Ki Teitzei

 ( Weekly Torah Readings In Elul ) 

As the reading continues, Moses allowed a worker working in a field of standing Cereal to pluck ears by hand, but the worker was forbidden to cut the neighbor's grain with a sickle.. A closed portion ends here with the end of the chapter.

As the reading continues in chapter 24, Moses instructed that a divorced woman who remarried and then lost her second husband to divorce or death could not remarry her first husband.. The fifth reading and a closed portion end here.See, e.g., Menachem Davis, editor, Schottenstein Edition Interlinear Chumash: Devarim / Deuteronomy, page 152.

In the continuation of the reading, Moses taught that one found to have kidnapped a fellow Israelite was to die.. A closed portion ends here.

In the continuation of the reading, Moses taught that in cases of a Tzaraath, Israelites were to do exactly as the Kohen instructed, remembering that God afflicted and then healed Miriam's skin after the Israelites left Egypt.. A closed portion ends here.

In the continuation of the reading, Moses forbade an Israelite who lent to a fellow Israelite to enter the borrower's house to seize a pledge, and required the lender to remain outside while the borrower brought the pledge out to the lender.. If the borrower was needy, the lender was forbidden to sleep in the pledge, but had to return the pledge to the borrower at sundown, so that the borrower might sleep in the cloth and bless the lender before God.. The sixth reading and a closed portion end here.See, e.g., Menachem Davis, editor, Schottenstein Edition Interlinear Chumash: Devarim / Deuteronomy, page 154.

In the continuation of the reading, Moses taught that parents were not to be put to death for children, nor were children to be put to death for parents; a person was to be put to death only for the person's own crime.. A closed portion ends here.See, e.g., Menachem Davis, editor, Schottenstein Edition Interlinear Chumash: Devarim / Deuteronomy, page 155.

In the continuation of the reading, Moses forbade the Israelites to subvert the rights of the proselyte or the orphan, and forbade the Israelites to take a widow's garment in pawn, remembering that they were slaves in Egypt and that God redeemed them.. A closed portion ends here.

In the continuation of the reading, Moses instructed that when Israelites reaped the harvest in their fields and overlooked a sheaf, they were not to turn back to get it, but were to leave it to the proselyte, the orphan, and the widow.. A closed portion ends here.

In the continuation of the reading, Moses instructed that when Israelites beat down the fruit of their olive trees or gathered the grapes of their vineyards, they were not to go over them again, but were leave what remained for the proselyte, the orphan, and the widow, remembering that they were slaves in Egypt.. A closed portion ends here with the end of the chapter.See, e.g., Menachem Davis, editor, Schottenstein Edition Interlinear Chumash: Devarim / Deuteronomy, page 156.

As the reading continues in chapter 25, Moses instructed that when one was to be flogged, the Biblical judges was to have the guilty one lie down and be whipped in his presence, as warranted but with no more than 40 lashes, so that the guilty one would not be degraded.. Israelites were forbidden to muzzle an ox while it was threshing.. A closed portion ends here.See, e.g., Menachem Davis, editor, Schottenstein Edition Interlinear Chumash: Devarim / Deuteronomy, page 157.

In the continuation of the reading, Moses instructed that when Sibling dwelt together and one of them died leaving no son, the surviving brother was to marry the wife of the deceased and perform the levir's duty, and the first son that she bore was to be accounted to the dead brother, that his name might survive.. But if the surviving brother did not want to marry his brother's widow, then the widow was to appear before the elders at the town gate and declare that the brother refused to perform the levir's duty, the elders were to talk to him, and if he insisted, the widow was to go up to him before the elders, pull the sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and declare: "Thus shall be done to the man who will not build up his brother's house!". They would then call him "the family of the unsandaled one.". A closed portion ends here.See, e.g., Menachem Davis, editor, Schottenstein Edition Interlinear Chumash: Devarim / Deuteronomy, page 159.

In the continuation of the reading, Moses instructed that if two men fought with each other, and to save her husband the wife of one seized the other man's Sex organ, then her hand was to be cut off.. A closed portion ends here.

In the continuation of the reading, Moses forbade Israelites to have alternate weights or measures, larger and smaller, and required them to have completely honest weights and measures.. The long first open portion ends here.See, e.g., Menachem Davis, editor, Schottenstein Edition Interlinear Chumash: Devarim / Deuteronomy, page 160.

The punishment of being stoned outside the city, prescribed in Deuteronomy 21:21 for a stubborn and rebellious son who is unmoved by child discipline, was also the punishment prescribed for Blasphemy the name of the Lord in Leviticus 24:16,23. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary suggests that "parents are considered God's representatives and invested with a portion of his authority over their children"Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, on Deuteronomy 21, accessed 22 December 2015 and therefore refusal to obey the voice of one's father or mother, when they have chastened one, is akin to refusal to honor the name of God. Proverbs 23:20 uses the same words, "a glutton and a drunkard," as Deuteronomy 21:20, which Proverbs 23:22 links to the need for obedience to and respect for one's parents: "Listen to your father who begot you, and do not despise your mother when she is old."

In Jeremiah 15:10, the prophet said that he had "neither lent for interest, nor have men lent to him for interest" in violation of Deuteronomy 23:19–20.

The Tanakh reports skin disease (, tzara'at) and a person affected by skin disease (, Tzaraath) at several places, often (and sometimes incorrectly) translated as "leprosy" and "a leper." In Exodus 4:6, to help Moses to convince others that God had sent him, God instructed Moses to put his hand into his bosom, and when he took it out, his hand was "leprous (, m'tzora'at), as white as snow." In Leviticus 13–14, the Torah sets out regulations for skin disease (, tzara'at) and a person affected by skin disease (, metzora). In Numbers 12:10 after Miriam spoke against Moses, God's cloud removed from the Tabernacle and "Miriam was leprous (, m'tzora'at), as white as snow." In the current parashah, Moses warned the Israelites in the case of skin disease (, tzara'at) diligently to observe all that the priests would teach them, remembering what God did to Miriam (Deuteronomy 24:8–9). In 2 Kings 5:1–19, part of the haftarah for parashah Tazria, the prophet Elisha cures Naaman, the commander of the army of the king of Aram, who was a "leper" (, metzora). In 2 Kings 7:3–20, part of the haftarah for parashah Metzora, the story is told of four "leprous men" (, m'tzora'im) at the gate during the Aramaeans siege of Samaria. And in 2 Chronicles 26:19, after King Uzziah tried to burn incense in the Temple in Jerusalem, "leprosy (, tzara'at) broke forth on his forehead."

Deuteronomy 24:14–15 and 17–22 admonish the Israelites not to wrong the stranger, for "you shall remember that you were a bondman in Egypt." (See also Exodus 22:20; 23:9; Leviticus 19:33–34; Deuteronomy 1:16; 10:17–19 and 27:19.) Similarly, in Amos 3:1, the 8th century BCE prophet Amos anchored his pronouncements in the covenant community's the Exodus history, saying, "Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family that I brought up out of the land of Egypt."Amy-Jill Levine suggested that Amos used freedom from slavery as the paradigm and template against which he expressed concerns about the covenant community, casting the community in the role of Pharaoh when they transgressed. See Amy-Jill Levine, "The Prophets and the Fall of the North," in The Old Testament: Part II (Springfield, Virginia: The Teaching Company, 2001).

In Isaiah 12:10, the prophet used the practice of leaving olives on the boughs and grapes in the vineyard for gleanings (as required by Deuteronomy 24:20–21) as a sign of hope for Israel when he forecast the nation's downfall: "In that day it shall come to pass that the glory of Jacob will wane ... yet gleaning grapes will be left in it, like the shaking of an olive tree, two or three olives at the top of the uppermost bough, four or five in its most fruitful branches."

echoes the teaching of Deuteronomy 25:15–16 that dishonest scales are an abomination to God.

The Israelites' victory over the Amalekites and the role of Moses, supported by Aaron and Hur in directing the battle's outcome, was recorded in Exodus 17:8–16, but the Exodus narrative does not mention the Amalekites' tactics (reported in Deuteronomy 25:18) of attacking the "faint and weary" at the rear of the Israelites' convoy. Exodus 17:14 and Deuteronomy 25:17 both speak of blotting out the memory of Amalek.

In 1 Samuel 15:1–3, the prophet Samuel conveys the command of God to King Saul to "punish Amalek for what he did to Israel". Saul "utterly destroyed" the Amalekites; initially he spared Agag their king, but Samuel killed him later..

Philo read Deuteronomy 23:22 to instruct us to be prompt in our gratitude to God. Philo cited Cain as an example of a "self-loving man" who (in Genesis 4:3) showed his gratitude to God too slowly. Philo taught that we should hurry to please God without delay. Thus Deuteronomy 23:22 enjoins, "If you vow a vow, you shall not delay to perform it." Philo explained that a vow is a request to God for good things, and Deuteronomy 23:22 thus enjoins that when one has received them, one must offer gratitude to God as soon as possible. Philo divided those who fail to do so into three types: (1) those who forget the benefits that they have received, (2) those who from an excessive conceit look upon themselves and not God as the authors of what they receive, and (3) those who realize that God caused what they received, but still say that they deserved it, because they are worthy to receive God's favor. Philo taught that Scripture opposes all three. Philo taught that Deuteronomy 8:12–14 replies to the first group who forget, "Take care, lest when you have eaten and are filled, and when you have built fine houses and inhabited them, and when your flocks and your herds have increased, and when your silver and gold, and all that you possess is multiplied, you be lifted up in your heart, and forget the Lord your God." Philo taught that one does not forget God when one remembers one's own nothingness and God's exceeding greatness. Philo interpreted Deuteronomy 8:17 to reprove those who look upon themselves as the cause of what they have received, telling them: "Say not my own might, or the strength of my right hand has acquired me all this power, but remember always the Lord your God, who gives you the might to acquire power." And Philo read Deuteronomy 9:4–5 to address those who think that they deserve what they have received when it says, "You do not enter into this land to possess it because of your righteousness, or because of the holiness of your heart; but, in the first place, because of the iniquity of these nations, since God has brought on them the destruction of wickedness; and in the second place, that He may establish the covenant that He swore to our Fathers." Philo interpreted the term "covenant" figuratively to mean God's graces. Thus Philo concluded that if we discard forgetfulness, ingratitude, and self-love, we shall not longer through our delay miss attaining the genuine worship of God, but we shall meet God, having prepared ourselves to do the things that God commands us.Philo, On the Birth of Abel and the Sacrifices Offered by Him and by His Brother Cain, chapters 13–14 (¶¶ 52–58) (Alexandria, early 1st century CE), in, e.g., Charles Duke Yonge, translator, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, New Updated Edition (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993), page 101.

A Dead Sea Scroll manuscript from Qumran Cave 4, probably dated to the turn of the common era, deduced from Deuteronomy 23:25–26 that a poor person could eat ears of corn in the field of another person, but was not allowed to take any home. On a threshing-floor, however, the poor person could both eat and gather provisions for his family. Dead Sea scroll 4Q159 (Land of Israel, late 1st century BCE), in, e.g., Géza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English: Revised Edition (New York: Penguin Books, 2011), pages 529–30.

A baraita taught that the words of Deuteronomy 21:10, "And you carry them away captive," were meant to include Canaanites who lived outside the land of Israel, teaching that if they repented, they would be accepted. Babylonian Talmud Sotah 35b.

The Gemara taught that the procedure of Deuteronomy 21:12–13 applied only when the captive did not accept the commandments, for if she accepted the commandments, then she could be immersed in a ritual bath (, mikveh), and she and the soldier could marry immediately. Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 47b. Rabbi Eliezer interpreted the words "and she shall shave her head and do her nails" in Deuteronomy 21:12 to mean that she was to cut her nails, but Rabbi Akiva interpreted the words to mean that she was to let them grow. Rabbi Eliezer reasoned that Deuteronomy 21:12 specified an act with respect to the head and an act with respect to the nails, and as the former meant removal, so should the latter. Rabbi Akiva reasoned that Deuteronomy 21:12 specified disfigurement for the head, so it must mean disfigurement for the nails, as well. Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 48a.

Rabbi Eliezer interpreted the words "bewail her father and her mother" in Deuteronomy 21:13 to mean her actual father and mother. But Rabbi Akiva interpreted the words to mean idolatry, citing Jeremiah 2:27. A baraita taught that "a full month" meant 30 days. But Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar interpreted Deuteronomy 21:13 to call for 90 days—30 days for "month," 30 days for "full," and 30 days for "and after that." Ravina I said that one could say that "month" meant 30 days, "full" meant 30 days, and "and after that" meant an equal number (30 plus 30) again, for a total of 120 days. Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 48b.

