Deuteronomy 22 Commentary

“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.”

With him. Hebrew, “thou shalt not hide thyself, but help him to lift up,” Exodus xxiii. 4.

“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.”

God. Some take this literally, as the contrary practice is contrary to decency, and might be attended with very pernicious consequences. All know what noise was occasioned by the action of Clodius, who put on women’s apparel, that he might be present with the Roman ladies at the feast of the good goddess. Yet others think that Moses here forbids some superstitious practice. St. Ambrose (ep. 69,) remarks, that in some of the mysteries of the idols, it was requisite for those present to change clothes in this manner, sacrum putatur. Lucian testifies, that men put on women’s clothes at the feasts of Bacchus. They did the like in those of Venus, while the women took men’s clothes in the festivals of Mars. (Jul. Hirmic. c. 4.) (Maimonides) — In the East, people honoured the moon, to which they attributed both sexes, and Venus in like manner. Josephus ([Antiquities,?] iv. 8,) believes that women are here prohibited to engage in warfare. Hebrew, “the vessels (armour) of man shall not be upon a woman.” Semiramis gained a great name by her martial exploits, and commanded all her subjects to dress like herself. (Justin., i) — The Amazons were likewise very famous in war, and it is said that half the army of Bacchus was composed of women. Alb. Gentil maintains that Moses here condemns an abominable crime, which he did not wish to mention, at which the Book of Wisdom hints, (chap. xiv. 26,) and which St. Paul condemns more explicitly, Romans i. 26. Moses had already denounced death against the perpetrators of it; and surely the manner in which he now speaks, seems to forbid something more than simply putting on the garments of the other sex, for he, &c. (Calmet) — Yet that disorderly conduct deserved to be reprobated in strong terms, (Haydock) when it was not excused by some necessity or proper motive, such as actuated some holy virgins, St. Theodora, &c. (Tirinus)

“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:”

Thou shalt not take, &c. This was to shew them to exercise a certain mercy even to irrational creatures; and by that means to train them up to a horror of cruelty; and to the exercise of humanity, and mutual charity one to another. (Challoner) — Some were of opinion that the person who could take the old bird on the nest, might assure himself of good fortune, fecundity, &c. (St. Thomas Aquinas, i. 2, q. 102, a. 6.) Such superstition is reprehensible. Phocilides advises not to take all the young ones, nor the hen, in consideration of one’s having more birds. (Calmet)

“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.”

Time. Those who refrain from cruelty, even towards beasts, will be induced more easily to shew mercy to their fellow creatures, (Tertullian, contra Marc. ii.) and will draw down the blessings of God upon themselves. (Menochius)

“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.”

Battlement. This precaution was necessary, because all their houses had flat tops; and it was usual to walk and to converse together upon them. (Challoner) — King Ochozias had the misfortune to fall from the top of his house, (4 Kings i. 2,) and David saw Bethsabee when he was walking on the roof of his palace, 2 Kings xi. 2. Saul slept at the top of Samuel’s house, 1 Kings ix. 25. See Josue ii. 6., and Matthew x. 27. (Haydock)

“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. fruit of thy seed: Heb. fulness of the seed”

Together. If wheat was sown in a vineyard, it would ripen much sooner than the grapes; and as the first-fruits of both were offered to the Lord, the owner would lose the profit which he had too greedily sought after, the place being esteemed both pure and impure at the same time. This mixture of seeds would also impoverish the land, so that it would be like a place defiled, and unfit for cultivation. (Jansenius in Leviticus xix. 19.) Maimonides supposes that the practice of the Zabians is here reprobated. They sowed the land with corn and dry grapes, in honour of Ceres and Bacchus, (More. Nev. p. 3. c. 37,) who presided over the harvest and vintage among the pagans. (Wm. of Paris. Leg. 13.) — Moses might also, by this symbolical language, condemn unnatural connexions, as he perhaps does, ver. 10.

“Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.”

Plough. In Leviticus xix. 19, this law is expressed, so as to forbid the procreation of mongrels. See Judges xiv. 18. People who have treated on agriculture observe, that it is a pernicious practice to make animals of unequal size and speed work together. (Colum. vi. 2.) — St. Paul explains to us the mystical sense of this passage. Bear not the yoke together with infidels, 2 Corinthians vi. 14. (Calmet) — Marry not with such. (Haydock) — Employ not in the sacred ministry the imprudent and wicked with those of a virtuous disposition. (St. Gregory, Mor. i. 16.)

“Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.”

Together. This is now lawful. But a virgin consecrated to God, must not dress like a married woman: the different states of life must not be confounded. (St. Augustine, contra Faustus vi. 9.) (Du Hamel)

“Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself. quarters: Heb. wings”

Strings, probably to gird the outer garment round the loins. See Numbers xv. 38.

“And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:”

Name. Hebrew, “and occasion reports against her to bring an evil name upon her,” (Haydock) that he may not have to return her dowry. For, according to many of the Rabbins, he might give her a bill of divorce, simply if he did not like her. (Selden, Uxor. iii. 1, &c.) — They allow the proof here specified, only with respect to a Hebrew woman between twelve and twelve and a half years old, during the period of her being espoused, but not taken home by her husband. The cause was to be tried before the 23 judges. Oftentimes only witnesses, probably matrons, were examined in defence of the woman. (Josephus, [Antiquities?] iv. 8.) St. Ambrose (ep. 8. 64. ad Syagr.) highly disapproves of such unsatisfactory methods. The marks assigned by the law were commonly observed in Syria, Persia, &c. The Arab physicians speak of them. See Valesius, c. xxv. The age in which women were then married, the climate, &c., caused these indications to be more clear, and deposed for or against the fidelity of the bride. The mother had them entrusted to her care by the friends of the husband, who had kept watch at the door on the wedding night. (M.[Menochius;?] Nachman, ap. Fagium.)

“Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:”

Her. It does not appear that the woman was present at the trial: she remained at her father’s, or rather at her husband’s house, till sentence was passed. (Calmet) — Hebrew, “then shall the father of the damsel and her mother take and produce the damsel’s virginity,” or the tokens of it.

“And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;”

Beat him. Hebrew, “chastise.” Septuagint may signify also, “reprimand him.” But (Haydock) Josephus says the husband was to receive 39 lashes; and Philo informs us that the woman might leave him, if she thought proper, though, if she were willing to stay, he had not the power to divorce her, ver. 19.

“And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.”

A hundred. Josephus only mentions 50. As it was presumed that the false accusation proceeded from a desire to defraud the woman of her dowry, the law obliged the husband to allow her double (Calmet) the usual sum. Yet this punishment, together with the scourging, was very inadequate to what the woman would have had to suffer if she had been condemned. (Haydock) — St. Augustine (q. 33,) is surprised at this decision, as in other cases calumny was subjected to the law of retaliation, or punished with death. This shews also that wives, among the Jews, were considered as little more than servants. (Calmet)

“Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”

Die. It was concluded that she had committed the sin after her espousal. If it had happened before, she was to receive only 25 sicles for a dowry; though, if she took an oath that violence had been offered to her, she was entitled to 50: which opinion of the Rabbins seems very equitable. Ęschines (in Timarch.) relates, that a man at Athens punished the transgression of which his daughter had been guilty, while she was at home, by shutting her up with a horse, in order that she might be torn in pieces by the famished animal. (Calmet)

“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”

Die. The man was to be strangled as well as the married woman; if she were espoused only, she was to be stoned. The daughter of a priest was burnt alive. (Rabbins) (Calmet) See Leviticus xx. 10.

“Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.”

Wife. After the woman was espoused, (ver. 23,) she was called a wife, and punished accordingly, if she proved unfaithful.

“But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: force: or, take strong hold of”

Hold. Septuagint, “offering violence,” as also [in] ver. 28. (Haydock) — Die. Moses supposes that the woman in the field had made all possible resistance, and that the one in the city had, by silence at least, consented. But if the case were otherwise, the judges were to make all necessary enquiries, and pass sentence accordingly. (Calmet)

“Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”

Life. A law nearly similar occurs, Exodus xxii. 16, (Haydock) only there Moses speaks of seduction. (Menochius) — If the father or the woman refused their consent to the marriage, the person had only to pay 50 sicles; which the woman received, if her father was not alive. But if they consented, the person who had been condemned by the judge, was bound to marry the woman, how deformed soever. (Selden, Uxor. i. 16.) (Calmet)

“A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt.”

Covering. See Leviticus xx. 11. A wife should be hidden from all but her husband. (Haydock)