpenter had a beautiful wife. And the apprentice secretly wanted to win this wife, wanted, one could say, to steal her away from the carpenter. The time came, and the carpenter came to need money. The apprentice offered: “Let me lend you this money that you need. Send your wife to me tomorrow evening for the money, I will give her this money.” And the carpenter sent his wife to him to pick up the money, and meanwhile the apprentice locked her up at his place. Having waited for some time, the carpenter himself came to the apprentice and asked: “Have you not seen my wife? I sent her to you.” To which the apprentice said: “I gave her the money, I let her go, and I saw that some guys raped her.” Just imagine, stop and imagine this picture: the apprentice sees that some guys are pestering, harassing the wife of his teacher, simply a girl, and he just kept silent, and this is in the normal order of things. And the carpenter asked the apprentice: “What am I to do now with this wife, who became the victim of rape?” The apprentice said: “Drive her away!” The carpenter objected to this: “How can I drive her away? Under the ketuba I have a very large financial obligation. When I took her as my wife, I promised that if I send her away, I will have to give her a lot of money.” To which the apprentice said: “I will gladly lend you this sum too.” And the apprentice lent the carpenter more money so that the carpenter would divorce his wife, and this woman, the poor woman, had nowhere to go, and she married the apprentice. Time passed, and the apprentice said: “I gave you money through your wife, I gave you money for the ketuba. Where is the money?” The carpenter had no money. Then the apprentice said: “Well, come and serve me, you will wait on me.” And the carpenter began to wait on the apprentice, who was married to his wife; he served them tea, a towel, I don't know what else, and wept. And it is said that with these tears the sentence for the destruction of the Temple was signed.

The institution of the family is a very important institution. And divorce is not a trivial thing, and marrying a divorced woman is not a trivial thing, and marriage as a whole is not a trivial thing. At every stage one must think and take responsibility before the Most High. And before deciding something, before forbidding someone something, one must also take responsibility before the Most High. If we destroy a marriage which the Most High blesses, if we forbid someone to enter into a relationship which the Most High blesses, we may end up in a not very good position. Therefore it is important to pray a lot, to think a lot, before making a decision. It is important to try to preserve the family, to try to preserve the relationship, but to preserve dignity as well. And there is a whole string of various difficult questions that lie hidden behind this.

In the first year of family life a man does not devote himself to business, does not devote himself to war, does not go out anywhere, does not occupy himself with anything, he only gives his wife positive emotions, accustoms his wife to receiving positive emotions from him. He must cheer his wife and do everything so that his wife is joyful. One may make some plans, nurture some ideas, but remember that a woman is an emotional being. A woman is emotional, and she is more sensitive, therefore one must give her good feelings. For a whole year the husband must only gladden his wife. That is how a family is built. This is not an instruction of psychologists, this is an instruction of the Most High.

What do modern teachers say? Even if some second cousin from the faraway city of Tzfat, or from Armavir, or from Syktyvkar wants to come for a visit, you have to say: “No, the two of us are here, I am cheering my wife here, there is no place for you here.” And relatives try not even to spend the night at the newlyweds' place in the first year of their life, so as not to destroy this foundation of the family that is being built, this emotional unity, when the husband cheers the wife. Of course, all sorts of things happen. It happens that one has to live with the parents, and there can be various circumstances, but this is what the Torah says: in the first year the man is wholly devoted to his wife, he must cheer her. But she too, of course, must be focused on rejoicing in that with which her husband cheers her.

If there is a person who owes us some money and we want to get this money back, we want to protect ourselves, our property, then we cannot take away from the person his sustenance. Even though we have the right to protect ourselves, to get our money back, our rights are limited by respect for the person who owes us and for his right to sustenance. We cannot take as a pledge the tools with which he earns his living.

With God's help, we continue to study the weekly portion Ki Tetze, and we will read from verse 7 of chapter 24 of our book Devarim.

On the whole, a fairly understandable commandment. It is impossible to turn a free Jew, one to whom the Most High gave freedom, into a slave by means of theft; this is a betrayal of one's brothers.

A person who is afflicted with tzara'at, a person who is guarding against tzara'at, must observe safety regulations (one could put it that way), listen to the instructions of the kohanim and Levites, so as not to suffer from this disease. And this happens to the most righteous and worthy people.

