It is fitting that Moshe’s trajectory ends with a song. Back in Exodus 15, Moshe’s leadership role began with a song—Az Yashir. That song was sung in conjunction with the Israelites, with Moshe leading the way. This song is a solo—sung by Moshe and directed at the people. Az Yashir is written as a series of interlocking bricks in the text—symbolic of the bricks that the Israelites toiled over in Egypt. Haazinu is written as two columns. Perhaps the two columns represent the bookends of Moshe’s two songs. In the beginning, Moshe had to lead a weary group of slaves, and now he lets go of a complete nation, ready to take on their next heady task of conquering the land of Canaan without their only leader.

Az Yashir contains a lot of aquatic imagery. This makes sense, as it commemorates the Egyptians drowning in the Sea of Reeds. Haazinu also has some interesting water imagery. “May my teachings come down as the rain, My speech distill as the dew, Like showers on young growth, Like droplets on the grass” (verse 2).

יַעֲרֹף כַּמָּטָר לִקְחִי תִּזַּל כַּטַּל אִמְרָתִי כִּשְׂעִירִים עֲלֵי־דֶשֶׁא וְכִרְבִיבִים עֲלֵי־עֵשֶׂב

(Deuteronomy 32:2)

The connection between the Torah and water hearkens back to the very first incident after Az Yashir. “Then Moses caused Israel to set out from the Sea of Reeds. They went on into the wilderness of Shur; they traveled three days in the wilderness and found no water” (Exodus 15:22).

וַיַּסַּע מֹשֶׁה אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיַּם־סוּף וַיֵּצְאוּ אֶל־מִדְבַּר־שׁוּר וַיֵּלְכוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים בַּמִּדְבָּר וְלֹא מָצְאוּ מָיִם

(Exodus 15:22)

The commentators explain that the three days without water was symbolic of the people going three days without Torah. This caused them to start complaining. This verse is also the source for Torah reading taking place three times a week—so that three days do not pass without Torah.

In Haazinu, Moshe utilizes four types of precipitation—1) rain, 2) dew, 3) showers, and 4) droplets. Like precipitation, the Torah comes in many forms. Sometimes the Torah can be heavy and difficult like the showers, sometimes it can be soft and pleasant like the dew, other times it can be in between like the rain. Points of the Torah can be distinct like droplets. The Torah also manages to cover all areas at all times—just like showers, rain, dew, and droplets symbolize different ways that moisture covers the earth at one time. The Torah also comes down from the heavens to nourish the people on earth.

Perhaps Moshe also utilizes four different types of rain to symbolize the four other books of the Torah that are already completed (Bereishit, Shemot, Vayikra, and Bamidbar), or the four books of the Torah that encompass his lifetime (Shemot, Vayikra, Bamidbar, Devarim). From a poetic standpoint, it is fitting that Moshe borrows this powerful multi faceted image of water used after his first song to set up the introduction of his final one.

The final message is nigh. Moshe begins the introduction tohis song and blessings: “I am now one hundred and twenty years old, I can notgo out and come in.”

בֶּן־מֵאָהוְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹםלֹא־אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא

(Deuteronomy 31:2)

The Hebrew “latzeit v’lavo” literally means go out and comein. Ostensibly, Moshe is saying that he is 120 years old and cannot move aroundanymore. This makes sense for him to say right before he dies. However, Rashidoes not like the literal translation. How could Moshe be frail if in a fewchapters the Torah says “His eye was not dim nor his natural force abated”(34:7)?

לֹא־כָהֲתָהעֵינוֹ וְלֹא־נָס לֵחֹה

(Deuteronomy 34:7)

Rashi gives two answers. The first is that Moshe was notpermitted to move on—Hashem had given that role to Yehoshua. This first answermatches the second part of the verse: “Hashem said to me, ‘You shall not goacross yonder Jordan.’”

וַה׳ אָמַר אֵלַי לֹאתַעֲבֹר אֶת־הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה

(Deuteronomy 31:2)

This must be the explanation for the first part. Moshecannot move beyond this point because Hashem decreed it. Rashi’s second answeris that Moshe could no longer provide guidance on the Torah.