The Gemara recounted a discussion regarding the right of the firstborn in Deuteronomy 21:17. Once Rabbi Yannai was walking, leaning on the shoulder of Rabbi Simlai his attendant, and Rabbi Judah haNasi came to meet them. Rabbi Judah the Prince asked Rabbi Jannai what the Scriptural basis was for the proposition that a son takes precedence over a daughter in the inheritance of a mother's estate. Rabbi Jannai replied that the plural use of the term "tribes" in the discussion of the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 36:8 indicates that the mother's tribe is to be compared to the father's tribe, and as in the case of the father's tribe, a son takes precedence over a daughter, so in the case of the mother's tribe, a son should take precedence over a daughter. Rabbi Judah the Prince challenged Rabbi Jannai, saying that if it this were so, one could say that as in the case of the father's tribe, a firstborn takes a double portion, so in the case of the mother's tribe would a firstborn take a double portion. Rabbi Jannai dismissed the remark of Rabbi Judah the Prince. The Gemara then inquired why it is true that a firstborn son takes a double share in his father's estate but not his mother's. Abaye replied that Deuteronomy 21:17 says, "of all that he the has," implying all that "he" (the father) has and not all that "she" (the mother) has. The Gemara asked whether the proposition that a firstborn son takes a double portion only in the estate of his father might apply only in the case where a bachelor married a widow (who had children from her first marriage, and thus the father's firstborn son was not that of the mother). And thus where a bachelor married a virgin (so that the firstborn son of the father would also be the firstborn son of the mother) might the firstborn son also take a double portion in his mother's estate? Rav Naḥman bar Isaac replied that Deuteronomy 21:17 says, "for he the is the First Fruits of his the strength," from which we can infer that the law applies to the firstfruits of the father's strength and not the firstfruits of the mother's strength. The Gemara replied that Deuteronomy 21:17 teaches that though a son was born after a miscarriage (and thus did not "open the womb" and is not regarded as a firstborn son for purposes of "sanctification to the Lord" and "redemption from the priest" in Exodus 13:2) he is nonetheless regarded as the firstborn son for purposes of inheritance. Deuteronomy 21:17 thus implies that only the son for whom the father's heart grieves is included in the law, but a miscarriage, for which the father's heart does not grieve, is excluded. (And thus, since Deuteronomy 21:17 is necessary for this deduction, it could not have been meant for the proposition that the law applies to the firstfruits of the father's strength and not of the mother's strength.) But then the Gemara reasoned that if Deuteronomy 21:17 is necessary for excluding miscarriages, then Deuteronomy 21:17 should have read, "for he is the firstfruits of strength," but Deuteronomy 21:17 in fact says, " his strength." Thus one may deduce two laws from Deuteronomy 21:17. But the Gemara objected further that still that the words of Deuteronomy 21:17, "the firstfruits of his the strength," not her strength, might apply only to the case of a widower (who had children from his first wife) who married a virgin (since the first son from the second marriage would be only the wife's firstborn, not the husband's). But where a bachelor married a virgin (and thus the son would be the firstborn of both the father and the mother), the firstborn son might take a double portion also in his mother's estate. But Rava concluded that Deuteronomy 21:17 states, "the right of the firstborn is his the," and this indicates that the right of the firstborn applies to a man's estate and not to a woman's. Babylonian Talmud Bava Batra 111a–b.

A midrash told that the Ishmaelites came before Alexander the Great to dispute the birthright with Israel, accompanied by the Canaanites and the Egyptians. The Ishmaelites based their claim on Deuteronomy 21:17, "But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated," and Ishmael was the firstborn. Gebiah the son of Kosem representing the Jews, asked Alexander whether a man could not do as he wished to his sons. When Alexander replied that a man could, Gebiah quoted Genesis 25:5, "And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac." The Ishmaelites asked where the deed of gift to his other sons was. Gebiah replied by quoting Genesis 25:7, "But to the sons of the concubines, whom Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts." Thereupon the Ishmaelites departed in shame.Genesis Rabbah 61:7.

The Mishnah interpreted the words "a son" in Deuteronomy 21:18 to teach that provision applied to "a son," but not a daughter, and to "a son," but not a full-grown man. The Mishnah exempted a minor because minors did not come within the scope of the commandments. And the Mishnah deduced that a boy became liable to being considered "a stubborn and rebellious son" from the time that he grew two genital pubic hairs until his pubic hair grew around his genitalia. Mishnah Sanhedrin 8:1; Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 68b. Rav Judah taught in Abba Arikha's name that Deuteronomy 21:18 implied that the son had to be nearly a man. Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 68b.

The Mishnah interpreted the words of Deuteronomy 21:20 to exclude from designation as a "stubborn and rebellious son" a boy who had a parent with any of a number of physical characteristics. The Mishnah interpreted the words "then his father and his mother shall lay hold on him" to exclude a boy if one of his parents had a hand or fingers cut off. The Mishnah interpreted the words "and bring him out" to exclude a boy who had a lame parent. The Mishnah interpreted the words "and they shall say" to exclude a boy who had a parent who could not speak. The Mishnah interpreted the words "this our son" to exclude a boy who had a blind parent. The Mishnah interpreted the words "he will not obey our voice" to exclude a boy who had a deaf parent. Mishnah Sanhedrin 8:4; Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 45b, 71a.

A baraita cited among affirmative precepts not limited to time those regarding returning lost property in Deuteronomy 22:1–3, the dismissal of the mother bird in Deuteronomy 22:6–7, and the building of fences around accessible roofs in Deuteronomy 22:8. Babylonian Talmud Kiddushin 34a.

Rava taught that Deuteronomy 22:3, "And so shall you do with every lost item of your brother," serves to include an obligation to protect one's brother from the loss of his land. Rav Ḥananya replied that a baraita taught that if one saw water that is flowing and coming to inundate another's field, one must establish a barrier before the water in order to preserve the other's field.

The Mishnah read the emphatic words of Exodus 23:5 and Deuteronomy 22:4 to teach that these verses required people to help lift a neighbor's animal even if they lifted it, it fell again, and again, even five times. Mishnah Bava Metzia 2:10; see also Sifre to Deuteronomy, chapter 225, 2:2. If the owner sat down and said, "Since the commandment is on you, if you wish to unload, unload," one was not obligated, for Exodus 23:5 says "with him." But if the owner was aged or sick, one was obligated to lift even without the owner's help. Mishnah Bava Metzia 2:10; Babylonian Talmud Bava Metzia 31a, 32a. The Gemara concluded that Exodus 23:5 and Deuteronomy 22:4 require people to prevent suffering to animals. And the Gemara argued that when the Mishnah exempts the passerby when the owner does not participate in unloading the burden, it means that the passerby is exempt from unloading the burden for free, but is obligated to do so for remuneration. Babylonian Talmud Bava Metzia 32b.

Chapter 12 of tractate Chullin in the Mishnah and Babylonian Talmud interpreted the laws of sending the mother bird away from the nest (, Shiluach haken) in Deuteronomy 22:6–7. Mishnah Chullin 12:1–5; Babylonian Talmud Chullin 138b–42a. The Mishnah read Deuteronomy 22:6–7 to require a person to let the mother bird go again and again, even if the mother bird kept coming back to the nest four or five times. Mishnah Chullin 12:3; Babylonian Talmud Chullin 141a. And the Gemara taught that Deuteronomy 22:6–7 required a person to let the mother bird go even a hundred times.

The Mishnah taught that they silenced (for uttering an unacceptable prayer) one who prayed that God extend God's mercy to us just as Deuteronomy 22:6–7 extends God's mercy to a bird's nest. Mishnah Berakhot 5:3.

Tractate Kilayim in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Jerusalem Talmud interpreted the laws of separating diverse species in Deuteronomy 22:9–11. Mishnah Kilayim 1:1–9:10; Tosefta Kilayim 1:1–5:27; Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 1a–84b.

The Mishnah employed the prohibitions of Deuteronomy 22:9, 22:10, and 22:11 to imagine how one could with one action violate up to nine separate commandments. One could (1) plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together (in violation of Deuteronomy 22:10) (2 and 3) that are two animals dedicated to the sanctuary, (4) plowing mixed seeds sown in a vineyard (in violation of Deuteronomy 22:9), (5) during a Shmita (in violation of Leviticus 25:4), (6) on a Festival-day (in violation of, for example, Leviticus 23:7), (7) when the plower is a priest (in violation of Leviticus 21:1) and (8) a Nazirite (in violation of Numbers 6:6) plowing in a contaminated place. Ḥanina ben Ḥakinai said that the plower also may have been wearing a garment of wool and linen (in violation of Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11). They said to him that this would not be in the same category as the other violations. He replied that neither is the Nazirite in the same category as the other violations.; Babylonian Talmud Makkot 21b.

Rabbi Joshua of Siknin taught in the name of Rabbi Levi that the Evil Inclination criticizes four laws as without logical basis, and Scripture uses the expression "statute" (, chok) in connection with each: the laws of (1) a brother's wife (in Deuteronomy 25:5–10), (2) Shaatnez (in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11), (3) the scapegoat (in Leviticus 16), and (4) the Red heifer (in Numbers 19).Numbers Rabbah 19:5.

Leviticus 18:4 calls on the Israelites to obey God's "statutes" (, chukim) and "ordinances" (, mishpatim). The Rabbis in a baraita taught that the "ordinances" (, mishpatim) were commandments that logic would have dictated that we follow even had Scripture not commanded them, like the laws concerning idolatry, adultery, bloodshed, robbery, and blasphemy. And "statutes" (, chukim) were commandments that the Adversary challenges us to violate as beyond reason, like those relating to , shaatnez (in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11); , halizah (in Deuteronomy 25:5–10); purification of the person with skin disease, , tzara'at (in Leviticus 14), and the scapegoat (in Leviticus 16). So that people do not think these "ordinances" (, mishpatim) to be empty acts, in Leviticus 18:4, God says, "I am the Lord," indicating that the Lord made these statutes, and we have no right to question them. Babylonian Talmud Yoma 67b.

Similarly, reading Leviticus 18:4, "My ordinances (, mishpatai) shall you do, and My statutes (, chukotai) shall you keep," the Sifra distinguished "ordinances" (, mishpatim) from "statutes" (, chukim). The term "ordinances" (, mishpatim), taught the Sifra, refers to rules that even had they not been written in the Torah, it would have been entirely logical to write them, like laws pertaining to theft, sexual immorality, idolatry, blasphemy and murder. The term "statutes" (, chukim), taught the Sifra, refers to those rules that the impulse to do evil (, yetzer hara) and the nations of the world try to undermine, like eating pork (prohibited by Leviticus 11:7 and Deuteronomy 14:7–8), wearing wool-linen mixtures (, shatnez, prohibited by Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11), release from levirate marriage (, chalitzah, mandated by Deuteronomy 25:5–10), purification of a person affected by skin disease (, metzora, regulated in Leviticus 13–14), and the goat sent off into the wilderness (the scapegoat, regulated in Leviticus 16). In regard to these, taught the Sifra, the Torah says simply that God legislated them and we have no right to raise doubts about them.Sifra Aharei Mot pereq 13, 194:2:11.

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah taught that people should not say that they do not want to wear a wool-linen mixture (, shatnez, prohibited by Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11), eat pork (prohibited by Leviticus 11:7 and Deuteronomy 14:7–8), or be intimate with forbidden partners (prohibited by Leviticus 18 and 20), but rather should say that they would love to, but God has decreed that they not do so. For in Leviticus 20:26, God says, "I have separated you from the nations to be mine." So one should separate from transgression and accept the rule of Heaven.Sifra Kedoshim pereq 9, 207:2:13.

The Mishnah taught that the fines for rape, seduction, the husband who falsely accused his bride of not having been a virgin (as in Deuteronomy 22:19), and any judicial court matter are not canceled by the Sabbatical year. Mishnah Sheviit 10:2.

Chapter 3 of tractate Nashim in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Babylonian Talmud interpreted the laws of seducers and rapists in Deuteronomy 22:25–29. Mishnah Ketubot 3:1–4:1; Tosefta Ketubot 3:5–7; Babylonian Talmud Ketubot 29a–41b.

