Questions on the Heptateuch
The whole work on one page. Select a passage number to open that passage with its notes, Scripture references, and citation.
Chapter 2
2.71CSEL 28.2:135–140
Quaeritur decem praecepta legis quemadmodum diuidenda sint: utrum quattuor sint usque ad praeceptum de sabbato, quae ad ipsum deum pertinent, sex autem reliqua, quorum primum est: honora patrem et matrem, quae ad hominem pertinent, an potius illa tria sint et ista septem. qui enim dicunt illa quattuor esse, separant quod dictum est: non erunt tibi dii alii praeter me, ut aliud praeceptum sit: non facies tibi idolum et cetera, ubi figmenta colenda prohibentur; unum autem uolunt esse: non concupisces uxorem proximi tui, non concupisces domum proximi tui et omnia usque in finem. qui uero illa tria esse dicunt et ista septem, unum uolunt esse quidquid de uno colendo deo praecipitur, ne aliquid aliud praeter illum pro deo colatur; haec autem extrema in duo diuidunt, ut aliud sit: non concupisces uxorem proximi tui, aliud: non concupisces domum proximi tui. decem tamen esse praecepta neutri ambigunt, quoniam hoc scriptura testatur. Mihi tamen uidetur congruentius accipi tria illa et ista septem, quia et trinitatem uidentur illa quae ad deum pertinent insinuare diligentius intuentibus. et reuera quod dictum est: non erunt tibi di alii praeter me, hoc ipsum perfectius explicatur, cum prohibentur colenda figmenta. concupiscentia porro uxoris alienae et concupiscentia domus alienae tantum in peccando differunt, ut illi, quod dictum est: non concupisces domum proximi tui, adiuncta sint et alia dicente scriptura: neque agrum eius neque seruum eius neque ancillam eius neque bouem eius neque subiugalem eius nec omne pecus eius nec quaecumque proximi tui sunt. discreuisse autem uidetur concupiscentiam uxoris alienae a concupiscentia cuiuslibet rei alienae, quando utrumque sic coepit: non concupisces uxorem proximi tui; non concupisces domum proximi tui, et huic coepit cetera adiungere. non autem, cum dixisset: non concupisces uxorem proximi tui, huic conexuit alia dicens: "neque domum eius neque agrum eius neque seruum eius" et cetera; sed omnino adparent haec esse coniuncta quae uno praecepto uidentur contineri et discreta ab illo. ubi uxor nominata est. illud autem, ubi dictum est: non erunt tibi di alii praeter me, adparet huius rei diligentiorem exsecutionem esse in his quae subiuncta sunt. quo enim pertinet: non facies tibi idolum neque ullum simulacrum, quaecumque in caelo sunt sursum et quaecumque in terra deorsum et quaecumque in aqua sub terra, non adorabis eis neque seruies illis. nisi ad id quod dictum est: non erunt tibi dii alii praeter me? Sed rursus quaeritur quo differat: non furtum facies ab eo quod paulo post de non concupiscendis proximi rebus praecipitur. non quidem omnis qui rem proximi sui concupiscit furatur; sed si omnis qui furatur rem proximi concupiscit. poterat in illa generalitate, ubi de non concupiscenda re proximi praecipitur, etiam illud quod ad furtum pertinet contineri. similiter etiam quaeritur, quo differat quod dictum est: non moechaberis, ab eo quod paulo post dicitur: non concupisces uxorem proximi tui. in eo quippe, quod dictum est: non moechaberis, poterat et illud intellegi. nisi forte in illis duobus peccatis moechandi et furandi ipsa opera notata sunt, in his uero extremis ipsa concupiscentia: quae tantum differunt, ut aliquando moechetur qui non concupiscit uxorem proximi, aliqua alia causa