Ibn Ezra explains it as Moshe declaring that he is no longerfit to be a political or military leader  Latzeit = going out to lead the people to war

Lavo = coming in to judge, teach, and administerjustice

The use of go out and come in also evokes the blessings andcurses of a few chapters ago. “Blessed shall you be in your comings and blessedshall you be in your goings.”

בָּרוּךְאַתָּה בְּבֹאֶךָ וּבָרוּךְ אַתָּהבְּצֵאתֶךָ

(Deuteronomy 28:6)

“Cursed shall you be in your comings and cursed shall you bein your goings.”

אָרוּר אַתָּה בְּבֹאֶךָ וְאָרוּראַתָּה בְּצֵאתֶךָ

(Deuteronomy 28:19)

Perhaps Moshe uses this phrase specifically tolet the people know not just that he is no longer able to move forward, butthat he is no longer eligible for the blessings and curses. Additionally, whilehe is no longer able, the people are now given the opportunity to move forward.Moshe may not be able to go out, but the people can. For the first time, theIsraelites can do something that the great Moshe can not. The path before themis the same that Moshe laid out three chapters earlier. If they follow God theywill be blessed like Moshe had been blessed, but if they fail to follow God,then their comings and goings will not be as pleasant as Moshe’s.

The Talmud in Bava Metzia 59b discusses a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua regarding the ritual purity of a stove. Rabbi Eliezer called upon miracles to prove his position, including a heavenly voice. Rabbi Yehoshua stood and declared:

“It is not in the heavens!” (verse 12).

לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם הִוא

(Deuteronomy 30:12)

God had given the Torah to the people, and by doing so transferred authority to human interpretation. Halacha follows the majority.

There is another way to understand this verse. After forty years of wandering, Moshe—who spoke face to face with God—is not entering the land. He has given the people 613 commandments, many carrying severe consequences. How can ordinary people live up to this?

Moshe answers with one of the most poetic passages in the Torah:

“It is not in the heavens, that you should say, ‘Who among us can go up to the heavens and get it for us…?’

Neither is it beyond the sea…

No, the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it.” (verses 12–14)

לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם הִוא לֵאמֹר מִי יַעֲלֶה־לָּנוּ הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וְיִקָּחֶהָ לָּנוּ…

וְלֹא מֵעֵבֶר לַיָּם הִוא…

כִּי־קָרוֹב אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר מְאֹד בְּפִיךָ וּבִלְבָבְךָ לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ

The laws may seem overwhelming in the abstract, but Moshe insists they are attainable. They are not meant for angels, nor do they require heroic quests. They live in daily speech and moral instinct. With the right mindset, they can be fulfilled.

Moshe’s final farewell address commences in chapter 29. He begins by reaffirming the covenant of the Torah itself:

“I make this covenant, with its sanctions—not with you alone, but both with those who are standing here with us this day before our God and with those who are not with us here this day” (verse 13).

לֹא אִתְּכֶם לְבַדְּכֶם אָנֹכִי כֹּרֵת אֶת־הַבְּרִית הַזֹּאת וְאֶת־הָאָלָה הַזֹּאת׃

כִּי אֶת־אֲשֶׁר יֶשְׁנוֹ פֹה עִמָּנוּ עֹמֵד הַיּוֹם לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר אֵינֶנּוּ פֹה עִמָּנוּ הַיּוֹם

(Deuteronomy 29:13–14)

The Talmud explains that “those not present” refers to converts who are not currently part of the Israelite nation (Shabbat 146a). The Midrash says that this verse alludes to the fact that the souls of all future generations of Israelites/Jews were present that day. “Those who are not standing with us” were actually present at this moment so that they too would be bound by the covenant. They may not have been physically there, but they were spiritually there.

The idea of a future covenant for those not physically present was not new. The Rav points out that Avimelech had Avraham swear on behalf of his children and grandchildren in Genesis 21:23. People of the ancient world understood the importance of binding future generations.