Elsewhere, the Mishnah reported that an Ammonite convert named Judah came to the house of study and asked whether he could join the assembly. Rabban Gamaliel forbade him, but Rabbi Joshua permitted him. Rabban Gamaliel quoted Deuteronomy 23:4, "An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord." But Rabbi Joshua asked whether the Ammonites or Moabites were still in their own territory, as Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, had long before conquered and mingled all the nations, as Isaiah 10:1 reports. So they permitted the Ammonite to enter the assembly. Mishnah Yadayim 4:4; see also Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 28a.

Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said that all of Balaam's curses, which God turned into blessings, reverted to curses (and Balaam's intention was eventually fulfilled), except for Balaam's blessing of Israel's synagogues and schoolhouses, for Deuteronomy 23:6 says, "But the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loved you," using the singular "curse," and not the plural "curses" (so that God turned only the first intended curse permanently into a blessing, that concerning synagogues and school-houses, which are destined never to disappear from Israel). Rabbi Joḥanan taught that God reversed every curse that Balaam intended into a blessing. Thus, Balaam wished to curse the Israelites to have no synagogues or schoolhouses, for Numbers 24:5, "How goodly are your tents, O Jacob," refers to synagogues and schoolhouses. Balaam wished that the Shekhinah should not rest upon the Israelites, for in Numbers 24:5, "and your tabernacles, O Israel," the Tabernacle symbolizes the Divine Presence. Balaam wished that the Israelites' kingdom should not endure, for Numbers 24:6, "As the valleys are they spread forth," symbolizes the passing of time. Balaam wished that the Israelites might have no olive trees and vineyards, for in Numbers 24:6, he said, "as gardens by the river's side." Balaam wished that the Israelites' smell might not be fragrant, for in Numbers 24:6, he said, "as the trees of aloes that the Lord has planted." Balaam wished that the Israelites' kings might not be tall, for in Numbers 24:6, he said, "and as cedar trees beside the waters." Balaam wished that the Israelites might not have a king who was the son of a king (and thus that they would have unrest and civil war), for in Numbers 24:6, he said, "He shall pour the water out of his buckets," signifying that one king would descend from another. Balaam wished that the Israelites' kingdom might not rule over other nations, for in Numbers 24:6, he said, "and his seed shall be in many waters." Balaam wished that the Israelites' kingdom might not be strong, for in Numbers 24:6, he said, "and his king shall be higher than Agag. Balaam wished that the Israelites' kingdom might not be awe-inspiring, for in Numbers 24:6, he said, "and his kingdom shall be exalted. Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 105b.

Rabbi Jose noted that the law of Deuteronomy 23:8 rewarded the Egyptians for their hospitality notwithstanding that Genesis 47:6 indicated that the Egyptians befriended the Israelites only for their own benefit. Rabbi Jose concluded that if Providence thus rewarded one with mixed motives, Providence will reward even more one who selflessly shows hospitality to a scholar. Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 63b.

Rabbi Samuel ben Nahman compared the laws of camp hygiene in Deuteronomy 23:10–15 to the case of a High Priest who was walking on the road and met a layman who wanted to walk with him. The High Priest answered the layman that he was a priest and needed to go along a ritually clean path, and that it would thus not be proper for him to walk among graves. The High Priest said that if the layman would come with the priest, it was well and good, but if not, the priest would eventually have to leave the layman and go his own way. So Moses told the Israelites, in the words of Deuteronomy 23:15, "The Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you."Leviticus Rabbah 24:7.

The Mishnah taught that if the time for the recitation of the Shema arrived and a man is impure due to a seminal emission (as discussed in Deuteronomy 23:11), he may contemplate the Shema in his mind, but neither recite the blessings preceding the Shema nor the blessings following it. Over food which, after partaking, one is obligated to recite a blessing, he recites a blessing after, but he does not recite a blessing before. In each of these instances, Rabbi Judah taught that he recites the blessings before and after. Mishnah Berakhot 3:4.

Rabbi Eleazar ben Perata taught that manna counteracted the ill effects of foreign foods on the Israelites. But the Gemara taught after the Israelites complained about the manna in Numbers 21:5, God burdened the Israelites with the walk of three to get outside their camp to answer the call of nature. And it was then that the command of Deuteronomy 23:14, "And you shall have a paddle among your weapons," began to apply to the Israelites. Babylonian Talmud Yoma 75b.

The Mishnah taught that a red cow born by a caesarean section, the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog was invalid for the purposes of Numbers 19. Rabbi Eliezer ruled it valid, as Deuteronomy 23:19 states, "You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the house of the Lord your God," and the red cow was not brought into the house. Mishnah Parah 2:3.

In part by reference to Deuteronomy 23:19, the Gemara interpreted the words in Leviticus 6:2, "This is the law of the burnt offering: It is that which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night into the morning." From the passage, "which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night," the Rabbis deduced that once a thing had been placed upon the altar, it could not be taken down all night. Rabbi Judah taught that the words " This . . . goes up on . . . the altar all night" exclude three things. According to Rabbi Judah, they exclude (1) an animal slaughtered at night, (2) an animal whose blood was spilled, and (3) an animal whose blood was carried out beyond the curtains. Rabbi Judah taught that if any of these things had been placed on the altar, it was brought down. Rabbi Simeon noted that Leviticus 6:2 says "burnt offering." From this, Rabbi Simeon taught that one can only know that a fit burnt offering remained on the altar. But Rabbi Simeon taught that the phrase "the law of the burnt offering" intimates one law for all burnt offerings, namely, that if they were placed on the altar, they were not removed. Rabbi Simeon taught that this law applied to animals that were slaughtered at night, or whose blood was spilt, or whose blood passed out of the curtains, or whose flesh spent the night away from the altar, or whose flesh went out, or were unclean, or were slaughtered with the intention of burning its flesh after time or out of bounds, or whose blood was received and sprinkled by unfit priests, or whose blood was applied below the scarlet line when it should have been applied above, or whose blood was applied above when it should have been applied below, or whose blood was applied outside when it should have been applied within, or whose blood was applied within when it should have been applied outside, or a Passover-offering or a sin-offering that one slaughtered for a different purpose. Rabbi Simeon suggested that one might think that law would also include an animal used for bestiality, set aside for an idolatrous sacrifice or worshipped, a harlot's hire or the price of a dog (as referred to in Deuteronomy 23:19), or a mixed breed, or a trefah (a torn or otherwise disqualified animal), or an animal calved through the cesarean section. But Rabbi Simeon taught that the word " This" serves to exclude these. Rabbi Simeon explained that he included the former in the general rule because their disqualification arose in the sanctuary, while he excluded the latter because their disqualification did not arise in the sanctuary. Babylonian Talmud Zevachim 27b.

Tractates Nedarim and Shevuot in the Mishnah, Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud, and Babylonian Talmud interpreted the laws of vows and oaths in Exodus 20:7, Leviticus 5:1–10 and 19:12, Numbers 30:2–17, and Deuteronomy 23:22–24.; Tosefta Nedarim 1:1–7:8; Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1a–42b; Babylonian Talmud Nedarim 2a–91b; ; Tosefta Shevuot 1:1–6:7; Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 1a–49a; Babylonian Talmud Shevuot 2a–49b.

The Rabbis taught that Providence examines one's record of deeds on three occasions: (1) if one goes on a journey alone, (2) if one sits in an unstable house, and (3) if one vows and does not fulfill one's vow. The midrash taught that we know about the problem of vowing and not paying from Deuteronomy 23:22, "When you vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shalt not be slack to pay it"; and from Proverbs 20:25, "It is a snare to a man rashly to say, 'Holy,' and after vows to make inquiry." If one delays paying one's vow, Providence examines one's record, and the angels assume a prosecutorial stance, and scrutinize one's sins. The midrash illustrated this by noting that when Jacob left Canaan for to Aram-Naharaim, Genesis 28:20 reports, "Jacob made a vow." Then he became wealthy, returned, and did not pay his vow. So God brought Esau against him, bent on killing Jacob, and Esau took a huge gift from him of the 200 goats and other gifts reported in Genesis 32:15, yet Jacob did not fulfill his vow. So God brought the angel against him, and the angel wrestled with Jacob but did not kill him, as Genesis 32:25 reports, "Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn." The midrash taught that it was Samael, Esau's guardian angel, who wanted to kill him, as Genesis 32:26 reports, "He saw that he could not prevail against him." But Jacob left disabled. And when Jacob still did not pay his vow, the trouble with Dinah came upon him, as reported in Genesis 34. When Jacob still did not pay his vow, as Genesis 35:19 reports, "Rachel died and was buried." Then God asked how long Jacob would take punishment and not pay attention to the sin for which he suffered. So God told Jacob to go to Bethel, make an altar there, at the very place where Jacob vowed to God.Midrash Tanhuma Vayishlaḥ 8.

Tractate Bava Metzia in the Mishnah, Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud, and Babylonian Talmud interpreted the laws of Deuteronomy 23:25–26 regarding eating the fruit of another's vineyard or field. Mishnah Bava Metzia 7:1–8; Tosefta Bava Metzia 8:3, 6, 8–9; Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 26a–27b; Babylonian Talmud Bava Metzia 83a–93a. The Mishnah taught that a worker could eat or date palm even to a Denarius worth. Rabbi Elazar ben Hisma said that a worker could not eat more than the value of the worker's wages. But the Sages allowed a worker to do so, but advised that they teach the worker not to be so gluttonous as to close the door against the worker's own future employment. Mishnah Bava Metzia 7:5; Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 27a; Babylonian Talmud Bava Metzia 92a; see also Tosefta Bava Metzia 8:8. The Tosefta taught that workers were allowed to eat bread with brine (before working) so that they would (get thirsty and) eat a lot of grapes. But the employer was also allowed to give the workers wine to drink so that they would not eat a lot of grapes.Tosefta Bava Metzia 8:3. And the Tosefta taught that workers who guarded four or five cucumber patches should not fill their bellies from only one of the patches, but should eat a bit from each patch in proportionTosefta Bava Metzia 8:6. The Jerusalem Talmud asked whether Deuteronomy 23:25 applied to anybody who wandered into a field and began to eat. Thus, Deuteronomy 23:25 goes on say, "But you shall not wave a sickle in your neighbor's standing grain," and this encompasses only one who had permission to wave a sickle in the neighbor's standing grain, and that must mean a worker. Issi ben Aqabiah, however, said that Scripture speaks of anybody who enters the field, not just workers. The Jerusalem Talmud explained that Deuteronomy 23:25 says, "But you shall not wave a sickle in your neighbor's standing grain," to teach that one has the right to eat from the crop only during the time that the sickle is being waved, that is, harvest time.Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 19a (2:4). In the Babylonian Talmud, however, Rav objected that Issi's view would not let any farmer remain in business. Babylonian Talmud Bava Metzia 92a. Interpreting the words "until you have enough" in Deuteronomy 23:25, the Gemara in the Babylonian Talmud taught that a worker was not to eat excessively. Interpreting the words "but you shall not put any in your vessel," the Gemara taught that the worker was not to put any in a vessel to take home. Babylonian Talmud Bava Metzia 87b.

The Mishnah interpreted the prohibition of Deuteronomy 24:6, "No man shall take the mill or the upper millstone to pledge," to teach that a creditor who took a mill as security for a loan transgressed a negative commandment and was guilty on account of two forbidden utensils. The Mishnah interpreted Deuteronomy 24:6 to prohibit a creditor from taking in security not only millstones, but everything employed in the preparation of food for human consumption. For the continuation of Deuteronomy 24:6 says of the creditor, "for he takes a man's life to pledge" (and the debtor needs such utensils to prepare the food necessary to sustain life). Mishnah Bava Metzia 9:13; Babylonian Talmud Bava Metzia 115a.

A midrash interpreted the words of Genesis 37:24, "there was no water in it," to teach that there was no recognition of Torah in the pit into which Joseph's brothers cast him, as Torah is likened to water, as Isaiah 55:1 says, "everyone that thirsts, come for water." For the Torah (in Deuteronomy 24:7) says, "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel . . . and sell him, then that thief shall die," and yet Joseph's brothers sold their brother.Genesis Rabbah 84:16.

The Gemara read the emphatic words of Deuteronomy 24:12–13, "you shall surely restore . . . the pledge," repeating the verb in the Hebrew, to teach that Deuteronomy 24:12–13 required a lender to restore the pledge whether or not the lender took the pledge with the court's permission. And the Gemara taught that the Torah provided similar injunctions in Deuteronomy 24:12–13 and Exodus 22:25 to teach that a lender had to return a garment worn during the day before sunrise, and return a garment worn during the night before sunset. Babylonian Talmud Bava Metzia 31b.