Miryam was struck with leprosy after she criticized Moshe (apparently, unjustly).

Verse 10 already speaks about a different topic.

You lent your neighbor some sum, and he does not pay you back, cannot return it, turns out his pockets and says: “Well, I don't have it, I can't pay you back.” You cannot go into the house and say: “Abram, now I will search your place for something that I will take from you as a pledge, so that you return the debt to me.” This is a disgrace for the person, a disgrace before his family as well and, possibly, a trauma for his children, if some stranger enters the house and takes something away. And even if the person owes you, and even if he cannot give it back, Yeshua says (Gospel of Luke 6:30): “…from the one who has taken what is yours, do not demand it back.” Here the Torah sets the bar lower: “Just do not go into his house, respect him.”

A poor man has very little property, perhaps only clothing. What can you take from him – a cloak, a blanket, a sleeping bag? If you did take it after all, return it to him in the evening.

If you took as a pledge pajamas, a nightshirt, some underwear in which the person sleeps, then return it to him in the evening, let him sleep peacefully. And do not worry that in this way he will be paying back his debt to you forever. If you treat with respect the person who owes you, he will bless you, and this will be credited to you as righteousness before the Most High. One can pray well for finances – it is good when I pray that I may have money. It is even better when others pray with all their heart that God may bless me, that I may have finances, that I may have health. Make it so that your health, your finances are needed not only by you, but also so that someone else would want your wealth, your health, your eloquence, your finances to be needed by someone else as well.

One might think, reading this today: well, what is clothing? Why does a person have only one garment? We see among Roman slaves and among Greek slaves clothing that covers only one shoulder. Why is that? What makes it convenient? That on the second shoulder a person can haul things that will not damage the clothing, that is, a person's skin was cheaper than his clothing. If you need to haul a log or a jug, you have to put it on the shoulder on which there is no cloak. This says a little about the price of clothing, about how reverently people treated clothing.

There are people in many countries, and it is so to this day, who live by day labor: every day they hire themselves out for work, at the end of the evening they receive their pay and live on it. It often happens that such people are simply not paid the money; this is a very widespread phenomenon. Or it happens that they are paid less than is due, they are made to work more hours, taking advantage of their destitute situation. There are very many such situations in modern history too. I think many know, have come across this (if they have not experienced it themselves). And the Torah categorically forbids cheating a hired worker or exploiting his dire situation.

Just as a person can thank the Most High and say: “Glory to the Most High for Chaim! Glory to the Most High for Oleg! Glory to the Most High for Kostya!”, in just the same way a person can also do the opposite, cry out against Aristarchus, against Sosipater, against Theophilus: “They are ripping me off, they are wronging me!” And there will be sin on these people, there will be very great harm for your life. It is not only important what you pray about, it is important what the people around you pray about.

Also a fairly clear commandment. This concerns capital punishment. Sometimes, when it comes to some financial matters, a son may pay for his father, and it happens that a father pays for his son as well. We will not go into this now.

People who have found themselves in a difficult social situation are very vulnerable (which, in fact, follows from their difficult social situation). This must in no way show itself in court. On the contrary, in court much is determined by justice and mercy toward the stranger, the orphan and the widow. We see this a great deal in the prophets too.

Remember yourself who you were, remember where you came from. We live many-many-many generations after the exodus from Egypt, but the exodus from Egypt is our history, part of my biography, because I, like every person from the people of God, carry within me the whole experience of the people of God and must act accordingly. In my DNA, in the DNA of every person who comes to the Most High, Egypt is written in, the experience of slavery is written in and, accordingly, compassion for those who are in a difficult situation.

How these laws work, we will see later in the book of Rut. Rut went about, gathering ears of grain, gathering what had been forgotten, and Bo'az even put his workers up to it: “Here do not gather very diligently, here leave a sheaf,” so as to help Rut somehow.