cum illi miscetur, aliquando autem concupiscat nec ei misceatur poenam timens. et hoc fortasse lex ostendere uoluit, quod utrumque peccata sint. Item quaeri solet utrum moechiae nomine etiam fornicatio teneatur. hoc enim graecum uerbum est, quod iam scriptura utitur pro latino; moechos tamen graece nonnisi adulteros dicit. sed utique ista lex non solis uiris in populo uerum etiam feminis data est. neque enim quia dictum est: non concupisces uxorem proximi tui, nihil hic sibi praeceptum debet putare femina et tamquam licite concupiscere uirum proximae suae. si ergo hic ex illo quod uiro dictum est intellegitur. quamuis non dictum sit, quod etiam ad feminam pertineat, quanto magis eo quod dictum est: non moechaberis, uterque sexus adstringitur, cum et ipsum praeceptum potest referri ad utrumque, sicut: non occides, non furaberis et quae alia similiter non expresso uno sexu utrique uidentur sonare communiter! tamen ubi unus exprimitur, honoratior utique exprimitur, id est masculinus, ut ex hoc intellegat etiam femina quid sibi praeceptum sit. ac per hoc si femina moecha est habens uirum concumbendo cum eo, qui uir eius non est, etiam si ille non habeat uxorem, profecto moechus est et uir habens uxorem concumbendo cum ea quae uxor eius non est, etiam si illa non habeat uirum. sed utrum, si faciat qui uxorem non habeat uel femina quae uirum non habet, praecepti huius transgressione teneantur, merito quaeritur. si enim non tenentur, non est prohibita in decalogo fornicatio, sed sola moechia, id est adulterium, quamuis omnis moechia etiam fornicatio esse intellegitur, sicut loquuntur scripturae; dominus enim dicit in euangelio: quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam excepta causa fornicationis, facit eam moechari. hic utique fornicationem appellauit, si cum alio peccet quae uirum habet, quod est moechia, id est adulterium. omnis ergo moechia etiam fornicatio in scripturis dicitur. sed utrum etiam omnis fornicatio moechia dici possit, in eisdem scripturis non mihi interim occurrit locutionis exemplum. sed si non omnis fornicatio etiam moechia dici potest, ubi sit in decalogo prohibita illa fornicatio, quam faciunt uiri, qui uxores non habent, cum feminis, quae maritos non habent, utrum inueniri possit, ignoro. sed si furti nomine bene intellegitur omnis inlicita usurpatio rei alienae — non enim rapinam permisit qui furtum prohibuit; sed utique a parte totum intellegi uoluit, quidquid inlicite rerum proximi aufertur — profecto et nomine moechiae omnis inlicitus concubitus atque illorum membrorum non legitimus usus prohibitus debet intellegi. Et quod dictum est: non occides, non putandum est fieri contra hoc praeceptum, quando lex occidit uel occidi aliquem deus iubet. ille enim facit qui iubet, quando ministerium negare non licet. In eo etiam quod dictum est: falsum testimonium non dices aduersus proximum tuum, quaeri solet utrum prohibitum sit omne mendacium, ne forte non sit hoc praeceptum aduersus eos qui dicunt tunc esse mentiendum, quando id mendacium prodeest alicui et nihil obest ei cui mentiris. tale quippe non est aduersus proximum tuum; ut ideo uideatur hoc addidisse scriptura, quae posset breuiter dicere: falsum testimonium non dices, sicut dixit: non occides, non moechaberis, non furaberis. sed hinc magna quaestio est nec a festinantibus commode explicari potest, quomodo accipiendum sit: perdes omnes qui loquuntur mendacium, et: noli uelle mentiri omne mendacium et cetera huius modi.