Rabbi Eliezer the Great taught that the Torah warns against wronging a stranger in 36, or others say 46, places (including Deuteronomy 24:14–15 and 17–22).See, e.g., ; ; ; ; ; and 17–22; and . The Gemara went on to cite Rabbi Nathan's interpretation of Exodus 22:20, "You shall neither wrong a stranger, nor oppress him; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt," to teach that one must not taunt one's neighbor about a flaw that one has oneself. The Gemara taught that thus a proverb says: If there is a case of hanging in a person's family history, do not say to the person, "Hang up this fish for me." Babylonian Talmud Bava Metzia 59b.

The Mishnah interpreted Leviticus 19:13 and Deuteronomy 24:14–15 to teach that a worker engaged by the day could collect the worker's wages all of the following night. If engaged by the night, the worker could collect the wages all of the following day. If engaged by the hour, the worker could collect the wages all that day and night. If engaged by the week, month, year, or 7-year period, if the worker's time expired during the day, the worker could collect the wages all that day. If the worker's time expired during the night, the worker could collect the wages all that night and the following day. Mishnah Bava Metzia 9:11; Babylonian Talmud Bava Metzia 110b.

The Mishnah taught that the hire of persons, animals, or utensils were all subject to the law of Deuteronomy 24:15 that "in the same day you shall give him his hire" and the law of Leviticus 19:13 that "the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with you all night until the morning." The employer became liable only when the worker or vendor demanded payment from the employer. Otherwise, the employer did not infringe the law. If the employer gave the worker or vendor a draft on a shopkeeper or a money changer, the employer complied with the law. A worker who claimed the wages within the set time could collect payment if the worker merely swore that the employer had not yet paid. But if the set time had passed, the worker's oath was insufficient to collect payment. Yet if the worker had witnesses that the worker had demanded payment (within the set time), the worker could still swear and receive payment. Mishnah Bava Metzia 9:12; Babylonian Talmud Bava Metzia 111a.

The Mishnah taught that the employer of a resident alien was subject to the law of Deuteronomy 24:15 that "in the same day you shall give him his hire" (as Deuteronomy 24:14 refers to the stranger), but not to the law of Leviticus 19:13 that "the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with you all night until the morning."

The Gemara reconciled apparently discordant verses touching on vicarious responsibility. The Gemara noted that Deuteronomy 24:16 states: "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin," but Exodus 20:5 says: "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children." The Gemara cited a baraita that interpreted the words "the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them" in Leviticus 26:39 to teach that God punishes children only when they follow their parents' sins. The Gemara then questioned whether the words "they shall stumble one upon another" in Leviticus 26:37 do not teach that one will stumble through the sin of the other, that all are held responsible for one another. The Gemara answered that the vicarious responsibility of which Leviticus 26:37 speaks is limited to those who have the power to restrain their fellow from evil but do not do so. Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 27b.

Reading the words of Deuteronomy 24:17, "You shall not take a widow's raiment to pledge," the Mishnah taught that a person may not take a pledge from a widow whether she is rich or poor. The Gemara explained that Rabbi Judah (reading the text literally) expounded the view that no pledge may be taken from her whether she is rich or poor. Rabbi Simeon, however, (addressing the purpose of the text) taught that a wealthy widow was subject to distraint, but not a poor one, for the creditor was bound (by Deuteronomy 24:12–13) to return the pledge to her, and would bring her into disrepute among her neighbors (by her frequent visits to the creditor). Babylonian Talmud Bava Metzia 115a, Sanhedrin 21a; see also Sifre to Deuteronomy 281.

Tractate Peah in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Jerusalem Talmud interpreted the laws of the harvest of the corner of the field and gleanings to be given to the poor in Leviticus 19:9–10 and 23:22, and Deuteronomy 24:19–22.; Tosefta Peah 1:1–4:21; Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1a–73b.

The Mishnah and the Tosefta taught that the Torah sets no upper limit for the donation of the corners of one's field to the poor.; Tosefta Peah 1:1; Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1a. But the Mishnah also taught that one should not make the amount left to the poor less than one-sixtieth of the entire crop. And even though no definite amount is given, the amount given should accord with the size of the field, the number of poor people, and the extent of the yield.; Jerusalem Talmud Peah 10b.

Rabbi Eliezer taught that one who cultivates land in which one can plant a quarter kav of seed is obligated to give a corner to the poor. Rabbi Joshua said land that yields two seah of grain. Rabbi Tarfon said land of at least six handbreadths by six handbreadths. Rabbi Judah ben Betera said land that requires two strokes of a sickle to harvest, and the law is as he spoke. Rabbi Akiva said that one who cultivates land of any size is obligated to give a corner to the poor and the firstfruits.; Jerusalem Talmud Peah 31a.

The Mishnah taught that the poor could enter a field to collect three times a day—in the morning, at midday, and in the afternoon. Rabban Gamaliel taught that they said this only so that landowners should not reduce the number of times that the poor could enter. Rabbi Akiva taught that they said this only so that landowners should not increase the number of times that the poor had to enter. The landowners of Beit Namer used to harvest along a rope and allowed the poor to collect a corner from every row.; Jerusalem Talmud Peah 36b.

The Mishnah defined "a defective cluster (, olelet)" within the meaning of Leviticus 19:10 and Deuteronomy 24:21 to mean any cluster that had neither a shoulder nor a dangling portion (but rather was entirely attached to the main stem). If the cluster had a shoulder or a dangling portion, it belonged to the property owner, but if there was a doubt, it belonged to the poor. A cluster that was attached to the joint between branches or the stem and the trunk, if it was plucked with the grape cluster, it belonged to the property owner; if not, it belonged to the poor. Rabbi Judah said that a single-grape cluster was a cluster, but the Sages said that it was a defective cluster (and thus belonged to the poor). Mishnah Peah 7:4.

The Mishnah taught that if a wife foreswore all benefit from other people, her husband could not annul his wife's vow, but she could still benefit from the gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field that Leviticus 19:9–10 and 23:22, and Deuteronomy 24:19–21 commanded farmers to leave for the poor..

Noting that the discussion of gifts to the poor in Leviticus 23:22 appears between discussions of the festivals—Passover and Shavuot on one side, and Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur on the other—Rabbi Avardimos ben Rabbi Yossi said that this teaches that people who give immature clusters of grapes (as in Leviticus 19:10 and Deuteronomy 24:21), the forgotten sheaf (as in Deuteronomy 24:19), the corner of the field (as in Leviticus 19:9 and 23:22), and the poor tithe (as in Deuteronomy 14:28 and 26:12) is accounted as if the Temple existed and they offered up their sacrifices in it. And for those who do not give to the poor, it is accounted to them as if the Temple existed and they did not offer up their sacrifices in it. Sifra Emor chapter 13 (233:2).

Interpreting the laws of Levirite marriage (, yibbum) under Deuteronomy 25:5–6, the Gemara read Exodus 21:4 to address a Hebrew slave who married the Master's Canaanite slave, and deduced from Exodus 21:4 that the children of such a marriage were also considered Canaanite slaves and thus that their lineage flowed from their mother, not their father. The Gemara used this analysis of Exodus 21:4 to explain why Mishnah Yevamot 2:5 Mishnah Yevamot 2:5; Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 22a. taught that the son of a Canaanite slave mother does not impose the obligation of Levirite marriage (, yibbum) under Deuteronomy 25:5–6. Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 22b.

Chapter 3 in tractate Makkot in the Mishnah and Babylonian Talmud interpreted the laws of punishment by lashes in Deuteronomy 25:1–3.; Babylonian Talmud Makkot 13a–24b.

The Gemara interpreted Deuteronomy 25:13–15 to teach that both one's wealth and one's necessities depend on one's honesty. Babylonian Talmud Bava Batra 89a.

Reading Deuteronomy 25:15, Rabbi Levi taught that blessed actions bless those who are responsible for them, and cursed actions curse those who are responsible for them. The midrash interpreted the words of Deuteronomy 25:15, "A perfect and just weight you shall have," to mean that if one acts justly, one will have something to take and something to give, something to buy and something to sell. Conversely, the midrash read Deuteronomy 25:13–14 to teach, "You shall not have (possessions if there are) in your bag diverse weights, a great and a small. You shall not have (possessions if there are) in your house diverse measures, a great and a small." Thus, if one does employ deceitful measures, one will not have anything to take or give, to buy or sell. The midrash taught that God tells businesspeople that they "may not make" one measure great and another small, but if they do, they "will not make" a profit. The midrash likened this commandment to that of Exodus 20:20, "You shall not make with Me gods of silver, or gods of gold, you shall not make," for if a person did make gods of silver and gold, then that person would not be able to afford to have even gods of wood or stone.Leviticus Rabbah 15:7.

Rabbi Levi taught that the punishment for false weights or measures (discussed at Deuteronomy 25:13–16) was more severe than that for having intimate relations with forbidden relatives (discussed at Leviticus 18:6–20). For in discussing the case of forbidden relatives, Leviticus 18:27 uses the Hebrew word , eil, for the word "these," whereas in the case of false weights or measures, Deuteronomy 25:16 uses the Hebrew word , eileh, for the word "these" (and the additional , eh at the end of the word implies additional punishment.) The Gemara taught that one can derive that , eil, implies rigorous punishment from Ezekiel 17:13, which says, "And the mighty (, eilei) of the land he took away." The Gemara explained that the punishments for giving false measures are greater than those for having relations with forbidden relatives because for forbidden relatives, repentance is possible (as long as there have not been children), but with false measure, repentance is impossible (as one cannot remedy the sin of robbery by mere repentance; the return of the things robbed must precede it, and in the case of false measures, it is practically impossible to find out all the members of the public who have been defrauded). Babylonian Talmud Bava Batra 88b; see also Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 21a.

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught that the words of Leviticus 19:35, "You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment," apply to judgment in law. But a midrash noted that Leviticus 19:15 already mentioned judgment in law and questioned why Leviticus 19:35 would state the same proposition again and why Leviticus 19:35 uses the words, "in judgment, in measures." The midrash deduced that Leviticus 19:35 teaches that a person who measures is called a judge, and one who falsifies measurements is called by the five names "unrighteous," "hated," "repulsive," "accursed," and an "abomination," and is the cause of these five evils. Rabbi Banya said in the name of Rav Huna that the government comes and attacks that generation whose measures are false. The midrash found support for this from Proverbs 11:1, "A false balance is an abomination to the Lord," which is followed by Proverbs 11:2, "When presumption comes, then comes shame." Reading Micah 6:11, "Shall I be pure with wicked balances?" Rabbi Berekiah said in the name of Rabbi Abba that it is impossible for a generation whose measures are false to be meritorious, for Micah 6:11 continues, "And with a bag of deceitful weights" (showing that their holdings would be merely illusory). Rabbi Levi taught that Moses also hinted to Israel that a generation with false measures would be attacked. Deuteronomy 25:13–14 warns, "You shall not have in your bag diverse weights . . . you shall not have in your house diverse measures." But if one does, one will be attacked, as Deuteronomy 25:16, reports, "For all who do such things, even all who do unrighteously, are an abomination to the Lord your God," and then immediately following, Deuteronomy 25:17 says, "Remember what Amalek did to you (attacking Israel) by the way as you came forth out of Egypt."Ruth Rabbah 1:2.

Rabbi Judah said that three commandments were given to the Israelites when they entered the land: (1) the commandment of Deuteronomy 17:14–15 to appoint a king, (2) the commandment of Deuteronomy 25:19 to blot out Amalek, and (3) the commandment of Deuteronomy 12:10–11 to build the Temple in Jerusalem. Rabbi Nehorai, on the other hand, said that Deuteronomy 17:14–15 did not command the Israelites to choose a king, but was spoken only in anticipation of the Israelites' future complaints, as Deuteronomy 17:14 says, "And (you) shall say, 'I will set a king over me.'" Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 20b.

Reading Deuteronomy 22:1–3, Maimonides taught that if a person sees a lost object and the person's father says not to return it, the person should return it instead of obeying the person's father. For by obeying the father and fulfilling the positive commandment "Honor your father" in Exodus 20:12, the person would violate the positive commandment "And you shall certainly return it" as well as the negative commandment "You may not ignore it."Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Gezelah Va'Avedah (The Laws of Robbery and Lost Property), chapter 11, halachah 19 (Egypt, circa 1170–1180), in, e.g., Eliyahu Touger, translator, Mishneh Torah: Sefer Nezikin: The Book of Damages (New York: Moznaim Publishing, 1997). And reading Deuteronomy 22:3, " All objects lost by your colleague," Maimonides taught that if a person sees flood waters coming that will ruin a building or a field belonging to a colleague, the person is obligated to put up a barrier before the waters to check them. Maimonides said that the mention of "All" in Deuteronomy 22:3 includes the devastation of property.Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Gezelah Va'Avedah (The Laws of Robery and Lost Property), chapter 11, halachah 20, in, e.g., Eliyahu Touger, translator, Mishneh Torah: Sefer Nezikin: The Book of Damages.