It will be for all the poor in general, and it concerns, of course, not only the olive tree: it concerns all fruit trees, it is a law with regard to fruit trees. It is customary to leave something on fruit trees for the poor, for needy people. Perhaps this is the explanation of the story that happened with the fig tree. Why did Yeshua curse the fig tree? The owner of the fig tree was supposed to leave figs (after all, the new figs had not yet appeared). They do not fall from the branches, because there it is a matter of a special variety of figs which are, as it were, part of the branch; the ripened fruits do not drop off. The owner was supposed to leave a part for poor people, for those who are in need, who are hungry. But since the owner did not leave it, then, by cursing the tree itself, Yeshua deprives the man of income. A fruit tree is part of his income, perhaps even the greater part. And if he does not act according to the law, a curse may fall on this tree, he may lose his income, and the fig tree will not bear fruit anymore. This is one of the possible explanations of the non-observance of this commandment. Because in verse 19 it was said: “If you do so, God will bless you.” And we read earlier that if one does not do it, then there will be something opposite to blessing.

The same also with grapes:

Here chapter 24 ends, and we will continue reading from verse 1 of chapter 25.

You punish him, but you do not disgrace him; and if they beat him beyond forty, if even one blow is above this, then it is a disgrace. If you remember, Sha'ul wrote about this (2 Cor. 11:24): “…forty minus one I received,” that is, bemispár arba'ím – to the number “forty,” up to forty they beat, that is, thirty-nine.

Tradition says that they beat with a whip made of calf hide and donkey hide. The first thirteen blows were delivered in front, then thirteen blows from behind on the right shoulder and thirteen blows on the left shoulder. That is how the thirty-nine blows were divided, so that the person would somehow also survive after this, because our goal is not to cause pain, but to correct the person.

The same verse that Sha'ul cites with regard to ministers (1 Cor. 9:9). And we spoke earlier about the fact that the one who works in a vineyard or in a field may eat from the place where he works; this is what is being spoken of here. And, of course, the ox is only an example; it is not for oxen that the LORD cares.

In verse 5 a new topic begins:

An important detail is that this is about brothers who live together on one land allotment, on one estate. Such a marriage is called levirate. Why is this needed? So that the deceased brother would not be deprived of his inheritance, so that one more branch of the family would remain a branch of the family.

That is, the child will be not simply a son, but a firstborn; he will also receive a double share of the inheritance. The other brother restored offspring to the deceased brother, offspring who will possibly receive an inheritance and deprive his own children of part of the inheritance. If the deceased brother had not had children, the land would have had to be divided into a smaller number of parts. But here a firstborn is born who receives a double share. Therefore the commandment of levirate marriage is not such a simple commandment.

In the Russian language there is a word for estate (allotment) which is also connected with the word for name. Every person has a name, and he wants to have a share on the earth. In the times of the giving of the Torah, very much attention was paid to this. And here the Torah takes care that, if one brother died and did not leave children after him, the other brothers would restore his name.

Today there are difficulties with fulfilling this commandment. Rabbis, teachers recommend refraining from it. First, the land laws have changed a little. Second, one had to go in to the brother's wife not with some desire, not with some lust, not to satisfy one's own wish, as a man goes in to his own wife. One had to go in to the brother's wife in fulfillment of the commandment, and with us, as the sages say, this does not work out. It is hard for a person to detach himself from a woman's attractiveness, from attraction to a woman, and to go in so as to fulfill the commandment, to enter into the role of his brother. It does not work out, and, so as not to put a person in such a situation, today the ceremony of “taking off the shoe,” or chalitzá, is performed, from the word lachlótz – to unshoe, to take off a shoe, a boot. This ceremony, when a man does not take his brother's widow as a wife, is described right here, in our portion. Something, by the way, that very much worried a certain Swedish boy, widely known in Russia: “Mom, listen... So my brother will grow up – well, get married... well, die. And then will I have to marry his old wife?” – “Why? Well, but still?” – “I already wear his old pajamas, skates, bicycle as hand-me-downs... Everything else I get handed down...”

Here it is perhaps time to refute one of the very widespread myths about Orthodox Jews. There is a tale that Orthodox Jews sleep with their wives through a hole in a sheet. They cover the wife with a sheet, make openings in the appropriate places and in this way go in to their wives. This story has taken such hold that I have heard it even from tour guides who lead tours into the religious neighborhoods. But there one can also see a tallit drying, and it looks like a sheet with some kind of hole, if you know nothing about anything. Nevertheless, this is a tale for which there is no basis: according to Jewish law, husband and wife sleep without any barrier, and according to Kabbalah, even completely naked.

