[So this is where the New Testament verse comes from, about taking down from the cross the dead body of the crucified Jesus.
Read the last verses under: LAWS OF KINDNESS, THE EXPOSED CORPSE OF A CRIMINAL. And yet John 19:38-42 adds a strange phrase “but secretly for fear of the Jews” . . . why? If it was the commandment stated in this chapter, it should have been the most natural thing to do for the body of a crucified Jew. Really, would the Jews have objected? Why does the NT make the Jews appear so hateful?
38 And after these things Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked of Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took away his body. 39 And there came also Nicodemus, he who at the first came to him by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds. 40 So they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury. 41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new tomb wherein was never man yet laid. 42 There then because of the Jews’ Preparation (for the tomb was nigh at hand) they laid Jesus.
- Image from Deposition by Rubens, (Lille)./File:La descente de croix Rubens.jpg
Commentary here comes from the best of Jewish minds, as collected by Dr. J.H. Hertz in his excellent resource Pentateuch and Haftorahs; this website uses EF/Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses..—Admin1.]
Deuteronomy/Davarim 21
This chapter contains various laws concerning the sacredness of human life, and regard for the rights and dignity of human nature.
1-9. ON THE EXPIATION OF AN UNTRACTED MURDER
If a slain man be round in the open country, the murderer being unknown, the elders of the nearest town shall slay a young heifer in an uncultivated valley with a stream, and testify that they neither shed this blood nor saw it shed, and pray for forgiveness. In Israel, murder is not only a crime committed against fellowman, but also a sin against God, in whose image man was made; hence, no money-compensation was permitted in the case of the wilful murderer (Num. XXXV,33), ‘for the soul is not the possession of the nearest of kin, but of the Holy One, blessed be He’ (Maimonides). ‘According to the oldest Hellenic idea, the murderer violated only the family sphere. Mosaism, however, by virtue of its conception of the human being as of Divine image, recognized in murder above all a sin against the Holy God, the Creator and Master of human life, Gen. IX,5-6, which sin has to be atoned for by the extermination of the guilty murderer from the Holy Land defiled by blood-guilt’ (Oehler). When the murderer is not known, the whole community is held responsible for the crime perpetrated on one of its members; see v. 7.
1 If there be found a corpse on the soil that YHVH your God is giving you to possess, fallen in the field, (it) not having-become-known who struck-it-down,
in the field. The open country.
2 your elders and your judges are to go out and measure-the-distance to the towns that are around the corpse.thy elders. Of the towns in the vicinity.
thy judges. Each village would naturally desire to get rid of the responsibility of providing a heifer, and its elders would be apt to exaggerate the distance between their home and the body. Hence, the presence of the judges was required, as arbiters and overseers, that all matters connected with the measurement and resultant responsibility are equitably settled (Welch).
3 And it shall be that the town nearest to the corpse- the elders of that town are to take a she-calf of the herd, with which no work has (ever) been done, which has never pulled a yoke;not been wrought with. i.e. not been used for ploughing or subjected to any forced labour; and, therefore, unprofaned by common use.
4 the elders of that town are to bring-down that she-calf to an ever-flowing wadi which has never had work done on it, and has never been sown, and are to break-the-neck of the she-calf there, in the wadi.a rough valley. lit. ‘a strong valley’; i.e. a rough, uncultivated, unfrequented territory, with a perennial brook. Its running water would carry away the blood of the heifer, and thus symbolize the removal of the defilement from the land.
The Rabbis’ explanation of these ceremonies is, ‘Let the heifer which has never produced fruit (i.e. which has never been set to do any work) be killed in a spot which has never produced fruit (i.e. a rough, uncultivated ground), to atone for the death of a man who was debarred (through being prematurely made to die) from producing fruit.’ According to Maimonides, the object of this rite was to assist in the discovery of the murderer by the publicity attending the performance thereof.
5 Then they are to approach, the priests, the Sons of Levi -for YHVH your God has chosen (them) to attend on him and to give-blessing in YHVH’S name, and by their statement shall be (settled) every legal-quarrel and every case-of-assault-the priests. Their presence is to impart a religious character to the ceremony.
controversy . . . stroke. See XVII,8.
6 and all the elders of that town, the ones nearest the corpse,are to wash their hands
over the neck-broken calf at the wadi;
wash their hands. Innocent blood shed by violence sticks to the hands of the murderer, and all the seas cannot wash away its stain. It is otherwise with those who–the actual murderer being unknown–are held to be only morally responsible for the crime. In their case, the washing of the hands is a symbolic act to disown the community’s guilt; Ps. XXVI,6. No trace of this symbolic action is found in Greek or Roman life (contra Matth. XXVII,24).