Maimonides wrote that the object of the law of restoring lost property to its owner in Deuteronomy 22:1–3 is plain. In the first instance, it is a good feature in a person's character. Secondly, its benefit is mutual: For if a person does not return the lost property of another, nobody will restore to the person what the person may lose, just as those who do not honor their parents cannot expect to be honored by their children.Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, (Cairo, Egypt, 1190), in, e.g., Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, translated by Michael Friedländer (New York: Dover Publications, 1956), page 343.

The Sefer ha-Chinuch also taught that the root of Deuteronomy 22:1–3 is plain—as there is in it a benefit to all, and to the ordering of the state, as all people are forgetful, and their animals flee here and there. The Sefer ha-Chinuch argued that with this commandment in place, beasts and vessels will be safe anywhere in the holy land as if they were under the hand of their owners. Sefer ha-Chinuch, precept 538. Spain, 13th century, in, e.g., Sefer HaHinnuch: The Book of Mitzvah Education. Translated by Charles Wengrov, volume 5. Jerusalem and New York: Feldheim Publishers, 1988.

Nachmanides noted that Deuteronomy 22:2 says, "your brother's," while the parallel commandment in Exodus 23:4 states, "your enemy's," and Exodus 23:5 says, "of him who hates you." Nachmanides taught that Scripture thus means to say, "Do this for him (in assisting him), and remember the brotherhood between you and forget the hatred."Naḥmanides, Commentary on the Torah (Jerusalem, circa 1270), in, e.g., Charles B. Chavel, translator, Ramban (Nachmanides): Commentary on the Torah: Deuteronomy (New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1976), volume 5, page 265.

Similarly, Bahya ben Asher noted the parallel between Deuteronomy 22:1–3 and Exodus 23:5. Bahya concluded that Deuteronomy 22:1–3 thus promises that if you assist your enemy with his falling donkey, he will eventually appreciate you and become "your brother." When you assist him, he will forget the "hatred" between you and only remember the bond of love that unites brothers. Bahya taught that there is more to the commandment to restore lost property than merely the act of restoring it. If one can perform a useful service for one's fellow and to thereby protect one's fellow against loss, this is part of the commandment. Bahya also found in Deuteronomy 22:1–3 encouragement regarding the resurrection, reading that God will practice this commandment personally by restoring the souls of the departed bodies to their original owners after the arrival of the Messiah. Noting that Deuteronomy 22:3 continues, "You must not hide yourself," Bahya found the moral lesson: Do not hide yourself from God, so that when the time comes, God will not hide from you.Bahya ben Asher, Commentary on the Torah (Spain, early 14th century), in, e.g., Eliyahu Munk, translator, Midrash Rabbeinu Bachya: Torah Commentary by Rabbi Bachya ben Asher (Jerusalem: Lambda Publishers, 2003), volume 7, pages 2625–27.

Maimonides read Deuteronomy 22:4, "You shall not see your brother's ass or his ox fallen down by the way, and hide yourself from them; you shall surely help him to lift them up again," together with Exodus 23:5, "If you see the ass of him that hates you lying under its burden, you shall forbear to pass by him; you shall surely release it with him."Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Rotze'ach USh'mirat Nefesh (The Laws of Murder and the Protection of Human Life), chapter 13, in, e.g., Eliyahu Touger, translator, Mishneh Torah: Sefer Nezikin: The Book of Damages (New York: Moznaim Publishing, 1997), pages 596–607. Maimonides taught that when a person encounters a colleague on a journey and the colleague's animal has fallen under its load, Exodus 23:5 commands the person to unload the burden from it, whether or not the animal was carrying an appropriate burden for it.Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Rotze'ach USh'mirat Nefesh (The Laws of Murder and the Protection of Human Life), chapter 13, halachah 1, in, e.g., Eliyahu Touger, translator, Mishneh Torah: Sefer Nezikin: The Book of Damages, pages 596–97. Maimonides interpreted Deuteronomy 22:4 to command that one should not unload the animal and depart, leaving the wayfarer in panic, but one should lift up the animal together with its owner, and reload the animal's burden on it.Maimonides. Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Rotze'ach USh'mirat Nefesh (The Laws of Murder and the Protection of Human Life), chapter 13, halachah 2, in, e.g., Mishneh Torah: Sefer Nezikin: The Book of Damages. Translated by Eliyahu Touger, pages 596–99. Maimonides taught that the general principle is that if the animal were one's own and one would unload and reload it, one is obligated to unload and reload it for a colleague. If one is pious and goes beyond the measure of the law, even if one is a great prince, and sees an animal belonging to a colleague fallen under a load of straw, reeds or the like, one should unload and load it with its owner.Maimonides. Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Rotze'ach USh'mirat Nefesh (The Laws of Murder and the Protection of Human Life), chapter 13, halachah 4, in, e.g., Mishneh Torah: Sefer Nezikin: The Book of Damages. Translated by Eliyahu Touger, pages 598–99. Maimonides interpreted the intensified form of the verbs in Exodus 23:5 and Deuteronomy 22:4 to indicate that if one unloaded and reloaded the animal, and it fell again, one is obligated to unload and reload it another time, indeed even 100 times. Thus, one must accompany the animal for a distance thereafter, unless the owner of the burden says that it is not necessary.Maimonides. Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Rotze'ach USh'mirat Nefesh (The Laws of Murder and the Protection of Human Life), chapter 13, halachah 5, in, e.g., Mishneh Torah: Sefer Nezikin: The Book of Damages. Translated by Eliyahu Touger, pages 598–600. Maimonides read Exodus 23:5 to obligate one when one sees the fallen animal in a way that can be described as an encounter, for Exodus 23:5 says, "When you see your colleague's donkey," and Exodus 23:4 says, "When you encounter . . . ."Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Rotze'ach USh'mirat Nefesh (The Laws of Murder and the Protection of Human Life), chapter 13, halachah 6, in, e.g., Eliyahu Touger, translator, Mishneh Torah: Sefer Nezikin: The Book of Damages, pages 598–600. Maimonides taught that if one finds an animal belonging to a colleague fallen under its load, it is a commandment to unload and reload it even if its owner is not present, for the words "You shall certainly help" and "You shall certainly lift up" imply that one must fulfill these commandments in all situations. Maimonides said that Exodus 23:5 says, "together with him" (that is, the animal's owner) to teach that if the owner of the animal was there and goes off to the side and relies on the passerby to unload it alone because the passerby is subject to a commandment, then the passerby is not obligated. If the owner of the animal is old or ailing, however, the passerby is obligated to load and unload the animal alone.Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Rotze'ach USh'mirat Nefesh (The Laws of Murder and the Protection of Human Life), chapter 13, halachah 8, in, e.g., Eliyahu Touger, translator, Mishneh Torah: Sefer Nezikin: The Book of Damages, pages 600–01.

Maimonides taught that Deuteronomy 22:6–7 enjoins that one should let the mother fly away when one takes the young to prevent pain to the mother bird. Maimonides argued that there is no difference between the pain of humans and animals. Maimonides concluded that if the Torah provides that we should not cause such grief to animals, how much more careful should we be not to cause grief to other people.Maimonides, , in, e.g., Moses Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, translated by Michael Friedländer, pages 371–72.

Rabbi David Kimhi stated that a parapet (Deuteronomy 22:8) needed to be "ten hands high, or more, that a person might not fall from it". Sefer Hashorashim, quoted in Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible on Deuteronomy 22, accessed 25 December 2015

David Wolpe said that although the law of the beautiful captive is barbaric by the ethical standards of the 21st century, it was ahead of its time by the ethical standards of antiquity. The law, according to Wolpe, indicates that the Torah distrusts people to control their sexual urges towards people over whom they hold power.Wolpe, David. "Ki Teitzei - A Jewish Approach to the Church Abuse Scandal." Sinai Temple Los Angeles. 25 August 2018. Sermon.

Writing for the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of Conservative Judaism, Elliot N. Dorff and Aaron L. Mackler relied on Deuteronomy 22:2, among other verses, to find a duty to help see that our society provides health care to those who need it. Dorff and Mackler noted that the Rabbis found the authorization and requirement to heal in several verses, including Exodus 21:19–20, according to which an assailant must ensure that his victim is "thoroughly healed," and Deuteronomy 22:2, "And you shall restore the lost property to him." Dorff and Mackler reported that on the basis of an extra letter in the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 22:2, the Talmud declared that Deuteronomy 22:2 includes the obligation to restore another person's body as well as his or her property, and hence there is an obligation to come to the aid of someone in a life-threatening situation.Elliot N. Dorff and Aaron L. Mackler, "Responsibilities for the Provision of Health Care," YD 336:1.1998, in Kassel Abelson and David J. Fine, editors, Responsa: 1991–2000: The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Conservative Movement (New York: Rabbinical Assembly, 2002), pages 319–36.

Joseph Telushkin noted that the Torah three times promises long life for obeying commandments—Exodus 20:11 and Deuteronomy 22:6–7 and 25:15—and all three involve issues of ethics and kindness.Joseph Telushkin, A Code of Jewish Ethics: Volume 1: You Shall Be Holy (New York: Bell Tower, 2007), pages 13–14 (citing Maimonides, Guide to the Perplexed, part 3, chapter 48, on ).

William Dever noted that most of the 100 linen and wool fragments, likely textiles used for cultic purposes, that archeologists found at Kuntillet Ajrud in the Sinai Peninsula (where the climate may better preserve organic materials) adhered to the regulations in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11.William G. Dever. The Lives of Ordinary People in Ancient Israel: When Archaeology and the Bible Intersect, page 178 and note 43. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012.

In April 2014, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of Conservative Judaism ruled that women are now equally responsible for observing commandments as men have been, and that women are thus responsible for the mitzvah of wearing tzitzit, as commanded in Deuteronomy 22:12.Pamela Barmash, "Women and Mitzvot," Y.D. 246:6 (New York: Rabbinical Assembly, 2014).

• To keep the of the captive woman.
• Not to sell the captive woman into slavery
• Not to retain the captive woman for servitude after having relations with her
• The must Hanging those stoned for blasphemy or idolatry..
• To bury the executed on the day that they die.
• Not to delay burial overnight
• To return a lost object to its owner.
• Not to turn a Blindness eye to a lost object.
• Not to leave another's beast lying under its burden
• To lift up a load for a Jew
• Women must not wear men's clothing.
• Men must not wear women's clothing.
• Not to take the mother bird from her children.
• To release the mother bird if she was taken from the nest.
• To build a parapet
• Not to leave a stumbling block about
• Not to plant grains or greens in a vineyard
• Not to eat diverse seeds planted in a vineyard
• Not to do Manual labour with two kinds of animals together
• Not to wear cloth of wool and linen
• To marry a wife by means of ketubah and kiddushin.
• The slanderer must remain married to his wife.
• The slanderer must not divorce his wife.
• The court must have anyone who merits stoning stoned to death..
• Not to Punishment anyone compelled to commit a transgression.
• The seducer must marry his partner if she chooses..
• The seducer is not allowed to divorce his partner.
• Not to let a eunuch marry into the Jewish people
• Not to let the child of a prohibited union (, mamzer) marry into the Jewish people
• Not to let Moabite and Ammonite men marry into the Jewish people
• Not to ever offer peace to Moab or Ammon.
• Not to exclude a third generation Edomite convert from marrying into the Jewish people.
• To exclude Egyptian converts from marrying into the Jewish people only for the first two generations
• A ritually unclean person should not enter the camp of the Levites..
• To prepare a place of easement in a camp.
• To prepare a boring-stick or spade for easement in a camp.
• Not to return a slave who fled into Israel from his master abroad.
• Not to oppress a slave who fled into Israel from his master abroad.
• Not to have relations with women not married by means of ketubah and kiddushin.
• Not to bring the wage of a harlot or the exchange price of a dog as a korban.
• Not to borrow at interest from a Jew.
• To lend at interest to a non-Jew if the non-Jew needs a loan, but not to a Jew.
• Not to be tardy with vowed and voluntary offerings.
• To fulfill whatever goes out from one's mouth.
• To allow a hired worker to eat certain foods while under hire
• That a hired hand should not raise a sickle to another's standing grain
• That a hired hand is forbidden to eat from the employer's crops during work
• To issue a divorce by means of a get document.
• A man must not remarry his ex-wife after she has married someone else..
• Not to demand from the bridegroom any involvement, communal or military during the first year
• To give him who has taken a wife, built a new home, or planted a vineyard a year to rejoice therewith
• Not to demand as collateral Cutlery needed for preparing food
• The metzora must not remove his signs of impurity..
• The creditor must not forcibly take collateral..
• Not to delay return of collateral when needed.
• To return the collateral to the debtor when needed.
• To pay wages on the day that they were earned.
• Relatives of the litigants must not Testimony.
• A judge must not pervert a case involving a convert or orphan..
• Not to demand collateral from a widow
• To leave the forgotten sheaves in the field
• Not to retrieve the forgotten sheaves
• The precept of whiplashes for the wicked.
• The court must not exceed the prescribed number of lashes..
• Not to muzzle an ox while plowing
• The widow must not remarry until the ties with her brother-in-law are removed..
• To marry a childless brother's widow (to do yibum)
• To free a widow from yibum (to do , chalitzah).
• To save someone being pursued by a killer, even by taking the life of the pursuer.
• To have no mercy on a pursuer with intent to kill
• Not to possess inaccurate Weighing scale and weights even if they are not for use.
• To remember what Amalek did to the Jewish people.
• To wipe out the descendants of Amalek
• Not to forget Amalek's atrocities and ambush on the Israelites' journey from Egypt in the desert

