Devarim 21:10-25:19, parashat Ki Teitzei, records numerous
laws, but it is not clear the connections between the different laws. It is
possible that the Torah specifically wants there to be no connection, but more
likely there is an order but it is not self-apparent.
Amongst
Medieval commentators, Rashi, occasionally, and Ibn Ezra and Hizkuni (many
times he quotes Ibn Ezra) more frequently, attempt to explain the connection
between the laws in parashat Ki Teitzei. Generally, their approach is to find thematic
connections between the laws. Cassuto
(1973, pp. 1-7) suggested a different approach that sometimes the order of the laws
in the Torah is based on sounds or associations of words and phrases. This idea was crucial when there were very
few sifrei Torah, which meant that people had to memorize the Torah, and
it was certainly difficult to memorize lists of laws. The sounds and
association are a way to aid people to memorize the Torah. (See Boorstin, 1983,
pp. 480-484, who briefly discusses the prodigious memory skills that existed in
antiquity, and how people developed tricks to aid their memory.)
Cassuto did not
relate his method to the book of Devarim, but this method had been utilized by
Yosef Heinemann (1965) and by Alexander Rofe (1988b, 2002, pp. 55-78) in order
to explain the order of the laws in parashat Ki Teitzei. Stephen A. Kaufman (1978, see
also Olsen, 1994) also offers some examples of this method as part of his
argument that the laws of Devarim follow the order of the Decalogue. We will review the different suggestions
along with some of our own to hopefully shed more light on the order of the
laws in 21:10-25:19. We have used this methodology to also try understand the order and connections of the laws of parashat Mishpatim, parashat Re'eh and parashat Shoftim.
The first law, 21:10-14, is the laws of the
woman captured in war, and this is the last law in the war section that began
in chapter 20.
The next law,
21:15-17, records the law that a father cannot favor a son from a beloved wife
as opposed to a son from a hated wife.
Rashi (on 21:11) quotes from the Midrash that this law relates to the
previous law of the woman captured in battle since the man will come to hate
this captured woman, and this will lead to a disobedient son, the following
section. Ibn Ezra (on 21:15) suggests that the connection is that initially the
captured woman is loved and then hated, which relates to a man who has a wife
he loves and a wife who he hates. Rofe varies this slightly. The law of the
captured woman ends with a type of divorce, and 24:3 relates divorce in general
to a woman being hated. Thus, as 21:14
refers to divorcing the captured woman, this leads to the association of the
term hatred, and 21:15-17 refer to the hated wife. Heinemann suggests that the connection is
that the two laws concern a man and his household, his wives and kids. Wenham and McConville (1980, p. 251) note
that the section on the captured woman ends with the unloved woman receiving
her freedom, and 21:15-17 record that the unloved son receives his inheritance.
Another
possibility is that 21:16,17 record that the father must acknowledge the son
from his hated wife, and 21:12,13 record that the captured woman must shave her
head, cut her nails, change her clothes and be allowed to cry for her parents
for one month. After one month, the soldier must decide to either acknowledge
the captured woman to be his wife or to disassociate from her and send her away,
21:13,14. Thus, both sections have an element of acknowledgement.
Another
possible connection is that the law of not favoring the son of the beloved wife
over the son of the hated wife reminds us of the case of Yaakov, Rahel, Leah,
Yosef and Reuven, and 21:17 uses the same language, reshit ono, as in Bereshit
49:3 when referring to Reuven. Also, both Rahel (Bereshit 29:17) and Yosef
(Bereshit 39:6) are described as yefat toar, the same description as the
captive woman, 21:11. Thus, the law of
the captured woman could lead to an association with Rahel and Yosef, which
would connect to the sons of beloved and hated wives, the law of 21:15-17.
The next law, 21:18-21,
records the law of the disobedient son. Rofe notes that this section begins the
same way as the previous section, "if a man has." Heinemann notes that this law also refers to
the household, and more specifically, both laws relate to sons. Some connections with the laws in the previous war section is that 21:19,20 refer to the ziknei iro, and 21:3,4,6, (also with some difference 21:2) by the law of eglah arufa, has the same phrase ziknei ha-ir, and mikirbecha is in 21:21 and 21:9. Also, 21:19 has the word ve-tafsu, and this same word appears in 20:19, le-tafsah. Going further back, 21:21 records the phrase u-bearta hara mikirbecha, and this appears in 19:19 (19:13 in a shortened version) also in 17:7 (17:12 again in a shortened version). Also, the phrase yishmioo ve-yiraoo in 21:21 appears in 19:20.