7 then they are to speak up and say:Our hands did not shed this blood,
our eyes did not see!
speak. Respond liturgically.
our hands . . . eyes. ‘Could it possibly occur to anyone to suspect the elders of murder? No! By this avowal the elders of the town declare, He did not come to us hungry, and we failed to feed him; he did not come to us friendless, and we failed to befriend him’ (Sifri). Thus did the Rabbis bring home to the people the great principle of mutual responsibility and moral interdependence of men and classes.
8 O purge your people Israel that you redeemed, O YHVH,do not put innocent blood amid your people Israel!
So shall they be atoned of the blood,
forgive. This is spoken by the priests. They ask forgiveness because the people of the vicinity had sinned in failing adequately to safeguard the roads against danger (Ibn Ezra).
9 and so shall you yourself burn out the innocent blood from your midst-for you are to do what-is-right in the eyes of YHVH!
so shalt thou put away. If the murderer is discovered after the ceremony had been performed, he must be put to death. ‘Then shalt thou be doing that which is right in the eyes of the LORD.’
innocent blood. Which cries to God for vengeance against the murderer; Gen. IV,10; Job XVI,18.
(4) LAWS OF DOMESTIC LIFE AND HUMAN KINDNESS
(a) FAMILY LAWS
10-14. MARRIAGE WITH A CAPTIVE OF WAR
A female war-captive was not to be made a concubine till after an interval of a month. The bitter moments of the captive’s first grief has to be respected. She must not subsequently be sold or treated as a slave.
10 When you go-out to war against your enemiesand YHVH your God gives him into your hand, and you take-captive his captives,
goest forth to battle. Outside Palestine.
11 and you see among the captives a woman fair of form,and you desire her,
and would take her for yourself as a wife:
12 you are to bring her into the midst of your house,
she is to shave her head and to do her nails,
bring her home.
This law inculcates thoughtfulness and forbearance under circumstances in which the warrior, elated by victory, might deem himself at liberty to act as he pleased (Driver). ‘After the countless rapes of conquered women with which recent history has made us so painfully familiar, it is like hearing soft music to read of the warrior’s duty to the enemy woman, of the necessary marriage with its set ritual and its due delay. And the Legislator proceeds to trace the course of the husband’s duty in the event of the conquered alien woman failing to bring him the expected delight. “Then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast humbled her”‘ (Zangwill).
shave . . . nails. Rites of purification and renunciation of her former heathendom, so as to render herself fit and worthy of acceptance in the fold of Israel; Lev. XIV,9. Onkelos translates, ‘she shall suffer her nails to grow’; and the Rabbis explain the whole procedure as designed to render her unattractive to the captor, and deter him from marrying her; see v. 14.
13 she is to put off her garments of captivity from herselfand is to sit in your house,
weeping for her father and her mother, for a month of days;
after that you may come in to her and espouse her,
and she may become your wife.
raiment of her captivity. The clothes worn when she was taken captive were to be laid aside by reason of their heathen impurity.
a full month. For the grief to spend itself and to accustom herself to her new condition of life.
she shall be thy wife. And enjoy the full rights and duties of a Jewish wife; Exod. XXI,10.
14 Now it shall be:If you are not pleased with her,
you must send-her-free, in her person,
but sell, you may not sell her, for silver,
you are not to deal-treacherously with her, since you have humbled her!
no delight in her. i.e. no longer any delight in her. The Rabbis deemed such a marriage a concession to human weakness, as a preventive against worse manifestations of the unbridled passions of man. Even though permissible, such an alliance should be discouraged. ‘Holy Writ,’ they say, ‘here clearly indicates that a wife taken in this fashion will probably end up by becoming an object of aversion to her husband.’
let her go. Divorce her; and, if she should be ill, he must not do so before her complete recovery (Sifri).
whither she will. As she will. She has complete freedom.
not sell her. Nor by any other method dispose of her (Ibn Ezra); see Exod. XXI,8.
deal with her as a slave. ‘Make merchandise of her;’ (AV). He must not reduce her in the home to the level of a bondwoman (Sifri).
humbled her. Dishonoured her.
15-17. THE RIGHT OF THE FIRSTBORN
Succession to property is a source of discord in a family, as is the favoritism of parents. But the double portion due to the firstborn son is inalienable, though his mother be the less loved wife.
15 When a man has two wives, the one loved and the other hated,and they bear him sons, the loved-one and the hated-one,
and the firstborn son is the hated-one’s-
beloved . . . hated. Relative terms only, denoting that one is preferred to the other, as Leah and Rachel (it is in this sense that Mal.I,2,3, is to be understood). Rabbi Ishmael said, ‘Human experience shows that, in every bigamous marriage, one wife is always more loved than the other.’