It is asked how the ten commandments of the law are to be divided: whether there are four up to the commandment about the Sabbath, which pertain to God himself, and the remaining six, of which the first is “Honour your father and mother,” which pertain to man; or rather whether those are three and these seven. For those who say those are four separate what is said, “You shall have no other gods besides me,” so that “You shall not make yourself an idol,” and the rest, where the worship of images is forbidden, is another commandment; but they want “You shall not covet your neighbour's wife, you shall not covet your neighbour's house,” and everything to the end, to be one. But those who say those are three and these seven want whatever is commanded about worshipping the one God, so that nothing else be worshipped as God besides him, to be one; and they divide these last into two, so that “You shall not covet your neighbour's wife” is one, and “You shall not covet your neighbour's house” another. Yet neither side doubts that there are ten commandments, since Scripture testifies to this. To me, however, it seems more fitting to take those as three and these as seven, because those that pertain to God seem to those who look more carefully to suggest the Trinity. And indeed what is said, “You shall have no other gods besides me,” is itself more fully unfolded when the worship of images is forbidden. Further, the coveting of another's wife and the coveting of another's house differ so much in sinning that to the one that is said, “You shall not covet your neighbour's house,” other things too are joined, Scripture saying, “nor his field, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his beast of burden, nor any of his cattle, nor whatever belongs to your neighbour.” But it seems to have distinguished the coveting of another's wife from the coveting of any other thing of another's, since it began both thus: “You shall not covet your neighbour's wife; you shall not covet your neighbour's house,” and to this it began to join the rest. It did not, when it had said, “You shall not covet your neighbour's wife,” connect other things to this, saying, “nor his house, nor his field, nor his male servant,” and the rest; but these plainly appear to be joined, which seem to be contained in one commandment, and distinct from the one where the wife is named. But in the case of what is said, “You shall have no other gods besides me,” it appears that the more careful working out of this matter lies in what is added. For to what does “You shall not make yourself an idol, nor any likeness of whatever is in heaven above and whatever is on earth below and whatever is in the water under the earth; you shall not worship them nor serve them” pertain, if not to what is said, “You shall have no other gods besides me”? But again it is asked how “You shall not steal” differs from what is commanded a little later about not coveting a neighbour's things. Not everyone who covets his neighbour's thing steals; but if everyone who steals covets his neighbour's thing, what concerns theft could have been contained in that general command about not coveting a neighbour's thing. Similarly it is also asked how what is said, “You shall not commit adultery,” differs from what is said a little later, “You shall not covet your neighbour's wife.” For in what is said, “You shall not commit adultery,” that too could have been understood. Unless perhaps in those two sins of adultery and theft the deeds themselves are marked, but in these last the coveting itself; and these differ so much that sometimes a man commits adultery who does not covet his neighbour's wife, when he has intercourse with her for some other reason, and sometimes he covets her and does not have intercourse with her, fearing the penalty. And perhaps the law wished to show this, that both are sins. Again, it is usually asked whether sexual immorality (fornicatio) too is included under the name of moechia. For this is a Greek word which Scripture now uses for the Latin; yet in Greek moechoi means only adulterers. But certainly this law was given not only to the men among the people but also to the women. For because it is said, “You shall not covet your neighbour's wife,” a woman ought not to think that nothing is commanded her here, and that she may lawfully covet her neighbour's husband. If, then, it is understood here from what was said to the man, although it is not said, that it pertains to the woman too, how much more is each sex bound by what is said, “You shall not commit adultery,” since that commandment itself can be referred to both, like “You shall not kill,” “You shall not steal,” and the others which in the same way, no one sex being expressed, seem to speak to both in common! Yet where one is expressed, it is certainly the more honoured, that is, the masculine, so that from this the woman too may understand what is commanded her. And accordingly, if a woman who has a husband is an adulteress by lying with a man who is not her husband, even if he has no wife, then certainly a man who has a wife is an adulterer by lying with a woman who is not his wife, even if she has no husband. But whether, if a man who has no wife, or a woman who has no husband, does it, they are held for transgression of this commandment, is rightly asked. For if they are not held, then sexual immorality is not forbidden in the Decalogue, but only moechia, that is, adultery; although every moechia is understood to be also fornicatio, as the Scriptures speak; for the Lord says in the Gospel: “Whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery.” Here certainly he called it sexual immorality (fornicatio) if she who has a husband sins with another, which is moechia, that is, adultery. So every moechia is also called fornicatio in the Scriptures. But whether every fornicatio too can be called moechia, no example of such a usage in the same Scriptures occurs to me for the present. But if not every fornicatio can also be called moechia, I do not know whether it can be found where in the Decalogue that sexual immorality is forbidden which men who have no wives commit with women who have no husbands. But if under the name of theft every unlawful taking of another's thing is rightly understood (for he who forbade theft did not permit robbery, but certainly wished the whole to be understood from the part, whatever of a neighbour's things is unlawfully taken away), then certainly under the name of moechia too every unlawful intercourse and unlawful use of those members ought to be understood as forbidden. And as to what is said, “You shall not kill,” it is not to be thought that it is done against this commandment when the law kills or God commands someone to be killed. For he does it who commands, when it is not lawful to refuse the service. In what is said too, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour,” it is usually asked whether every lie is forbidden, lest perhaps this commandment is not against those who say that one must lie when the lie benefits someone and does no harm to the one to whom you lie. For such a lie is not “against your neighbour”; so that Scripture seems to have added this for that reason, though it could have said briefly, “You shall not bear false witness,” as it said, “You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal.” But here is a great question, and it cannot be conveniently explained by those in a hurry, how we are to take, “You will destroy all who speak a lie,” and, “Do not wish to tell any lie,” and the rest of this kind.