Following the Shacharit morning Jewish prayer, some Jews recite the Six Remembrances, among which is Deuteronomy 24:9, "Remember what the Lord your God did to Miriam by the way as you came forth out of Egypt," recalling that God punished Miriam with skin disease (, tzara'at). The Schottenstein Edition Siddur for Weekdays with an Interlinear Translation. Edited by Menachem Davis, page 241. Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 2002. Yosaif Asher Weiss. A Daily Dose of Torah, volume 7, pages 139–40. Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 2007.

• Genesis 14:7 (Amalekites); 29:30–31 (two wives, one loved and one unloved); 36:12 (Amalek); 36:16 (Amalek); 38:1–26 (levirate marriage).
• Exodus 17:8–16 (Amalek); 20:4 (punishing children for fathers' sin), 20:7 (vows); 22:25 (restoring a pledged garment); 28:29–42 (the priests' linen vestments); 34:7 (punishing children for fathers' sin); 39:2–29 (making the priests' linen vestments).
• Leviticus 5:1–10 (vows); 6:3 (priest wearing linen); 16:4–33 (high priest wearing linen); 19:12 (vows); 19:13 (paying what is due by sundown); 19:36 (just balances, weights, and measures).
• Numbers 14:18 (punishing children for fathers' sin); 30:2–17 (vows).
• Deuteronomy 5:9 (punishing children for fathers' sin); 24:16 ( no capital punishment of children for fathers' sin).
• 1 Samuel 2:18 (priest wearing linen); 22:18 (priests wearing linen).
• 2 Samuel 6:14 (David wearing linen in worship).
• 1 Kings 1:15-31 (favoring the son of the favored wife over the firstborn in inheritance).
• Jeremiah 22:13–14 (labor without compensation); 31:29–30 ( not punishing children for fathers' sin).
• Ezekiel 9:2–10:76 (holy man clad in linen); 18:1–4 ( not punishing children for fathers' sin); 18:5–7 (the just restore pledges); 44:17–18 (priests wearing linen).
• Ruth 4:1–13 (levirate marriage).
• Esther 3:1 (Agagite read as Amalekite via Numbers 24:7).
• Daniel 10:5 (holy man clad in linen); 12:6–7 (holy man clad in linen).
• Psalms 15:5 (lending without interest); 36:2 (the wicked do not fear God); 45:11 (daughter, forget your father's house); 61:9 (performing vows); 66:13 (performing vows); 106:31 (counted for righteousness); 145:9 (God's mercies over all God's works).
• 1 Chronicles 15:27 (David and Levites wearing linen in worship).
• 2 Chronicles 5:12 (Levites wearing linen in worship).

• Law Code of Gortyn. Columns 7–8. Crete, circa 480–450 BCE. In, e.g., Adonis S. Vasilakis. The Great Inscription of the Law Code of Gortyn. Heraklion, Greece: Mystis O.E. (marriage of an heiress).

• Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews book 4, chapter 8, paragraphs 9, 11, 20–21, 23–27, 29, 38–44. Circa 93–94. In, e.g., The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, New Updated Edition. Translated by William Whiston, pages 116–24. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987.
• Gaius Julius Hyginus. Fabulae 95. 1st–2nd century CE. (reporting the myth of how Odysseus (Ulysses) plowed with ox and horse together to show himself insane).
• Quran ; . Arabia, 7th century. (Islam's parallel prohibition of interest, or riba).

• Mishnah: ; Kilayim 1:1–9:10; Sheviit 10:2; Terumot 8:1; 9:3; Shekalim 1:1; Megillah 3:4; ; Ketubot 3:1–4:1, 3; ; Sotah 6:3; 7:2, 4; 8:4; Gittin 1:1–9:10; Bava Kamma 5:7; 8:1; Bava Metzia 1:1–2:11; 9:11–13; Bava Batra 8:4–5; ; ; 6:4; 7:9; 8:1–7; 11:1; ; ; Chullin 12:1–5; Bekhorot 8:7, 9; Arakhin 3:1, 4–5; Temurah 6:3–4; Parah 2:3; Yadayim 4:4. Land of Israel, circa 200 CE. In, e.g., The Mishnah: A New Translation. Translated by Jacob Neusner, pages 14–36, 49–68, 91, 110, 113, 251, 321, 337–78, 381–85, 406–30, 457, 461, 466–87, 515, 520, 528–34, 554–55, 574–75, 583, 585, 595, 599–602, 607, 616–39, 785–807, 812–13, 834, 1014–15, 1129. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.
• Sifre to Deuteronomy 211:1–296:6. Land of Israel, circa 250–350 CE. In, e.g., Sifre to Deuteronomy: An Analytical Translation. Translated by Jacob Neusner, volume 2, pages 111–266. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.
• Tosefta: Berakhot 5:14; Peah 1:1–4:21; Kilayim 1:1–5:27; Maasrot 3:12; Megillah 3:2, 25; Yevamot 1:1–14:10; Ketubot 3:1–4:1; Nedarim 1:1–7:8; Sotah 5:9; 7:20; Gittin 1:1–7:13; Kiddushin 5:4; Bava Kamma 8:10; Bava Metzia 1:1–2:33; 8:7; 10:3, 8, 10–11; Bava Batra 5:7; Sanhedrin 4:1; 7:4; 9:7; Makkot 1:7; 5:14, 17; Shevuot 1:1–6:7; Bekhorot 6:1; Negaim 1:7; 3:2; 6:2; Parah 2:2; Yadayim 2:17. Land of Israel, circa 250 CE. In, e.g., The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew, with a New Introduction. Translated by Jacob Neusner, volume 1, pages 31, 61, 65, 75, 292, 644, 650, 707, 720, 725, 731, 752, 785–805, 852, 866, 899–901, 920, 943; volume 2, pages 997, 1023–30, 1067, 1084, 1086, 1115, 1155, 1169, 1177, 1201, 1218–44, 1486, 1711, 1717, 1730, 1748, 1908. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002.
• Jerusalem Talmud: Berakhot 54b, 59b; Peah 1a–73b; Demai 14a; Kilayim 1a–84b; Terumot 2a, 8a, 12a, 32a, 62a–63b; Maasrot 19a–20a; Challah 8b, 16a; Orlah 20a; Bikkurim 6b; Shabbat 24a, 79a, 86a; Eruvin 35a; Pesachim 13b; Yoma 41b, 53b; Rosh Hashanah 3b, 5b; Moed Katan 14a; Chagigah 1b, 10b; Yevamot 1a–88b; Ketubot 16b, 17b–18b, 20b–22a, 23b, 24b–25a, 26a–27a, 28a, 29a, 30a; Nedarim 1a–42b; Nazir 21a, 29a, 36a–b, 38a; Sotah 1a–b, 6b–7a, 10a, 11b, 12b–13a, 19b–20a, 28b, 30a, 32a, 41b–42a, 43a, 45a; Gittin 1a–53b; Kiddushin 1a–b, 2b, 4b, 5b, 11a, 16b, 21b–22a; Bava Kamma 22b, 27a, 31a; Bava Metzia 1a–8b, 26b–27a, 32b–33b; Bava Batra 19a, 26a, 27a; Sanhedrin 22a–23a, 35b, 36b, 43b–44a, 49a–b, 50b–52b, 55b, 57a, 62b, 70a–71a, 75a; Makkot 1a, 8b, 11a; Shevuot 1a–49a; Avodah Zarah 1a. Tiberias, Land of Israel, circa 400 CE. In, e.g., Talmud Yerushalmi. Edited by Chaim Malinowitz, Yisroel Simcha Schorr, and Mordechai Marcus, volumes 2–5, 7–9, 11–13, 15, 17–18, 21, 24, 27–31, 33–35, 37–47, 49. Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 2006–2020. And in, e.g., The Jerusalem Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. Edited by Jacob Neusner and translated by Jacob Neusner, Tzvee Zahavy, B. Barry Levy, and Edward Goldman. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.
• Genesis Rabbah 17:7; 19:12; 20:7; 41:3; 43:9; 45:6; 48:16; 52:2, 5; 55:3; 61:7; 63:12; 65:2; 74:7, 15; 76:6; 81:2; 84:16; 85:5; 87:5; 94:9; 99:2. Land of Israel, 5th century. In, e.g., Midrash Rabbah: Genesis. Translated by Harry Freedman and Maurice Simon, volume 1, pages 137–38, 157–58, 165–66, 334–35, 358–59, 384, 416, 451, 453, 483; volume 2, pages 545–46, 567, 581, 680, 686–87, 705–06, 745–46, 781–82, 792, 808, 879, 975. London: Soncino Press, 1939.
• Leviticus Rabbah 24:7. Land of Israel, 5th century. In, e.g., Midrash Rabbah: Leviticus. Translated by Harry Freedman and Maurice Simon, volume 4, pages 309–10. London: Soncino Press, 1939.
• Babylonian Talmud: Berakhot 7a, 19b, 21b–22a, 25a–b, 28a, 33b, 35a, 55b, 63b; Shabbat 15a, 23a, 25b, 27a, 29b, 32a, 50b, 54a, 56a, 66a, 132b–33a, 136a, 139a, 144b, 150a; Eruvin 13b, 15b; Pesachim 3a, 25a–b, 26b, 31b, 41b, 68a, 72b, 90a, 98a, 116b; Yoma 13b, 36a, 67b, 74b, 81a, 82a; Sukkah 9a, 24b, 29a; Beitzah 3b, 8b, 14b, 19b, 24b, 36b; Rosh Hashanah 4a, 5b–6b; Taanit 6b; Megillah 3b, 6b–7b, 8a, 18a, 25a, 29a; Moed Katan 2a–b, 4b, 8b, 9b, 14b, 18b, 21a, 25b; Chagigah 2b, 3b–4a, 15a, 16b; Yevamot 2a–122b; Ketubot 2b, 5a, 6b, 7b, 9a, 10a–11b, 22a, 29a–41b, 42b–43a, 44a–47a, 48b–49a, 51b, 53b–54a, 66a, 72a, 74a, 77a–b, 80a, 82a–b; Nedarim 2a–91b; Nazir 2a, 23b, 30b, 37a, 41b, 58a, 59a, 66a; Sotah 2b, 3b, 5b, 9a, 16a, 18b, 20b–21b, 23a–25a, 26b, 31b, 33a, 35b, 43a–45a; Gittin 2a–90b; Kiddushin 2a–b, 3b–5a, 6a, 7a, 8b, 9a–10a, 11b, 13b–14a, 21b, 23a, 24b, 29b, 33b–34a, 40a, 41a, 44a, 51a, 56b, 63a–64a, 65b, 67a–69a, 70a, 72b, 74a, 75a, 76a–77a, 78a–b; Bava Kamma 4b–5a, 8a, 15b, 25a, 27a, 28a–b, 38b, 42a, 43a, 46a, 51a, 54a–b, 57a, 65b, 70b, 80b, 81b–82a, 83b–84a, 86b–87a, 88a, 92b, 100a, 110b, 113b; Bava Metzia 2a–33b, 48a, 54a, 56b, 60b–61a, 66a, 70b, 75b, 82a, 83a–93a, 102a, 110b–11b, 113a, 114a–15a; Bava Batra 2b, 11a, 12b, 16b, 19b, 21b, 36a, 45b, 55a, 72b, 74a, 82b, 88b–89a, 108b, 110b, 111b, 113b, 116b, 119b, 122b–23a, 124a–b, 126b–27b, 130a–b, 134a, 142b, 144b, 155b–56a, 168a, 175b; Sanhedrin 2a, 7b, 8b–9a, 10a, 18a–19a, 21a, 27b–28a, 31b, 33b, 34b, 35b, 36b, 41a, 44a, 45a–47b, 49a–50b, 51b, 53a, 54b, 56b–57a, 59b, 65b, 66b, 68b–75a, 82a, 85b–86a, 103b, 105b–06a, 107a; Makkot 2a–b, 4b–5b, 8b, 10b, 13a–24b; Shevuot 2a–49b; Avodah Zarah 17a, 20a, 26b, 37a, 46b, 54a, 62b; Horayot 10b, 12b; Zevachim 2a, 4b, 7b, 18b, 24b, 27b, 29a, 72a, 88a; Menachot 2a, 5b–6a, 10a, 15b, 32a–b, 39a–41a, 43a–44a, 50a, 58a–b, 69b, 90b, 101a, 103a; Chullin 2a, 11a, 26b, 48a, 62b, 68a, 74b, 78b, 83b, 87a, 109b, 115a–16a, 120a–b, 130b–31b, 136a–b, 138b–42a; Bekhorot 13a, 17a, 19b, 46a–b, 47b, 49b, 52a–b, 56a–57a; Arakhin 3b, 6a, 7a, 13b, 14b–15a, 19b, 25b; Temurah 4b–5a, 6a, 29b–30b, 33b; Keritot 2a, 3a, 14b–15a, 17b, 21a–b; Meilah 13a, 18a; Niddah 23b, 26a, 32a, 43a, 44a–b, 49b, 50b–51a, 52a, 55b, 61b, 69b–70a. Sasanian Empire, 6th century. In, e.g., Talmud Bavli. Edited by Yisroel Simcha Schorr, Chaim Malinowitz, and Mordechai Marcus, 72 volumes. Brooklyn: Mesorah Pubs., 2006.