The next law, 21:22,23 is that if a person is hung by the court, then he is to be buried by nightfall. This law connects with the previous law of the disobedient son since both laws refer to capital punishment. Rashi (on 21:22) makes this connection more explicit (and more chilling), as he writes that if the parents are merciful on their wayward child, 21:18-21, then the child will grow up to be a sinner to such an extent that he (she?) will be guilty of a capital offense, and then the beit din will kill him, 21:22. Rofe (quoted by Tigay, 1996, p. 455) notes that this law relates to the previous laws of the disobedient son and not favoring the son of the beloved wife since all three laws have a similar opening, ki yihiyeh le-ish, "if a man has," 21:15 (has tihiyena), 18, 22 (has be-ish). This law also connects with the war section through the word etz in 21:22,23 and 20:19, 20,21.
The next law, 22:1-4, is that one cannot ignore another person's animals if they are lost or
have fallen on the road. Heinemann
suggests that the placement of this law is that after the Torah discusses a
person's household it discusses his possessions. Rofe suggests that the connection is due to
the word used by the disobedient son, swr, and the word used by the
animal, ndh, which are used as synonyms in Devarim in reference to
idolatry, see 4:19 and 11:15. Maybe the connection is due to the word
"ignore," that just like one cannot ignore another person's animals
but must return it (22:1,3,4), so too a person cannot ignore the body that was
hanged but it must be buried, even if people want to let the body hang as a way
of venting their anger at the deceased. Furthermore, the criminal was hanged,
which means a person has fallen down and corresponds to finding an animal that
fell down on the road, 22:4.
The next law,
22:5, is that it is prohibited to cross-dress.
Rofe notes that this law is connected with the previous law based on the
word clothing, simlah. 22:3 records that that a person must return another
person's clothing, and 22:5 records that a man can not wear women's clothing.
The next law,
22:6,7, is that a person cannot capture a mother bird along with her
young. Ibn Ezra (on 22:6) writes that
the connection is the word derech, which is recorded in 22:6 and in
22:4, two laws beforehand. Rofe follows
this idea and adds that both the animal and the bird are found on the way.
Kaufman (p. 136) notes that both laws refer to falling, the animal fell down,
22:4, and the bird's nest is before you on the road since it too fell down,
22:6. Another connection is the word
tree, etz, mentioned here, 22:6, and in 21:22,23.
The next law,
22:8, is that one must put a railing around a roof. Rofe suggests that the
connection is because birds nest on the roof. However, more likely the connection is that
people put bird coops on the roofs of their homes, and this is the opposite of
the case of 22:7, where one finds the nest on the road or in the tree since if
the coop is on the roof then a person can take the mother and her young
together. Another possibility (Kaufman)
is that the law is connected with the law of the animal falling, 22:4, because
here the fear is that a person will fall from the roof without a guardrail,
22:8.
22:9 begins the
next short section (22:9-11) of laws prohibiting the combining disparate items,
when planting, plowing and wearing clothing. Ibn Ezra (on 22:9, also on
22:10,11) suggests that these laws follow the law of the railing since after
one builds a house, then one plants fields. Heinemann notes that again we
return to a person's possessions, which connects with a person's house in
22:8. Rofe suggests that the connection
is that if a person falls and dies because there is no railing on the house,
the house becomes impure and if one violates the law of 22:9, the produce
because forbidden. My guess is that 22:9
is part of the trilogy of a woman, 22:5, house, 22:8, and vineyard, 22:9, as
occurs in 28:30 (in the same order), 20:5-7 (different order) and 5:18 (field
instead of vineyard).
22:10,11
continue the law of 22:9 of not combining disparate items. In addition, 22:10
refers to an ox and the donkey, who are mentioned in 22:1,3,4.
The next law,
22:12, is to put fringes, tsitsits on one's four corned garment. This
law connects with the previous law, 22:11, which also discusses clothing.
Furthermore, Rashi and Ibn Ezra (on 22:12) explain that juxtaposition of
22:11,12 is to teach that tsitsit can be made from shantez, the
forbidden mixture of wool and linen recorded in verse 22:11, and in ancient
times the tsitsit were usually made from wool and linen. Yet, why should tsitsit be an
exception to the law of not wearing wool and linen together? I would think that the point of the verse
22:12 is to inform us that the fringes are not considered as part of the
clothing. The verse states that they are put on the four corners of your
garment, and the garment, which covers a person, is considered as clothing but
not the fringes. Thus, 22:12 is to inform us that having fringes of wool and
linen do not constitute a violation of 22:11, not because they are an exception
to the rule, but because fringes are not clothing.