Chapter 3
3.61CSEL 28.2:291–292
Turpitudinem uxoris fratris tui non reuelabis; turpitudo fratris tui est. quaeritur. utrum hoc uiuo fratre an mortuo sit prohibitum, et non parua quaestio est. si enim dixerimus de uiui fratris uxore locutam scripturam uno generali praecepto, quo prohibetur homo ad uxorem accedere alienam, etiam hoc utique continetur. quid est ergo quod tam diligenter has personas, quas appellat domesticas, propriis prohibitionibus distinguit a ceteris? non enim et quod prohibet de uxore patris, hoc est de nouerca, uiuo patre accipiendum est et non potius mortuo. nam uiuo patre quis non uideat multo maxime prohibitum, si cuiuslibet hominis uxor aliena prohibita est maculari adulterio? de his ergo personis uidetur loqui, quae possent non habentes uiros inmatrimonium conuenire, nisi lege prohiberentur, sicut fertur esse consuetudo Persarum. sed rursus, si fratre mortuo intellexerimus prohibitum esse ducere fratris uxorem, occurrit illud, quod excitandi seminis causa, si ille sine filiis defunctus esset, iubet scriptura esse faciendum. ac per hoc conlata ista prohibitione cum illa iussione, ne inuicem aduersentur, intellegenda est exceptio, id est non licere cuiquam defuncti fratris ducere uxorem, si defunctus posteros dereliquit; aut etiam illud esse prohibitum, ne liceret ducere fratris uxorem etiam quae a fratre uiuo per repudium recessisset. tunc enim,sicut dominus dicit, ad duritiam Iudaeorum Moyses permiserat dare libellum repudii et per hanc dimissionem potuit putari quod licite quisquam sibi uxorem copularet fratris. ubi adulterium non timeret, quoniam repudio discessisset.
“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness.” It is asked whether this is forbidden while the brother is alive or when he is dead, and it is no small question. For if we say that Scripture spoke of the wife of a living brother, this too is certainly contained in the one general precept by which a man is forbidden to approach another man's wife. Why, then, does it distinguish so carefully these persons, whom it calls members of the household, from the rest by prohibitions of their own? For what it forbids concerning the father's wife, that is, the stepmother, is not to be taken of the father while he is alive rather than after his death. For while the father is alive, who does not see that it is very much more forbidden, if the wife of any man whatever is forbidden to be defiled by adultery? It seems, then, to speak of those persons who, having no husbands, could come together in marriage if they were not forbidden by the law, as is said to be the custom of the Persians. But again, if we understand that it is forbidden to marry a brother's wife when the brother is dead, there occurs what Scripture commands to be done to raise up seed, if he had died without sons. And therefore, when this prohibition is compared with that command, so that they may not be contrary to each other, an exception must be understood: that is, that it is not lawful for anyone to marry the wife of a deceased brother if the deceased left descendants; or else that this too was forbidden, that it should not be lawful to marry a brother's wife even if she had departed from the living brother by a bill of repudiation. For at that time, as the Lord says, because of the hardness of the Jews Moses had permitted them to give a bill of repudiation, and through this putting away it could be thought that someone might lawfully join his brother's wife to himself, where he would not fear adultery, since she had departed by repudiation.