This chain of passing the covenant forward is immortalized in the opening Mishnah of Avot: “Moses received the Torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua…” and continues through rabbinic authority to this day. This creates an incentive for past generations to preserve the mesorah, knowing that their descendants remain bound by God’s covenant. At the same time, the covenant anchors future generations to the mesorah of the past. For example, communities outside Israel still observe two days of Yom Tov despite a fixed calendar, based on the Talmudic principle “minhag avoteinu b’yadeinu.” This reaching backward and forward creates a stable foundation that keeps the Torah and God’s covenant alive.

Chapter 28 addresses the other half of the covenantal equation: the blessings and the curses. At first glance, the two lists seem to parallel one another closely, but a closer look reveals subtle and meaningful differences.

Both sections open with a conditional introduction. Blessings are promised if the people obey God and faithfully observe the commandments, while curses follow if the people fail to obey. The structure then proceeds through a series of matched statements:

• Blessed in the city / cursed in the city

• Blessed in the country / cursed in the country

• Blessed in comings and goings / cursed in comings and goings

The most significant difference, however, appears in the introductory verses. Blessings are not promised merely for obedience, but for faithful obedience. In Hebrew, this is expressed through the doubled verb שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ (shamoa tishme’u), emphasizing attentiveness, intention, and consistency. This phrase appears elsewhere in the Torah—Exodus 15:26, Exodus 23:22, and Deuteronomy 15:5—and in each case introduces divine blessing.

Curses, by contrast, require far less. One does not need to actively rebel; simply failing to heed God’s commandments is sufficient. This asymmetry suggests an important principle: it is easier to lose blessing than to earn it.

Moshe may be introducing a three tiered moral framework:

1. Disobedience leads to curse. 2.Basic obedience maintains the status quo. 3.Faithful, intentional obedience brings blessing. In this model, merely “going through the motions” is not enough to secure divine favor. Blessing requires attentiveness, commitment, and a genuine alignment of will. By adding this extra requirement, Moshe pushes the people beyond minimal compliance and challenges them to pursue excellence in their relationship with God.

As the nation prepares to enter the land, Moshe’s message is clear: covenantal life is not sustained by habit alone. Blessing flows from conscious, faithful devotion—and that, ultimately, is the standard to which the people are being called.

God commands the people to split onto two mountains with six tribes on one and six on the other. One side answers amen to the blessings and one side answers amen to the curses. God then pronounces twelve curses.

“When you cross the Jordan, these shall stand on Mount Gerizim for the blessing… and these shall stand on Mount Ebal for the curse.”

אֵלֶּה יַעַמְדוּ לְבָרֵךְ אֶת־הָעָם עַל־הַר גְּרִזִים… וְאֵלֶּה יַעַמְדוּ עַל־הַקְּלָלָה בְּהַר עֵיבָל

(Deuteronomy 27:12–13)

Why these twelve curses? How are they related? One possible answer is that these curses given at the end of the wilderness journey correspond to the Ten Commandments which were given at the beginning. Some do match clearly—such as verse 15, which addresses idol worship:

“Cursed be anyone who makes a sculptured or molten image…”

אָרוּר הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה פֶסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה

(Deuteronomy 27:15)

Verse 16, which prohibits insulting one’s parents:

“Cursed be one who insults his father or his mother.”

אָרוּר מַקְלֶה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ

(Deuteronomy 27:16)

And verse 24, which addresses murder:

“Cursed be one who strikes down his fellow in secret.”

אָרוּר מַכֵּה רֵעֵהוּ בַּסָּתֶר

(Deuteronomy 27:24)

Other curses are only partially related. Verses 20, 22, and 23 address forbidden sexual relationships as a parallel adultery:

“Cursed be one who lies with his father’s wife…”

אָרוּר שֹׁכֵב עִם־אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו (27:20)

“Cursed be one who lies with any animal.”

אָרוּר שֹׁכֵב עִם־כָּל־בְּהֵמָה (27:21)

“Cursed be one who lies with his sister…”

אָרוּר שֹׁכֵב עִם־אֲחֹתוֹ (27:22)

Verse 25, which condemns taking a bribe to kill an innocent person, could be connected to false testimony:

“Cursed be one who takes a bribe to strike down an innocent person.”

