Parashat Ki* Te’tzeh (“when you go out…”), consists of lists of commandments, some of which we have encountered earlier on in the Torah, others are repeated in a modified form, while quite a few are mentioned here for the first time. Whereas the previous Parasha (Shoftim) focused on national matters, here the focus is on the individuals within the nation. It should be noted that even though at first glance the various injunctions seem to be placed randomly, a closer study reveals them to be organized in clusters wherein there is a common theme or some other link that ties together each respective group. One such example, where the rulings almost form a storyline, is right at the beginning of the Parasha (21:10-23). The first one is a case of a man desiring and marrying a foreign woman taken captive in war, but losing interest in her at a later stage. The next ruling focuses on the rights of the firstborn son of (again) an unloved wife, whose husband has another, favored, wife. From the firstborn son, we are taken to a command regarding a rebellious son, whom some of the sages believe to be the offspring of the foreign wife mentioned above. This son’s behavior makes him a ‘candidate’ for stoning, while the following statute deals with a criminal who is sentenced to hanging.  At the very end of the Parasha (in 25:13-16), to mention another example, we read about unjust weights and measures which are detestable in YHVH’s sight (v. 16). The concomitant ruling is a reference to the Amalekites, who are to be completely wiped out because of their ill-treatment of Yisrael during the Exodus, which also places them under the category of: “Anyone doing these things is hateful to YHVH your Elohim, everyone acting evilly” (v. 16 again), although “these things” is actually in reference to using unjust weights. Parashat Ki Te’tzeh illustrates the extent of YHVH’s involvement in every aspect of the Israelites’ life - the individuals as well as the community. In turn, Yisrael is to live life in a manner that is worthy of Him.
 
Returning to the paragraph about the "unloved woman" (literally, "hated"), it is made clear that it is incumbent upon her husband to "bestow firstborn status" on her firstborn son if she happens to have given birth to him (21:15-16). In Hebrew, the action of bestowing this status is contained in a single word - "ba'ker" – b.ch.r (bet, kaf/chaf, resh) – while "firstborn" is "b'chor", from which "first fruits" – bikkurim - is derived. Interestingly, in Modern Hebrew, this verb ("ba'ker" - "to make a firstborn") is one of the synonyms for "to prefer".
 
The stubborn and rebellious son described in 21:18, 20, according to his own parents’ admittance “will not listen to his father's voice or his mother's voice; even though they discipline him, he will not listen to them”. “Stubborn and rebellious” is “sorer u’moreh”; “sorer” is of the root s.r.h (samech, resh, hey) and means “turn aside, defect, or withdraw”. “Moreh” is of the root m.r.h (mem, resh, hey) meaning, “contentious, defiant, or rebellious”. The type of attitude displayed here issues from the heart and so in Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah) 5:23 we read: “To this people there is a revolting/defiant and a rebellious – sorer u’moreh – heart”. This son is further described as “a glutton and a drunkard”.  The latter noun is “soveh”, the root being s.v.a. (samech, bet/vet, alef), recalling, “sovah” (sin/shin, bet/vet, ayin) which is not only close in sound but also in meaning (albeit employing a different spelling). Thus, if one is not ‘satisfied’ - “sa’veh’ah” - and chooses to overindulge, he becomes a “soveh”. By making use of similar sounds Hebrew typically points to life’s fine demarcation lines. Proverbs 23:19-21 addresses the very same issue, using identical terminology ("soveh"). The rebellious son was to be executed by stoning (ref. 21:21), which is the verb “ragom”, one of several Hebrew terms used to denote this action.

Another stoning was to occur in the event of a young woman who upon marriage was found not to be a virgin (ref. 22:20-21), as well as when “a girl that is a virgin, betrothed to a man, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her” (vs. 23-24). In these cases, the stoning is “sakol” (s.k.l, samech, kof, lamed), which means not only to “hurl rocks”, but also to “gather rocks” such as in Yishayahu (Isaiah) 5:2: “My Beloved has a vineyard in a fruitful horn. And He dug it, and cleared it of stones” (italics added). This again illustrates the close proximity between apparent contradictions, of which we shall see more examples later.
 
Following the prodigal son in 21:20, the text goes on to speak of “a man [who] has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree” (v. 22), appending to it: “he who is hanged is accursed of Elohim” (v. 23). The rabbinic explanation for a sin that incurs hanging is idol worship and/or blaspheming. This is exactly what Yeshua was charged with, that is, he was accused of blaspheming the Name of the Almighty (ref. Mat.  26:65; Mark 14:62-64). This is also how He “redeemed us from the curse of [pronounced in] the Law [for breaking] its laws [or redeeming us from the “laws of sin and death”], having become a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13).
 
The next set of injunctions, in chapter 22, focuses on concern for the property of one’s fellow man and his welfare, as well as sensitivity toward YHVH’s creation. “You shall not see your brother's ox or his sheep driven away, and hide yourself from them. You shall surely turn them back to your brother” (v. 1). “You shall hide” here is “hit’a’lamta”, of the root a.l.m (ayin, lamed, mem), and means “hidden or concealed”, and in this context also “disregard, neglect” or “pretend not to see”. It is from this root that we obtain “olam” or “ad olam” which in Biblical Hebrew speaks mostly of “eternity” (future but also past), being indeed concealed and uncharted from man’s vantage point (Deut. 23:3; Gen. 17:7; Ex. 12:24). One of the Biblical terms for a young man is “elem” (and “alma” for a young woman), issuing from the same root (e.g., 1Sam. 17:56; Gen. 24:43); this being the case because their character is still unfolding and their future unknown.
 