Chapter 5
5.33CSEL 28.2:394–395
Si autem quis acceperit uxorem et habitauerit cum ea et oderit eam et inponat ei occasionis uerba et detulerit ei nomen malignum et dixerit: mulierem hanc accepi et accedens ad eam non inueni eius uirginalia, et accipiens pater puellae et mater producent uirginalia puellae ad senatum ad portam et dicet pater puellae senioribus:filiam meam hanc dedi homini huic uxorem et odio habens eam ipse nunc inponit ei occasionis uerba dicens: non inueni filiae tuae uirginalia, et haece uirginalia filiae meae. et replicabunt pallium coram senibus ciuitatis illius, et accipient senes ciuitatis illius hominem illum et castigabunt eum et damnificabunt eum centum siclis et dabunt patri adulescentulae, quia protulit nomen malum super uirginem Israhelitem; et ipsius erit uxor, non poterit dimittere eam perpetuo tempore. si autem uerum factum sit hoc uerbum et non inueniantur uirginalia puellae, et producent adulescentulam ad ianuam domus patris ipsius et lapidabunt eam uiri ciuitatis eius in lapidibus et morietur, quoniam fecit inprudentiam in filiis Israhel prostituere domum patris sui: et auferes malignum ex uobis ipsis. satis hinc adparet quemadmodum subditas feminas uiris et paene famulas lex esse uoluerit uxores, quod dicens aduersus uxorem uir testimonium unde lapidaretur illa, si hoc uerum esse demonstraretur, ipse tamen non uicissim lapidatur, si hoc falsum esse constiterit, sed tantummodo castigatur et damnificatur eique perpetuo iubetur adhaerere qua carere uoluerat. in aliis autem causis eum, qui testimonio falso cuiquam nocuerit, quo, si probaretur, iussit occidi, eadem poena plecti iubet, qua fuerat, si uerum esset, iste plectendus.
“But if anyone takes a wife and lives with her and hates her, and lays pretexts of words against her and brings an evil name upon her and says: I took this woman, and when I approached her I did not find her tokens of virginity; then the father and mother of the girl shall take and bring out the girl's tokens of virginity to the elders at the gate, and the girl's father shall say to the elders: I gave this my daughter to this man as wife, and, hating her, he now lays pretexts of words against her, saying: I did not find your daughter's tokens of virginity; and these are my daughter's tokens of virginity. And they shall spread out the cloak before the elders of that city, and the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him and fine him a hundred shekels and give them to the girl's father, because he brought out an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he shall not be able to put her away for all time. But if this word has proved true and the girl's tokens of virginity are not found, they shall bring the girl out to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones and she shall die, because she has done folly among the sons of Israel, prostituting her father's house; and you shall take away the evil from among yourselves.” Hence it appears clearly how subject to their husbands, and almost servants, the law wished wives to be: that a husband who gives testimony against his wife, for which she would be stoned if it were shown to be true, is not himself stoned in turn if it is established to be false, but is only chastised and fined, and is commanded to cleave for ever to the one he had wished to be rid of. But in other cases it commands that he who has harmed someone by false testimony, for which, if it were proved, it commanded that person to be killed, be punished with the same penalty with which the other would have been punished if it were true.
5.34CSEL 28.2:395–396
Si autem inuenerit aliquis puellam uirginem quae sponsata non est et uim faciens ei dormierit cum ea et inuentus fuerit, dabit homo qui dormiuit cum ea patri puellae quinquaginta didragma argenti et ipsius erit uxor, quia humiliauit eam; non poterit dimittere eam per omne tempus. merito quaeritur utrum ista poena sit, ut non eam possit dimittere per omne tempus, quam inordinate atque inlicite uiolauit. si enim ob hoc intellegere uoluerimus eam non posse, id est non debere dimitti per omne tempus, quia uxor effecta est, occurret illud quod permisit Moyses dare libellum repudii et dimittere. in his autem qui inlicite uitiant noluit licere, ne ad ludibrium fecisse uideatur et potius finxisse quod eam uxorem duxerit quam uere placitoque duxisse. hoc et de illa iussum est, cui fuerit uir calumniatus de uirginalibus non inuentis.
“But if someone finds a girl, a virgin who is not betrothed, and, using force on her, sleeps with her, and is found out, the man who slept with her shall give the girl's father fifty didrachms of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he humbled her; he shall not be able to put her away for all time.” It is rightly asked whether this is a penalty, that he cannot put away for all time the woman whom he violated in a disorderly and unlawful way. For if we wish to understand that she cannot, that is, ought not, be put away for all time for this reason, that she has been made a wife, there occurs the fact that Moses permitted a bill of repudiation to be given and the wife put away. But in the case of those who defile unlawfully he did not wish it to be lawful, so that the man might not seem to have done it for sport, and to have feigned taking her as wife rather than truly and willingly taking her. This was commanded also concerning the woman against whom her husband made a false charge about tokens of virginity not found.