אָרוּר לֹקֵחַ שֹׁחַד לְהַכּוֹת נֶפֶשׁ דָּם נָקִי

(Deuteronomy 27:25)

However, several curses do not clearly correspond to the Ten Commandments at all: verse 17, moving a neighbor’s boundary marker:

אָרוּר מַסִּיג גְּבוּל רֵעֵהוּ (27:17)

Verse 18, placing a stumbling block before the blind:

אָרוּר מַשְׁגֶּה עִוֵּר בַּדָּרֶךְ (27:18)

Verse 19, subverting justice for the vulnerable:

אָרוּר מַטֶּה מִשְׁפַּט גֵּר יָתוֹם וְאַלְמָנָה (27:19)

And verse 26, a general curse for not upholding the Torah:

“Cursed be one who does not uphold the words of this Torah.”

אָרוּר אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָקִים אֶת־דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת

(Deuteronomy 27:26)

Only seven of the curses clearly correspond—or even loosely correspond—to the Ten Commandments, while several commandments are not represented at all. So this theory does not work well.

Rashbam explains that all twelve curses share a single unifying characteristic: they are sins typically committed in secret. Because they often escape judicial punishment, the Torah invokes a public, communal curse. Even the two acts that could occur publicly—idolatry and murder—are explicitly framed in the text as occurring secretly.

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch builds on this idea, explaining that these curses target people who present themselves publicly as righteous while acting immorally in private. A person may loudly proclaim concern for the orphan or widow, yet secretly exploit them. Tragically, later in the book of Kings, the people openly profess loyalty to God while secretly harboring idols behind closed doors.

Perhaps the simplest explanation is that Moshe selected these twelve curses because they represent the greatest hidden threats to a just society as the people enter the land. This may also explain why the ceremony is commanded only after crossing the Jordan. The people are divided by tribe so that no group can claim immunity from either God’s blessing or God’s judgment.

The chapter begins with the commandment to bring the first fruits, but it also contains a passage that is a significant part of the Pesach Haggadah. The passage is a mini history of the Israelites. It describes them going down to Egypt, God saving them from the Egyptians with signs and wonders. God then brings the people to the land of milk and honey and now the people bring the first fruits to God.

The passage opens with the phrase “Arami oved avi.” What does this phrase mean?

“An Aramean was destroying my father, and he went down to Egypt and sojourned there with a small number, and there he became a nation—great, mighty, and numerous.” (Deuteronomy 26:5)

אֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי וַיֵּרֶד מִצְרַיְמָה וַיָּגָר שָׁם בִּמְתֵי מְעָט וַיְהִי־שָׁם לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל עָצוּם וָרָב

Rashi translates this as “An Aramean destroyed my father.” The Aramean, according to Rashi, is Lavan. This is also how the Targum translates it. Some commentators say the word oved should be read with an ayin, meaning worked, as in Lavan worked Yaakov.

The Pesach Haggadah follows this interpretation as well:

“Go out and learn what Lavan the Aramean sought to do to Ya'akov, our father; since Pharaoh only decreed [the death sentence] on the males, but Lavan sought to uproot the whole [people]. As it is stated (Deuteronomy 26:5), ‘An Aramean was destroying my father and he went down to Egypt, and he resided there with a small number and he became there a nation, great, powerful and numerous.’”

There are many questions about this interpretation. Why start this passage with Lavan without naming him? Going down to Egypt was not directly after the Lavan story, so why connect the two?

Ibn Ezra raises many of these questions. He translates the phrase as “my father was a lost Aramean.” Oved is not used here as a transitive verb, but as an adjective. The Aramean is Yaakov, and he was lost because he was poor.

This sets up a mirrored structure. Yaakov was poor and went down to Egypt with a small group of people on one side. The mirror image is that God intervened, and instead of remaining a small group, the people emerged from Egypt as a great nation. Instead of poverty, they entered a land flowing with milk and honey. This contrast highlights the journey from humble beginnings to abundance and explains why the penitent farmer brings his first fruits to the Temple.