• Deuteronomy Rabbah 6:1–14. Land of Israel, 9th century. In, e.g., Midrash Rabbah: Leviticus. Translated by Harry Freedman and Maurice Simon. London: Soncino Press, 1939.
• Rashi. Commentary. Deuteronomy 21–25. Troyes, France, late 11th century. In, e.g., Rashi. The Torah: With Rashi's Commentary Translated, Annotated, and Elucidated. Translated and annotated by Yisrael Isser Zvi Herczeg, volume 5, pages 221–65. Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1997.
• Rashbam. Commentary on the Torah. Troyes, early 12th century. In, e.g., Rashbam's Commentary on Deuteronomy: An Annotated Translation. Edited and translated by Martin I. Lockshin, pages 129–45. Providence, Rhode Island: Brown Judaic Studies, 2004.
• Yehuda Halevi. Kuzari. ; . Toledo, Spain, 1130–1140. In, e.g., Jehuda Halevi. Kuzari: An Argument for the Faith of Israel. Introduction by Henry Slonimsky, pages 119, 168. New York: Schocken, 1964.
• Second Council of the Lateran. Rome, 1139. (usury forbidden).
• Abraham ibn Ezra. Commentary on the Torah. Mid-12th century. In, e.g., Ibn Ezra's Commentary on the Pentateuch: Deuteronomy (Devarim). Translated and annotated by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver, volume 5, pages 143–87. New York: Menorah Publishing Company, 2001.
• Maimonides. Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Gezelah Va'Avedah (The Laws of Robery and Lost Property), chapter 11; Hilchot Rotze'ach USh'mirat Nefesh (The Laws of Murder and the Protection of Human Life), chapter 13. Egypt, circa 1170–1180. In, e.g., Mishneh Torah: Sefer Nezikin: The Book of Damages. Translated by Eliyahu Touger, pages 330–43, 596–607. New York: Moznaim Publishing, 1997.
• Maimonides. Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Malveh V'Loveh (The Laws Pertaining to Lenders and Borrowers), chapter 3, halachah 1. In, e.g., Mishneh Torah: Sefer Mishpatim: The Book of Judgments. Translated by Eliyahu Touger, pages 224–27. New York: Moznaim Publishing, 2000.
• Maimonides. The Guide for the Perplexed, . Cairo, Egypt, 1190. In, e.g., Moses Maimonides. The Guide for the Perplexed. Translated by Michael Friedländer, pages 351–52. New York: Dover Publications, 1956.
• Hezekiah ben Manoah. Hizkuni. France, circa 1240. In, e.g., Chizkiyahu ben Manoach. Chizkuni: Torah Commentary. Translated and annotated by Eliyahu Munk, volume 4, pages 1147–77. Jerusalem: Ktav Publishers, 2013.
• Midrash ha-Ne'lam (The Midrash of the Concealed). Spain, 13th century. In Zohar Chadash, pages 59a–c. Thessaloniki, 1587. In, e.g., The Zohar: Pritzker Edition. Translation and commentary by Nathan Wolski, volume 10, pages 525–37. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2016.
• Nahmanides. Commentary on the Torah. Jerusalem, circa 1270. In, e.g., Ramban (Nachmanides): Commentary on the Torah: Deuteronomy. Translated by Charles B. Chavel, volume 5, pages 247–306. New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1976.
• Dante Alighieri. Inferno. Cantos , . Italy, early 14th century. (usurer's demise).
• Bahya ben Asher. Commentary on the Torah. Spain, early 14th century. In, e.g., Midrash Rabbeinu Bachya: Torah Commentary by Rabbi Bachya ben Asher. Translated and annotated by Eliyahu Munk, volume 7, pages 2610–78. Jerusalem: Lambda Publishers, 2003.
• Isaac ben Moses Arama. Akedat Yizhak (The Binding of Isaac). Late 15th century. In, e.g., Yitzchak Arama. Akeydat Yitzchak: Commentary of Rabbi Yitzchak Arama on the Torah. Translated and condensed by Eliyahu Munk, volume 2, pages 864–81. New York, Lambda Publishers, 2001.