The next law,
22:13-19, is when a husband falsely accuses his new wife of not being a virgin.
Ibn Ezra (on 22:13) writes that the connection is that the law follows the flow of life, first one has a house, then one
finds clothing and then one finds a wife. Tigay (1996, p. 456) writes that the
connection is because the proof of the virginity is with a garment, the simlah
in 22:17 and this connects to law by cross-dressing in 22:5. Maybe, 22:13-19 also
connects back to 22:1-4, the law of returning the lost animal. 22:3 refers to
finding, u-metsatah, the animal and 22:14 (also 22:17) records that the
husband states that he cannot find, matsati, a sign that his wife was a
virgin. In addition, after the false accusation the husband cannot send away
his wife, 22:19, which connects with the word send (recorded twice) by the
mother bird, 22:7.
The next law,
22:20,21, is when the husband's accusation is correct, and continues the case
of 22:13-19.
The next law,
22:22, is the punishment for adultery, and this is thematically the same as the
previous law. When the new wife is found not to have been a virgin, then this
can be thought of as a type of adultery since the husband was deceived by her
sexual misconduct. Also, both 22:21, and
22:22 end with the phrase, "remove evil from the Jewish people."
The next law,
22:23,24 is that sexual relations between a man and an engaged woman (to
another man) is also considered adultery, and again the law ends with the
phrase "remove evil from the Jewish people."
The next law,
22:25-27, is where the sexual relations between the man and the engaged woman took
place in the field, and then it is assumed not to have been consensual. This case continues the case of 22:23,24, but
differs as to where the sexual relations transpired.
The next law,
22:28, is a case of rape, and this connects with the previous law since in this
case it is known for sure that the sexual relations were not consensual.
The next law,
23:1, is that a person cannot marry his father's former wife (not his mother). Rofe notes that this law connects with the
laws of the tsitsit since 22:12 refers to the corner, kanfot, of
the garment, and 23:1 explains that one is not to reveal one's father's kenaf.
Another possibility is that sexual
relations between the son and his father's former wife impinges on his father,
just as the case of the new wife who was found not to be a virgin impinges on
her father, 22:21. In addition, the
father is mentioned prominently in the laws of the bride whose virginity is
under question, 22:15,16, and when there is sexual relations between a man and
single woman, 22:29, the previous verse to the law of 23:1. Finally, the law of 23:1 continues the idea
of the laws by the engaged woman, 22:23-27, since there the woman is
"off-limits" to other men even though she is not married, and so too
here, the father's former wife is "off-limits" to the son even though
now she is single.
The next law,
23:2, is that a man who is castrated cannot enter G-d's congregation. Alter (2004,
p. 991) notes, "The prohibition, then, is thematically related to the
immediately preceding prohibition against uncovering one's father's skirt, both
expressing a horror of violation of the body of the father." Or, to vary this idea, when a son marries his
father's former wife, he has in a sense castrated his father.
The next two
laws, 23:3-7 begin with phrase "X shall not be admitted, lo yavoh,
into G-d's congregation," which is the same opening statement of the
previous law of 23:2. Rofe also suggests
that 23:3, the prohibition not to allow a mamzer into G-d's congregation,
is connected with 23:1 since a child from a forbidden sexual relationship such
as the one recorded in 23:1 is considered a mamzer.
Alter (2004, p.
991) adds another possible connection between the law of 23:4-7 not to marry an
Ammonite and Moavite with 23:1. He quotes David Cohen-Zemach that the case of
23:1 of not uncovering a father's garment alludes to Ham seeing his father
Noah's nakedness (Bereshit 9:22). Furthermore, several commentators have related this
incident between Ham and Noah to incest, and then 23:1 is associated with 23:4-7
since Moav and Ammon derive from the incestuous relationship of Lot and his
daughters, Bereshit 19:30-38.
The next set of
laws, 23:8,9, is not to abhor an Edomite or an Egyptian. These laws follow 23:4-7
since they deal with foreigners, just as 23:4-7 refers to Moavites and
Ammonites. Again the word yavoh,
appears, 23:9, that the third generation Edomite and Egyptian can join G-d's
congregation, and this word was in 23:2,3,4, though there the phrase is lo
yavoh.
The next law,
23:10-13 record that the law of the sanctity of a military camp that a person
who has an emission of semen has to leave the camp at night, lo yavoh,
and in the morning he can return, yavoh, to the camp after washing. Rofe notes that the word yavoh in 23:11,12
connects this law with the laws of 23:2-9, which also use this word, as
mentioned above.