Rashbam goes even further back and explains that the Aramean here is Avraham, who was a wanderer. Avraham serves as a stand in for all three forefathers, none of whom had a permanent land of their own and all of whom lived as wanderers. Rashbam’s interpretation also preserves the mirrored structure.

The question remains: did Rashbam and Ibn Ezra have a different version of the Haggadah?

Chapter 25 contains the commandment to remember Amalek. This is fulfilled every year by a special reading of the end of this chapter on the Shabbat before Purim. Haman is described as Haman the Agagite, and Agag was the king of Amalek in the time of King Saul in the book of Samuel, making the reading about Amalek particularly appropriate for that Shabbat.

The story of Amalek first appeared earlier in the Torah, in chapter 17 of Exodus. That passage also contains a commandment from God to Moshe to write down and remember what Amalek did. Why, then, is the pre Purim reading taken from Deuteronomy 25 rather than from the original narrative in Exodus? Why does Moshe repeat this commandment at all? At first glance, it would seem more logical to read from the actual story in Exodus, which already includes a commandment to remember Amalek.

To answer these questions, we must compare the two passages.

In Deuteronomy, Moshe commands:

“Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt—how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear. Therefore, when the LORD your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you, in the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a hereditary portion, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!” (Deuteronomy 25:17–19)

זָכוֹר אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְךָ עֲמָלֵק בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם׃

אֲשֶׁר קָרְךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כָּל־הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים אַחֲרֶיךָ וְאַתָּה עָיֵף וְיָגֵעַ וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים׃

וְהָיָה בְּהָנִיחַ ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְךָ מִכָּל־אֹיְבֶיךָ מִסָּבִיב בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ תִּמְחֶה אֶת־זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם לֹא תִּשְׁכָּח

Compare this with the commandment in Exodus:

“Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and his people with the sword. Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Inscribe this in a document as a reminder and read it aloud to Joshua: I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.’” (Exodus 17:13–14)

וַיַּחֲלֹשׁ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת־עֲמָלֵק וְאֶת־עַמּוֹ לְפִי־חָרֶב׃

וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה כְּתֹב זֹאת זִכָּרוֹן בַּסֵּפֶר וְשִׂים בְּאָזְנֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כִּי־מָחֹה אֶמְחֶה אֶת־זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם

There are two significant differences between these two passages. The most obvious difference is that Deuteronomy omits the narrative elements entirely—there is no mention of Joshua’s military heroics or Moshe’s raised hands and miraculous support. The commandment stands on its own, without the surrounding story.

The second difference is subtle but critical and comes down to a single letter in Hebrew. In Exodus, God says “I will blot out the memory of Amalek”—אֶמְחֶה (with an alef). In Deuteronomy, Moshe commands the people “you shall blot out the memory of Amalek”—תִּמְחֶה (with a taf).

This small linguistic shift reflects a major theological change. At the time of the original attack, the Israelites had only just left Egypt. Although they emerged victorious, their success depended heavily on Joshua’s leadership and Moshe’s miraculous intervention. God therefore reassures them that He Himself will ultimately deal with Amalek in the future.

Forty years later, the people have matured into a nation. Moshe and God have prepared them to take responsibility for their own destiny. That is why the story is no longer necessary, and why the commandment is now framed as a human obligation. God no longer says, “I will blot out Amalek.” Instead, He charges the people themselves with the task. They are now ready for that responsibility.

This shift explains why the pre Purim reading comes from Deuteronomy rather than Exodus. Purim is a story of Jewish survival without overt miracles, where human courage and responsibility play the decisive role. The Deuteronomy passage, with its focus on memory, moral responsibility, and human action, is therefore the fitting text to frame the holiday.

In the middle of chapter 24, the Torah discusses tzaraat.

“In cases of tzaraat be most careful to do exactly as the Levitical priests instruct you. Take care to do as I have commanded them; remember what the LORD your God did to Miriam on the way after you left Egypt.” (verses 8–9)

הִשָּׁמֶר בְּנֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת לִשְׁמֹר מְאֹד וְלַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּ אֶתְכֶם הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִם תִּשְׁמְרוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת׃

זָכוֹר אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְמִרְיָם בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם

(Deuteronomy 24:8–9)

Why is Miriam mentioned here? Is this meant as a warning to avoid Miriam’s gossiping behavior, or is it something else?