• Isaac Abravanel. Commentary on the Torah. Italy, between 1492 and 1509. In, e.g., Abarbanel: Selected Commentaries on the Torah: Volume 5: Devarim/Deuteronomy. Translated and annotated by Israel Lazar, pages 107–28. Brooklyn: CreateSpace, 2015.
• Martin Luther. Long Sermon on Usury. Germany, 1520.
• Martin Luther. On Trade and Usury. Germany, 1524.
• Obadiah ben Jacob Sforno. Commentary on the Torah. Venice, 1567. In, e.g., Sforno: Commentary on the Torah. Translation and explanatory notes by Raphael Pelcovitz, pages 934–53. Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1997.
• Moshe Alshich. Commentary on the Torah. Safed, circa 1593. In, e.g., Moshe Alshich. Midrash of Rabbi Moshe Alshich on the Torah. Translated and annotated by Eliyahu Munk, volume 3, pages 1063–85. New York, Lambda Publishers, 2000.
• Francis Bacon. "Of Usury." England, 1612. (Usurers violated the injunction that man live by the sweat of his brow.)
• Avraham Yehoshua Heschel. Commentaries on the Torah. Cracow, Poland, mid 17th century. Compiled as Chanukat HaTorah. Edited by Chanoch Henoch Erzohn. Piotrkow, Poland, 1900. In Avraham Yehoshua Heschel. Chanukas HaTorah: Mystical Insights of Rav Avraham Yehoshua Heschel on Chumash. Translated by Avraham Peretz Friedman, pages 308–11. Southfield, Michigan: Targum Press/Feldheim Publishers, 2004.
• Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan, . England, 1651. Reprint edited by C. B. Macpherson, page 724. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Classics, 1982.
• Chaim ibn Attar. Ohr ha-Chaim. Venice, 1742. In Chayim ben Attar. Or Hachayim: Commentary on the Torah. Translated by Eliyahu Munk, volume 5, pages 1905–35. Brooklyn: Lambda Publishers, 1999.
• Pope Benedict XIV. Vix pervenit: On Usury and Other Dishonest Profit. 1745.
• Moses Mendelssohn. Jerusalem, § 2. Berlin, 1783. In Jerusalem: Or on Religious Power and Judaism. Translated by Allan Arkush; introduction and commentary by Alexander Altmann, page 129. Hanover, N.H.: Brandeis Univ. Press, 1983.
• Jeremy Bentham. Defence of Usury. London, 1787.
• Samuel David Luzzatto (Shadal). Commentary on the Torah. Padua, 1871. In, e.g., Samuel David Luzzatto. Torah Commentary. Translated and annotated by Eliyahu Munk, volume 4, pages 1222–46. New York: Lambda Publishers, 2012.
• Yehudah Aryeh Leib Alter. Sefat Emet. Góra Kalwaria (Ger), Poland, before 1906. Excerpted in The Language of Truth: The Torah Commentary of Sefat Emet. Translated and interpreted by Arthur Green, pages 315–21. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1998. Reprinted 2012.
• Hermann Cohen. Religion of Reason: Out of the Sources of Judaism. Translated with an introduction by Simon Kaplan; introductory essays by Leo Strauss, pages 53, 120, 125, 151–52, 154, 431. New York: Ungar, 1972. Reprinted Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Originally published as Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums. Leipzig: Gustav Fock, 1919.
• Abraham Isaac Kook. The Lights of Penitence, 14:33. 1925. In Abraham Isaac Kook: the Lights of Penitence, the Moral Principles, Lights of Holiness, Essays, Letters, and Poems. Translated by Ben Zion Bokser, page 108. Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press 1978.
• H. G. Wells. In The Outline of History: Being a Plain History of Life and Mankind, pages 254–59. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1920. Revised edition Doubleday and Company, 1971.
• Alexander Alan Steinbach. Sabbath Queen: Fifty-four Bible Talks to the Young Based on Each Portion of the Pentateuch, pages 155–57. New York: Behrman's Jewish Book House, 1936.
• Joseph Reider. The Holy Scriptures: Deuteronomy with Commentary, pages 198–236. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1937.
• Thomas Mann. Joseph and His Brothers. Translated by John E. Woods, pages 55–56, 269–71. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005. Originally published as Joseph und seine Brüder. Stockholm: Bermann-Fischer Verlag, 1943.
• Isaac Mendelsohn. "Slavery in the Ancient Near East." Biblical Archaeologist. Volume 9 (1946): pages 74–88.
• Isaac Mendelsohn. Slavery in the Ancient Near East. New York: Oxford University Press, 1949.
• Morris Adler. The World of the Talmud, pages 26–27, 71. B'nai B'rith Hillel Foundations, 1958. Reprinted Kessinger Publishing, 2007.
• Martin Buber. On the Bible: Eighteen studies, pages 80–92. New York: Schocken Books, 1968.
• Thomas Thompson and Dorothy Thompson. "Some Legal Problems in the Book of Ruth." Vetus Testamentum, volume 18 (number 1) (January 1968): pages 79–99. (discussing issues related to Levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25).
• John R. Bartlett. "The Brotherhood of Edom." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, volume 2 (number 4) (February 1977): pages 2–27. (Deuteronomy 23:8).
• Calum M. Carmichael. "A Ceremonial Crux: Removing a Man's Sandal as a Female Gesture of Contempt.", Journal of Biblical Literature, volume 96, (number 3) (September 1977): pages 321–36.
• Nehama Leibowitz. Studies in Devarim: Deuteronomy, pages 209–56. Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization, 1980.
• Pinchas H. Peli. Torah Today: A Renewed Encounter with Scripture, pages 221–24. Washington, D.C.: B'nai B'rith Books, 1987.
• Ben Zion Bergman. "A Question of Great Interest: May a Synagogue Issue Interest-Bearing Bonds?" New York: Rabbinical Assembly, 1988. YD 167:1.1988a. In Responsa: 1980–1990: The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Conservative Movement. Edited by David J. Fine, pages 319–23. New York: Rabbinical Assembly, 2005.
• Avram Israel Reisner. "Dissent: A Matter of Great Interest" New York: Rabbinical Assembly, 1988. YD 167:1.1988b. In Responsa: 1980–1990: The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Conservative Movement. Edited by David J. Fine, pages 324–28. New York: Rabbinical Assembly, 2005.
• Patrick D. Miller. Deuteronomy, pages 163–77. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990.
• Mark S. Smith. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, pages 2, 28. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990. (Deuteronomy 23:18).
• A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy. Edited by Duane L. Christensen. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1993.
• Aaron Wildavsky. Assimilation versus Separation: Joseph the Administrator and the Politics of Religion in Biblical Israel, pages 3–4. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1993.
• Judith S. Antonelli. "The Captured Woman." In In the Image of God: A Feminist Commentary on the Torah, pages 455–70. Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1995.
• David Frankel. "The Deuteronomic Portrayal of Balaam." Vetus Testamentum, volume 46 (number 1) (January 1996): pages 30–42.
• Ellen Frankel. The Five Books of Miriam: A Woman's Commentary on the Torah, pages 271–85. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1996.
• Marc Gellman. God's Mailbox: More Stories About Stories in the Bible, pages 90–98. New York: Morrow Junior Books, 1996.
• Jack R. Lundbom. "The Inclusio and Other Framing Devices in Deuteronomy I–XXVIII." Vetus Testamentum, volume 46 (number 3) (July 1996): pages 296–315.
• Gunther Plaut. The Haftarah Commentary, pages 482–88. New York: UAHC Press, 1996.
• Judith Hauptman. "Divorce" and "Rape and Seduction." In Rereading the Rabbis: A Woman's Voice, pages 77–129. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1997.
• Sorel Goldberg Loeb and Barbara Binder Kadden. Teaching Torah: A Treasury of Insights and Activities, pages 322–28. Denver: A.R.E. Publishing, 1997.
• Judith Gary Brown. "The Accused Woman." In The Women's Torah Commentary: New Insights from Women Rabbis on the 54 Weekly Torah Portions. Edited by Elyse Goldstein, pages 364–70. Woodstock, Vermont: Jewish Lights Publishing, 2000.
• Richard D. Nelson. "Deuteronomy." In The HarperCollins Bible Commentary. Edited by James L. Mays, pages 206–08. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, revised edition, 2000.
• Joseph Telushkin. The Book of Jewish Values: A Day-by-Day Guide to Ethical Living, pages 4–6. New York: Bell Tower, 2000.
• Walter Brueggemann. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries: Deuteronomy, pages 207–45. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001.
• Timothy M. Willis. The Elders of the City: A Study of the Elders-Laws in Deuteronomy. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001.
• Lainie Blum Cogan and Judy Weiss. Teaching Haftarah: Background, Insights, and Strategies, pages 324–26. Denver: A.R.E. Publishing, 2002.
• Michael Fishbane. The JPS Bible Commentary: Haftarot, pages 301–04. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002.
• Alan Lew. This Is Real and You Are Completely Unprepared: The Days of Awe as a Journey of Transformation, pages 65, 85–92. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 2003.
• Joseph Telushkin. The Ten Commandments of Character: Essential Advice for Living an Honorable, Ethical, Honest Life, pages 94–97. New York: Bell Tower, 2003.
• Robert Alter. The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary, pages 981–1003. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2004.
• Bernard M. Levinson. "Deuteronomy." In The Jewish Study Bible. Edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, pages 414–23. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
• Professors on the Parashah: Studies on the Weekly Torah Reading Edited by Leib Moscovitz, pages 328–39. Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 2005.
• Bruce Wells. "Sex, Lies, and Virginal Rape: The Slandered Bride and False Accusation in Deuteronomy." Journal of Biblical Literature, volume 124 (number 1) (Spring 2005): pages 41–72.
• Judith Z. Abrams. "Misconceptions About Disabilities in the Hebrew Bible." In Jewish Perspectives on Theology and the Human Experience of Disability. Edited by Judith Z. Abrams & William C. Gaventa, pages 81–82. Binghamton, N.Y.: Haworth Pastoral Press, 2006.
• Marc Cortez. "The Law on Violent Intervention: Deuteronomy 25.11–12 Revisited." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, volume 30 (number 4) (June 2006): pages 431–47.
• W. Gunther Plaut. The Torah: A Modern Commentary: Revised Edition. Revised edition edited by David E.S. Stern, pages 1320–46. New York: Union for Reform Judaism, 2006.
• Suzanne A. Brody. "Tsitsit." In Dancing in the White Spaces: The Yearly Torah Cycle and More Poems, page 107. Shelbyville, Kentucky: Wasteland Press, 2007.
• James Kugel. How To Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now, pages 64, 140, 175, 236, 261, 270, 278, 309–12, 395, 402–03, 407, 448–49, 579, 610. New York: Free Press, 2007.
• Michael D. Matlock. "Obeying the First Part of the Tenth Commandment: Applications from the Levirate Marriage Law." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, volume 31 (number 3) (March 2007): pages 295–310.
• Joseph Fleishman. "The Delinquent Daughter and Legal Innovation in Deuteronomy XXII 20–21." Vetus Testamentum, volume 58 (number 2) (2008): pages 191–210.
• The Torah: A Women's Commentary. Edited by Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Andrea L. Weiss, pages 1165–90. New York: URJ Press, 2008.
• Eugene E. Carpenter. "Deuteronomy." In Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary. Edited by John H. Walton, volume 1, pages 491–505. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2009.
• Reuven Hammer. Entering Torah: Prefaces to the Weekly Torah Portion, pages 281–85. New York: Gefen Publishing House, 2009.
• Elliot Kukla and Reuben Zellman. "To Wear Is Human, to Live—Divine: Parashat Ki Tetse (Deuteronomy 21:10–25:19)." In Torah Queeries: Weekly Commentaries on the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Gregg Drinkwater, Joshua Lesser, and David Shneer; foreword by Judith Plaskow, pages 254–58. New York: New York University Press, 2009.
• Meir Malul. "What is the Nature of the Crime of the Delinquent Daughter in Deuteronomy 22:13–21? A Rejoinder to J. Fleishman's Suggestion." Vetus Testamentum, volume 59 (number 3) (2009): pages 446–59.
• Dvora E. Weisberg. Levirate Marriage and the Family in Ancient Judaism. Waltham, Massachusetts: Brandeis University Press, 2009.
• Jerry Z. Muller. "The Long Shadow of Usury." In Capitalism and the Jews, pages 15–71. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.
• Natan Slifkin. Shiluach haKein: The Transformation of a Mitzvah. Jerusalem: Lander Institute, 2010.
• Marjorie Ingall. "Shatnez Shock: Pondering One of the Torah's Woolliest Rules." Tablet Magazine. (July 19, 2010).
• Bruce Wells. "The Hated Wife in Deuteronomic Law." Vetus Testamentum, volume 60 (number 1) (2010): pages 131–46.
• William G. Dever. The Lives of Ordinary People in Ancient Israel: When Archaeology and the Bible Intersect, pages 178, 188, 190, 192, 245. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012.
• Jonathan Haidt. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, pages 13, 325 note 22. New York: Pantheon, 2012. (clothing made from different fibers).
• Shmuel Herzfeld. "The Torah's Attitude toward Behavior in War." In Fifty-Four Pick Up: Fifteen-Minute Inspirational Torah Lessons, pages 279–83. Jerusalem: Gefen Publishing House, 2012.
• Stephen Beard. "Britain Wants To Be Hub for Sharia Banking." Marketplace. (July 18, 2013) (adaptation to Islam's parallel prohibition on charging interest).
• Beth Kissileff. "Accept Responsibility: The refusal to hide ourselves from the needs of others has positive consequences." The Jerusalem Report, volume 24 (number 10) (August 26, 2013): page 45.
• Eve Levavi Feinstein. "Restoration of Marriage (Deut 24:1–4)." In Sexual Pollution in the Hebrew Bible, pages 53–65. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
• Edward Lipinski. "Cult Prostitution in Ancient Israel?" Biblical Archaeology Review, volume 40 (number 1) (January/February 2014): pages 48–56, 70.
• Nicholas Kristof. "When Emily Was Sold for Sex." The New York Times. (February 13, 2014): page A27. (human trafficking in our time).
• Shlomo Riskin. Torah Lights: Devarim: Moses Bequeaths Legacy, History, and Covenant, pages 203–68. New Milford, Connecticut: Maggid Books, 2014.
• Gabriel Sanders. "The Biblical Side of 'Saving Private Ryan': Spielberg's WWII epic alludes to Abraham Lincoln and Abraham the patriarch." Tablet Magazine. (July 1, 2014).
• Pablo Diego-Rosell and Jacqueline Joudo Larsen. "35.8 Million Adults and Children in Slavery Worldwide." Gallup. (November 17, 2014).
• Beverly Siegel. "Sign on the Dotted Line: To fight the chained-wife problem, more women are insisting on a special prenup." Tablet Magazine. (March 6, 2015).
• Peter Kohn. "Court ruling eases Jewish divorce." Australian Jewish News. (March 9, 2015).
• The Commentators' Bible: The Rubin JPS Miqra'ot Gedolot: Deuteronomy. Edited, translated, and annotated by Michael Carasik, pages 142–71. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2015.
• Jonathan Sacks. Lessons in Leadership: A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, pages 269–73. New Milford, Connecticut: Maggid Books, 2015.
• Atar Hadari. "For the Torah, Women Aren't Commodities, and Marriage Isn't a Pro-Forma Prelude to Sex: The point of the Torah's rules on foreign brides and divorce." Mosaic Magazine. (September 15, 2016).
• David Booth, Ashira Konigsburg, and Baruch Frydman-Kohl. "Modesty Inside and Out: A Contemporary Guide to Tzniut," pages 7, 16. New York: Rabbinical Assembly, 2016. (Deuteronomy 23:13–15 and modesty in dress).
• Donniel Hartman. "You Are Your Brother's Keeper: The Religious Ethic of Nonindifference." In Putting God Second: How to Save Religion from Itself, pages 20–31. Boston: Beacon Press, 2016. (implications of Deuteronomy 22:3, "you must not remain indifferent").
• Jonathan Sacks. Essays on Ethics: A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible, pages 305–10. New Milford, Connecticut: Maggid Books, 2016.
• Shai Held. The Heart of Torah, Volume 2: Essays on the Weekly Torah Portion: Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, pages 250–59. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2017.
• Jeremy Kalmanofsky. "Alternative Kevura Methods." New York: Rabbinical Assembly, 2017. (environmentally friendly burial practices as well as alternatives to burial including alkaline hydrolysis and promession in the light of Deuteronomy 21:22–23).
• Steven Levy and Sarah Levy. The JPS Rashi Discussion Torah Commentary, pages 167–70. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2017.
• Caryn A. Reeder. "Deuteronomy 21.10–14 and/as Wartime Rape." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, volume 41 (number 3) (March 2017): pages 313–36.
• Somini Sengupta. "End Marry-Your-Rapist Laws, Activists Say. Mideast Listens." The New York Times, July 23, 2017, § 1 (news), page 1 (modern Middle Eastern parallel to Exodus 22:15–16 and Deuteronomy 22:28–29).
• Pekka Pitkänen. "Ancient Israelite Population Economy: Ger, Toshav, Nakhri and Karat as Settler Colonial Categories." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, volume 42 (number 2) (December 2017): pages 139–53.
• Ernst Wendland. Deuteronomy: translationNotes. Orlando, Florida: unfoldingWord, 2017.
• Jonathan Sacks. Covenant & Conversation: A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible: Deuteronomy: Renewal of the Sinai Covenant, pages 181–217. New Milford, Connecticut: Maggid Books, 2019.
• U.S. Department of State. Trafficking in Persons Report: June 2020. (slavery in the present day).
• Danya Ruttenberg and Katey Zeh. "An Ancient Mistranslation Is Now Helping To Threaten Abortion Rights: The Hebrew Bible Didn't Urge Special Penalties for Causing a Miscarriage." Washington Post, October 12, 2021.

• Masoretic text and 1917 JPS translation
• Hear the parashah read in Hebrew

• Academy for Jewish Religion, New York
• Aish.com
• American Jewish University—Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies
• Bar-Ilan University
• Chabad.org
• Hadar Institute
• Jewish Theological Seminary
• MyJewishLearning.com
• Orthodox Union
• Pardes from Jerusalem
• Reconstructing Judaism
• Sephardic Institute
• Union for Reform Judaism
• United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
• Yeshivat Chovevei Torah
• Yeshiva University