At the other end of this cluster of injunctions, we read: “If a bird's nest happens to be before you in the way in any tree, or on the ground, with young ones, or eggs; and the mother is sitting on the young, or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young. But in every case, you shall let the mother go, and take the young for yourself, so that it may be well with you, and you may prolong your days” (22:6,7 italics added). This somewhat obscure command holds a great promise, like that of the 5th Commandment of the Decalogue, which says: “Honor your father and your mother, as YHVH your Elohim has commanded you, so that your days may be prolonged” (Ex. 20:12, Deut. 5:16). The fact that this promise is common to both these injunctions has puzzled the sages all the way back to Talmudic days. Some of them concur that YHVH’s ways are higher than ours, and therefore various precepts are “passed finding out”, while others maintain that one should not even try and discover whether the Divine commands have reasons or not. On the other hand, Professor Yitzchak Heinemann contends that “it is incumbent on us to detect the finger of God in the wonders of nature and the events of our life, though they will still remain unsolved mysteries, so we must endeavor, as far as possible, to appreciate the wisdom and justice of His commands”. [1] 

The identical reward for honoring parents and for shooing the mother bird before taking her young, may serve as a clue to a principle which applies to every word spoken in the Torah: “kala k’cha’mura”, meaning that each precept (and/or word), whether insubstantial or weighty, is to be treated equally. Thus, all the way from the weightiest precept to the least esteemed, through those that are ‘in between’, obedience is equally required, with the result (of so doing) and the rewards being at times identical. Our Parasha, to cite another such example, also exhorts us to “have a perfect and just ephah [a measurement]; so that they prolong your days in the land” (25:15 italics added). Applying this principle to YHVH’s commandments, each one is to be ‘weighed’ by the same scale, not denigrating one and estimating another.
 
"Letting go" of the mother bird is denoted by the verb "sh'lach" – shin, lamed, chet, which also means "to send away". This verb is found in several other instances in this Parasha, all of them having to do with wives – the captured woman from the beginning of the Parasha, once having lost favor with her captor-husband, is to be "let go" of (21:14), as is the wife whose husband has found something unclean about her, and who, therefore "sends her away", as does her second husband who likewise dismisses her (24:1,3,4).
 
Right in between the lost ox and sheep and the nesting bird, is the oft-quoted verse: "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to YHVH your Elohim” (22:5). This injunction is especially used in order to “prove” the Bible’s disapproval of women wearing what is thought to be strictly male clothing.  However, this is not what the Hebrew text is expressing. “Lo yi-hi-ye kli gever al isha” means “there shall not be a tool/implement of a man upon a woman”. This implies that she is not to carry or wield a tool or any implement which is characteristic of man’s responsibilities. In this case, therefore, Scripture is not concerned with apparel or fashion but with certain types of activities that are to distinguish between men and women! As for the men, in their case they are indeed commanded, plain and simple, not to wear women’s garments. The noun "kli" is found in another place in our Parasha. " "When you come into your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes at your pleasure [lit. satisfaction], but you shall not put any in your container" (23:24). The "container" (or "vessel") here is "kli". Notice also that here the "eater" partakes of the grapes until he is, literally, satisfied. It is this "satisfaction" – sovah – that did not suffice in the case of the son we read about above, turning him into a "so'veh", someone who crossed the boundary lines and turned into a glutton and a drunkard (just as we noted above, although similar in sound, there is a difference in the spelling between "satisfaction" or "one who is satisfied" – which is the case here – sa've'a - spelled sin/shin, vet/bet, ayin, while the dissatisfied glutton is soveh, samech, vet/bet, alef).
 
Back to chapter 22:14, and 17, where we encounter a woman who has been charged or accused by her husband. These accusations are "alilot" – a.l.l (ayin, lamed, lamed. In Mitzrayim YHVH is said to have "hit'a'lel" with the Egyptians – that is, He performed deeds that made a mockery of the enemy. Ex. 10:2). "Olal" is also a toddler, and in 24:21, "le'olel" is "to glean" grapes: "afterward; it [the leftover grapes] shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow". In spite of such a varied scale of meanings, all share a common root that points to movement, or development toward attaining a certain goal, be it a positive one, or a negative one (such as in the case of the accused woman).
  
In 23:7-8 we read: “You shall not despise an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not despise an Egyptian, for you were an alien in his land, sons of the third generation that are born to them may enter into the assembly of YHVH”. This directive is in contradistinction to the one dealing with the Ammonites and Moabites, who were not to enter the assembly of YHVH even after ten generations, that is, never. Da’at Mikra ponders: “Why is it that the Torah deals this way with the Edomites, not demanding from them what was demanded of the Moabites and Ammonites, which was to greet Israel with bread and water when they had passed by these peoples’ territories? Because Ya’acov tricked Esav and had wrested from him the birthright and the blessings; while for having chased Ya’acov, Esav and his progeny have already been punished by having been held off from the assembly of Israel for two generations. The Egyptians are also forgiven for their treatment of Israel, as [their reason for doing so was because] they were afraid lest Israel would join their enemies.” [2]

* The conjunction “ki” is used very frequently in Dvarim. Many sections open up with “if” or “when”, in both cases being a translation of “ki,” which at times is also translated as “for.”

[1] New Studies in Devarim, Nechama Leibowitz, trans. Aryeh Newman. Eliner Library, Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora. Hemed Books Inc., Brooklyn, N.Y.

[2] Devarim with Daat Mikrah Commentary, Pub. Mossad Harav Kook, Jm. 2001.