The next law,
23:14,15, is that when a person is in the military camp, he must go to the
bathroom outside the camp. This law
connects with the previous law since both refer to the laws of the sanctity of
the military camp, and the word machaneh, camp, appears seven times in
these two laws.
The next law,
23:16,17, is that a person must grant asylum to an escaped slave. Ibn Ezra (on
23:16) claims that this case is also dealing with war, that the slave is
running away during the war, which connects the law with the previous laws of
the military camp. Rofe notes that 23:14
refers to sitting outside, shavta, and 23:17 also refers to sitting with
you, yeshev. This same sound, albeit
with a different meaning, shav, also appears in 23:15. In addition, there is the contrast that one
must go outside the camp to go to the bathroom, while the slave stays with you. Another connection is that the same word
save, tsl, appears in both laws. 23:15
states that "G-d moves in the camp to save you, le-hatsilcha,"
and 23:16 records that you are to not to return the slave who has turned to you
to be saved, "yenatsel."
The next set of
laws, 23:18,19, forbid prostitution, and prohibit the prostitute to donate her
(and his?) income to the worship of G-d. Ibn Ezra (on 23:18) suggests that the
connection with the previous law is due to the connection between slaves and
prostitutes. (I am not sure if he means that slaves become prostitutes or that slavery
and prostitutes are similar actions of selling one's body for money.) Rofe
notes that 23:18,19 refer to a prostitute with the word kadesh, and this
word is mentioned in 23:15, though in a completely different context. However,
he thinks a more likely connection is that the previous law, 23:17, ended by
stating that one is not to ill-treat the slave, lo tonenu, and 23:17
uses the same three letters, taf, nun, nun, in reference to the
prostitute's gift, etnan.
The next law,
23:20,21, is the prohibition of charging interest to a Jew. Rofe and Kaufman (p. 139) connect this law to
the previous verse, which records that a person cannot donate money to the
worship of G-d that is derived from a dog (a male prostitute?), and 23:20,21
records seven times, the word neshek, which literally means to bite.
The next law,
23:22-24, is that a person must fulfill his vows. Ibn Ezra (on 23:22) and Rofe notes that this
section connects with the law by the prostitute (two laws prior, 23:19) which
also uses the word vow, neder. (Note the word neder in 23:19, is
recorded after the reference to the dog, and the laws of interest, which are
connected to the word dog, precede the law of fulfilling one's vow.) In
addition, the obligation to fulfill one's vows contrasts with the case of the
prostitute whose donations are not accepted, while for other people the Torah
encourages the people to fulfill their donations.
The next law,
23:25,26, is permission to eat grapes and grain from a neighbor's field if one
is passing through the field. Rofe
suggests that the connection is that 23:25 uses the phrase, kenafeshecha,
your soul can be satiated from eating the grapes and he points out that the
word nefesh can also mean throat.
Thus, he suggests that this word connects with the previous law which
records that one must fulfill the vows uttered by one's lips in 23:24. My guess
is that the connection is between the reference to the lips, 23:24, and to
eating in 23:25, similar to the association between a dog and biting in
23:19,20, that the lips are used for eating.
The next law,
24:1-5, is that while people can get divorced, they cannot remarry their first
spouse if they re-married somebody else in the interim. Ibn Ezra (on 24:1, see Weiser,
1976, vol. 3, p. 283, footnote 2) seems to connect this law with the previous
law as he writes that the woman is also considered a field that she has
children like fields have fruits. Rofe suggests the connection is that 24:1
refers to the wife he does not find favor in her husband's eyes, and this connects
to the references to other parts of a person's head, the throat in 23:25
according to his suggestion of the word kenafeshecha, and the mouth in
23:24. Alter (p. 996) notes that the connection between 24:1 and 23:15 is that
both verses have the phrase of ervat davar. In addition, maybe the connection is based on
the word hands. 23:26 records that when
you go through the fields, you can pluck the grain with your hands, and 24:1,3
state that the bill of divorce must be placed in her hands.
The next law,
24:5, is that a person is exempt from going to the army the first year of his
marriage. Rofe notes that this law begins with the same opening as the previous
24:1, "if a man takes a wife."
In addition, the laws are connected by the word davar in 24:1 and
24:5.