16 it shall be, at the time of giving-as-inheritance to his sons what he has,he must not treat-as-firstborn the son of the loved-one,
in the living-presence of the son of the hated-one, the firstborn.
in the day. Not necessarily at the approach of death, but at any time when he announces what the division of his property is to be at his death. The Rabbis forbid a man to distribute his possessions, Lear-like, in his lifetime; and they also warn against any discrimination between his children, aside from the privileges of the firstborn.
he may not make. He is legally incapable of making.
before. In preference to.
17 Rather, the (actual) firstborn, the son of the hated-one, he is to recognize (as such),by giving him two-thirds of all that is found with him,
for he is the firstfruit of his vigor,
for him is the regulation of the firstborn-right.
acknowledge. lit. ‘recognize’.
double portion. Twice as much as any of the other sons.
of all that he hath. The Talmud deduces from this that the firstborn is not entitled to claim a double portion from the estate that will accrue after the father’s death.
firstfruits of his strength. Gen. XLIX,3.
18-21. A DISOBEDIENT SON
Israelite parents were particularly affectionate, and even indulgent. However, an incorrigible son, whom milder measures failed to reclaim, might be tried by the elders at the gate, and was liable to death by stoning.
18 When a man has a son, a stubborn-one and a rebel-he does not hearken to the voice of his father or to the voice of his mother-
and they discipline him, but he (still) does not hearken to them,
stubborn and rebellious. A son who throws off the authority of his parents as well as of God.
father . . . mother. Mark the equality of the parents, as in the Fifth Commandment.
chasten. See VIII,5.
19 his father and his mother are to seize himand are to bring him out to the elders of his town, to the gate of his place;
unto the gate. The gateway; the Oriental forum.
20 then they are to say to the elders of his town:Our son, this-one, is a stubborn-one and a rebel
-he does not hearken to our voice-
a glutton and a drunkard!
glutton. Includes not only gluttony, but is a term for general debauchee, ‘riotous liver’ (RV).
21 Then all the men of the town are to pelt him with stones,so that he dies.
So you shall burn out the evil from your midst,
and all Israel will hear and be-awed!
all the men . . . stone him. The Hebrew parent did not possess the power of life and death over his child. In Greece, weak children were exposed, i.e. left on a lonely mountain to perish; and in Rome, a father could at will put even a grown-up son to death. In Israel, however, even when vice and insubordination in an adolescent son had become intolerable, the parents must appeal to the decision of an impartial tribunal. The death penalty could only be inflicted by the community, with the sanction of the elders of the city.
The Rabbis tell us that this law was never once carried out; and, by the regulations with which the infliction of the death penalty was in this case surrounded, it could not be carried out (see also XXII,22). Its presence in the Torah was merely to serve as a warning, and bring out with the strongest possible emphasis the heinous crime of disobedience to parents.
(b) LAWS OF KINDNESS
22-23. THE EXPOSED CORPSE OF A CRIMINAL
22 Now when a man has sin-guilt, (resulting in) a sentence of death,and is put-to-death,
and you hang him up on a wooden-stake,
a sin worthy of death. lit. ‘a sin of judgment of death’, if a man lies under sentence of death.
and thou hang him. After he had been put to death; the fiendish punishment of crucifying men alive, nailing them to the cross and prolonging their death agonies for days, was a Roman invention. There were four methods of execution in ancient Israel—stoning, burning, the sword, and strangulation. Hanging was sometimes added after death, in token of infamy, or as a further deterrent; Josh. X,26.
23 you are not to leave his carcass overnight on the stake,rather, you are to bury, yes, bury him on that (very) day,
for an insult to God is a hanging-person
-that you not render your soil tamei
that YHVH your God is giving you as an inheritance.
bury him. Burial, and not cremation, is the Jewish method of disposal of the dead.
a reproach unto God. Or, ‘involves the cursing of the judges’ (Rashbam), by his relations. The former explanation is the more probable. ‘It is a slight to the King, because man is made in the Divine image’ (Rashi); and the dignity of humanity must be respected even in a criminal. Death, Judaism teaches, atones his sin; therefore his body shall, at the earliest moment, receive the same reverent treatment that is due to any other deceased. The hanging was delayed till near sunset, so that the body might without delay be taken down for burial.
defile not thy land. A corpse is the primary source of ritual impurity; and, if the corpse were permitted to remain on the tree till it decomposes and falls apart, or it becomes food to the birds, such impurity would spread far and wide (Luzzatto).