But there was such a story (it is told in the Jerusalem Talmud) about a man whose name was Rabbi Yosi ben Chalafta. And Rabbi Yosi ben Chalafta lost his brother, his brother's wife was widowed, and he entered into a levirate marriage with her and begot five children for his brother. Five times he went in to his brother's wife and each time did it through a sheet, somehow protecting himself from sinful desires. And from here, through a heap of hands, through a heap of mouths, through a heap of distortions, the myth was born that the Orthodox (“dosim,” “datiim,” “charedim”) live with their wives through a sheet.

Some commentators say, and it can also be understood this way: she will spit in his face. In the modern performance, when we see this in practice, then she spat before him. The word befanáv can be understood both as before him, and as in his face.

That is, in essence, the man is disgraced, a nickname will stick to him – the man with the removed shoe, he will get such a reputation. Well, a person may have reasons for which he nevertheless refuses to take his brother's wife. Life is a complicated thing.

In verse 11 there is again a different topic.

Oh, what a familiar situation! The verb lehinatzot (to fight) has the same root cell, nun-tzadi, as the word netz (hawk), that is, they will, so to speak, peck at each other, fight chest to chest. A place by which it is not customary to take hold of a man, and besides very painful; this is not just a kind of painful hold, it is also an insult.

The commentators say: “As in the case of the expression a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye (there too it is written: do not pity), it is about monetary compensation. Here too a person receives monetary compensation for having been offended, for having been insulted.” From this we can conclude that monetary compensation is given not only for some real injuries, but also, let us say, for some insult that has been inflicted, for some emotional traumas. Practically all the commentators agree that this phrase should not be understood literally.

If you are buying, you take the big weight; if you are selling, the small one, or the other way around, depending on who is doing the weighing.

Efa is a fairly large measure used for dry goods, that is, a large jar or a small bucket with which dry goods are measured when buying and selling. And the Torah forbids a person to have at home, for the purpose of deceit, two different efas – a big one and a small one. Again, in exactly the same way: do not get yourself two different measures. In modern Hebrew the expression efa ve'efa (an exact quote – measure and measure) has remained, which denotes a situation where in one place one measure is applied, and in another place another, and this is distorted justice. That is how people speak about distorted justice, about hypocrisy, about partiality – efa ve'efa.

By the stone is meant a weight, that which is used for weighing. We see again that with justice, with the justice of the court, with lack of bias, with impartiality, a person's days on the land are prolonged, and the days of the people's dwelling in the land of Israel.

Unjustly causing grief to a person who has been short-weighted, short-measured, deceived, shortchanged – this is an abomination before the LORD.

There were peoples who waged war with Israel, and the exodus from Egypt was accompanied by many wars and many conflicts. But Amalek was not part of the geopolitical map of the exodus from Egypt; at first he existed far away. And he came from far away in order to attack, came specifically to attack, having no interests whatsoever, and attacked from behind. And, most importantly, he was, let us put it this way, the firstborn of those who attack Israel. Over this time (much time has passed) there were peoples who drove us out, beat us, destroyed us. Compared with Rome, Spain and Germany, Amalek roughed us up next to nothing. Why is it Amalek in particular that we remember? Because he is the first who attacked us, he was the first to show everyone that it is possible.

Rashi gives as an example a boiling mikva, some place where people must wash themselves. And the water there is very hot, so hot that no one dares to immerse himself there. And then some lively guy jumps in, and everyone looks: ah, so it can be done! So too Amalek – he did not fear God, attacked, and thereby as it were opened the hunting season on Israel. If with regard to some peoples we expect that the Most High will correct them, then with regard to Amalek the Most High commands us his complete destruction.

Since Amalek attacked you first, leave him for last, when the LORD lets you defeat all your enemies, when all the other peoples are defeated, after the final victory. On the one hand – erase the memory, and on the other hand – do not forget. Do not forget that there is also a distant enemy. When it seems to you that you live in goodness and rest, and there is peace around you, and all the countries either pay you tribute or simply trade with you, tourists come, everything is orderly, peaceful, full of grace, then do not forget how once Amalek came from far away and attacked. Somewhere out there there is still Amalek, with whom you need to settle accounts, whose memory you need to erase from under the heavens. Do not forget about this as you sink into peace, rest and prosperity; do not forget that in the world there may be something that is not subject to correction at all.

Read also the portion Shoftim, the portion Kedoshim on holiness and the neighbor, the book of commentaries on Devarim and the weekly portions of the Torah.