The next law,
24:6, is that a lender cannot take a millstone or even just the upper part of
the millstone from the borrower as a pawn since the borrower needs it to grind
his wheat. Ibn Ezra (24:6) notes that the Karaites claim that grinding and the
separation of the upper part of the millstone from the bottom part of millstone
have a sexual imagery, and this is why the law is recorded after the law to not
separate the husband and wife the first year of their marriage. Ibn Ezra rejects this idea, but Rofe and
Kaufmann follow it. Another possibility
following the literal idea of grinding is that 24:5 records that the husband
should be naki, which literally means clean, but here is used figuratively
that the husband should be free for the year, a strange use of the word naki.
This word, naki, corresponds to the process of grinding wheat, which was
the use of the millstone referred to in 24:6, to produces clean flour.
The next law
is, 24:7, prohibits kidnapping. Ibn Ezra (on 24:6), Rofe and Kaufman all
connects this law with the previous law based on the word nefesh in 24:6
and 24:7.
The next law,
24:8,9, is that a person must listen to the priest when they have leprosy. Ibn
Ezra (on 24:6) suggests the connection is that if one does not listen to the priest
then he/ she will harm other people, and this connects with several of the
previous laws and all of the ensuing laws that violations of the laws harm
others. Heinemann suggests that the
connection with the previous laws is because the leper must leave his house and
the camp. This is similar to the divorcee who leaves the house, 24:1, and
contrasts with the husband in the first year of his marriage who cannot leave
his house, 24:5. My guess is that the
connection is based on the story of Yosef who is the only case in the Torah of
a person being kidnapping and sold. 24:6 even uses the word your brother, and
that the victim is made into a slave, just like what occurred to Yosef. The law by leprosy refers to the case by
Miryam who spoke badly about Moshe, and this brings to mind the case of Yosef
who spoke badly about his brothers, Bereshit 37:2.
The next law,
24:10-13, is that a lender cannot enter the borrower's house to seize a pledge,
and if the borrower is poor and needs the pledge, then the lender must return
the pledge at night. Heinemann and Rofe connect this law with the leprosy since
here the lender has to stay outside the borrower's house, 24:11, just like the
leper had to stay outside the camp, Vayikra 13:46.
The next law,
24:14,15, is that a worker must be paid on time. Rofe notes that this law is
connected with the previous law through the word shemesh, the sun. 24:13
records that the pledge must be returned by sundown, and 24:15 records that the
worker must be paid by sundown.
The next law,
24:16 is that judges (see Rashbam on 24:16) cannot inflict capital punishment
on people for the sins of their relatives. Rofe notes that this law is
connected with the previous law by the word chet, sin. 24:15 records that if a person does not pay
his wages on time, then it will be accounted as a sin, and 24:16 records that
each person is to be punished for his own sins.
The next law,
24:17,18 is not to pervert the justice of the unfortunate people in society or
to take a pledge from a widow. Rofe writes that this connects to the law to pay
the worker's wages, 24:14,15, and to protect the poor person who borrows money,
24:10-13. More likely, following the idea
that 24:16 is referring to judges who cannot punish a person for another
person's sins, then 24:16 connects with the beginning of 24:17 which records
that judges are to judge all people equally.
The next set of
laws, 24:19-22 records that a person must leave over some of his crops, olives
and grapes for the poor. This set of laws is connected through the almost
identical motive statement to follow these laws in 24:18 and 24:22, and the
reference to the stranger, orphans and widows in 24:17 and 24:19.
The next law,
25:1-3, is that a person cannot be flogged more than 40 times (39 times
according to accepted opinion in the Mishnah, Makkot 3:10). Rofe notes the similarity between flogging
and the harvesting of olives referred to in 24:20 since in antiquity (still
today?) olives were harvested by beating the trees with long sticks. Another
connection is that 24:16-18 was addressed to judges as is 24:1-3.
The next law, 25:4,
is that one may not muzzle an ox while it is threshing. Rofe writes that the connection with the
previous verse is that word used for muzzle, tachasom, also has the
understanding of beating. My guess is that the connection is with the laws of
24:19-22 that one must leave over some of the crops for the poor, and 24:4 is
telling us that one must also allow the animal to have some of the crops.
The next law,
25:5-10, is that if a man dies without children, then the dead man's brother
can marry the widow. Rofe writes that
this law connects thematically with the law of 25:1-3. 25:3 records that one
cannot excessively flog a person since this would degrade the victim, and 25:9,10
records that if the brother of the dead man refuses to marry the widow then he
is to be embarrassed. My guess is that 25:5-10 is also connected with 25:1-3
but through the word ben. 25:1
records that there is a fight ben, between people, 25:2 refers to the
guilty persons in the strange way as a ben hacot, and 25:5 states that
the law only applies if the dead man does not have a ben, son.
The next law,
25:11,12, records that a woman should not improperly intervene in a fight. Ibn Ezra (on 25:11) notes that the opening of
the law is the opposite from the opening of 25:5, as 25:5 records, "if brothers live together," while 25:11
records "if men fight together." Heinemann and Rofe also note the
common word, together, in 25:5 and 25:11.
Rofe also adds that both in this case and by the brother-in-law who
refuses to marry the widow, the women embarrass a man. Furthermore, Eslinger (1984) notes that the
end of 25:12, do not pity the woman, lo tachos, has the same sound as
the prohibition to muzzle the animal in the law prior to yibbum, 25:4, lo
tachasom. In addition, Alter (p. 1002)
notes that the case of 25:12 could be where the woman injuries the man's
testicles. And, "if an impairment of reproductive function is involved,
this would be grave, and would link this law to the concern for the
continuation of man's name in the levirate marriage."
The next law,
25:13-16, is that one must have accurate weights in order not to deceive
people. Rofe (1988b, p. 276) suggests
that this law is connected with the previous law since the weights are stones, avanim,
and this word is a double entendre for women's genitals, which then connects
with the previous law where the woman grabbed the man's genitals, 25:11. (Rofe
argues that this understanding of the word avanim also applies to Shemot
1:16.) A different
approach can be suggested based on Hoffmann's (1961, p. 481) insight that the
law to have accurate weights is also recorded in Vayikra 19:35,36, and there
too it serves as the last law in a series of laws. The basis
for the laws of false weights is the requirement to be honest in one's business dealings. When there were
no coinage people paid for items by giving various amounts of metals such as
gold, silver and copper, and then these metals had to be weighted. Correct
weights and measures were an indication that a person was honest in his
economic transactions, and this is a very suitable theme to conclude the law
section.
In addition, the last two verses of this section,
25:15,16 record, “You must have completely honest weights and completely honest
measures, if you are to endure long on the soil that the Lord your G-d is giving
you. For everyone who does things, everyone who deals dishonestly, is abhorrent
to the Lord your G-d, (JPS translation in Tigay, 1966, p. 235). Tigay (1996, p. 235) notes that these
exhortations are “a fitting conclusion to the civil and criminal laws in the
book of Devarim.” Thus, according to this possibility, this law of having
accurate weights is not connected to the previous law, but is the law that ends
law sections.
The next and
last law in parashat Ki Teitzei, 25:17-19, is for the Jewish people to wipe out Amalek. Alter (2004,
p. 1003) quotes from Luzzatto (I did not see this in my commentary of Luzzatto) that this law is
connected with the previous law since both laws involved deception, the false
weights and Amalek's attack on the Jewish people, 25:18. Alter also notes that
the word to remember Amalek, zekher, 25:19, "is strongly linked
with zakhar, male," and the case of the levirate marriage was where
there was no son, 25:5, and where the goal was to prevent a name from being
lost, 25:6. In addition, the word wipe
out, timcheh, appears in both 25:6 and 25:19.
Bibliography:
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Boorstin, Daniel J., 1983, The discoverers, New York: Random House.
Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1973, Biblical and oriental studies, vol. 1, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, pp. 1-7. Initially printed in Hebrew in 1952, Connections of sections and their order in Tanakh, World Congress of Jewish Studies, vol. 1, pp. 165-169.
Eslinger, Lyle, 1984, More drafting techniques in Deuteronomic laws, Vetus Testamentum, 34:2, pp. 221-226.
Heinemann, Yosef, 1965, The question of the choice of laws included in Ki Teze and their order, Hebrew, Mayanot, 5, pp. 32-36.
Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1961, Commentary on Deuteronomy, translated by Tzvi Har-Shefer, Tel Aviv: Nezach.
Kaufman, Stephen A. 1978, The structure of the Deuteronomic law, Maarav, vol. 1, pp.105-158.
Olsen, Dennis, 1994, Deuteronomy and the death of Moses, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Rofe, Alexander, 1988b, The arrangement of the laws in Deuteronomy, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 64:4, December, pp. 265-287.
-----, Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation, London: T & T Clark, 2002.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Weiser, Asher, 1976, Commentary of Ibn Ezra on the Torah, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.
Wenham, G.J. and J. G. McConville, 1980, Drafting techniques in some Deuteronomic laws, Vetus Testamentum, 30, pp. 248-252.