The verse immediately before is also striking. Unlike the lengthy and technical discussion of tzaraat found in Leviticus, verse 8 offers no details at all. It simply instructs the people to follow the rulings of the priests. These verses also seem out of place within the chapter as a whole.

Chapter 24 opens with laws about divorce and remarriage, emphasizing a husband’s obligations toward his wife and limiting the ways she can be treated casually or discarded. It then states that a kidnapper must be put to death. The remainder of the chapter largely focuses on care for the poor and vulnerable: one may not take income producing property as collateral, may not take a poor person’s clothing as collateral, must pay a worker on time, must treat the widow and orphan with sensitivity, and must leave portions of the harvest for the poor.

Every other law in this chapter clearly addresses protection for someone vulnerable. The laws regarding the poor are straightforward, but what about the earlier sections? The opening laws protect women, who in that historical context could not own property and were especially vulnerable after divorce. The Torah prevents a husband from treating his wife recklessly by forbidding remarriage after a second marriage and by requiring him to remain with his wife during the first year of marriage rather than leaving for military service. The Torah then protects those most susceptible to kidnapping. Each section highlights a different category of vulnerability.

How, then, do tzaraat and Miriam fit into this framework?

A person afflicted with tzaraat is also vulnerable. Whatever the cause of the affliction, such a person is isolated, dependent, and exposed. The Torah therefore emphasizes that one must seek guidance from the priest and carefully follow the prescribed process rather than acting independently or harshly.

The commandment to remember Miriam, in this context, may not be primarily about her wrongdoing, but about how she was treated afterward. Miriam was healed quickly after Moshe prayed on her behalf, and the entire nation waited for her before continuing their journey. The focus is not on punishment, but on compassion and communal responsibility toward someone in a moment of weakness. Seen this way, the passage about tzaraat fits squarely within the chapter’s broader theme: protecting and responding appropriately to those who are most vulnerable.

The struggle between the southern slave holding states and the northern mostly free states reached a boiling point in the mid 19th century before the start of the Civil War. As a last act of desperation to try to hold the Union together, Stephen Douglas and Henry Clay helped pass the Compromise of 1850. One part of the Compromise was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Under this act, all law enforcement in both northern and southern states were required to return enslaved people who had escaped to free states. The Act was meant to shore up the earlier Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which had been weakened by northern states’ refusal to enforce it.

In 1854, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a local abolitionist could not be arrested for violating the Act. The United States Supreme Court overruled the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Ableman v. Booth. Justice Taney—who also authored the infamous Dred Scott decision holding that enslaved people had no rights under the Constitution—wrote the majority opinion.

Justice Taney clearly did not read Chapter 23 of Deuteronomy:

“You shall not turn over to the master a slave who seeks refuge with you from that master. He shall live with you, in your midst, in the place he chooses within one of your settlements, wherever he pleases; you must not oppress him.” (verses 16–17)

לֹא־תַסְגִּיר עֶבֶד אֶל־אֲדֹנָיו אֲשֶׁר־יִנָּצֵל אֵלֶיךָ מֵעִם אֲדֹנָיו׃

עִמְּךָ יֵשֵׁב בְּקִרְבְּךָ בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַר בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ בַּטּוֹב לוֹ לֹא תוֹנֶנּוּ

(Deuteronomy 23:16–17)

From a modern perspective, the Torah has a complicated relationship with slavery. Slavery is permitted—as was the universal practice in the ancient world—but it is also highly regulated. There are different categories of slavery, such as Israelite and non Israelite slaves. Certain slaves may not be worked for more than six years, enslaved people are granted specific protections within a household, and an injured slave must be set free.

Verse 16 does not distinguish between Israelite or non Israelite slaves. Any enslaved person who escapes and seeks refuge may not be returned to their master. All escaped slaves are to be granted protection and allowed to live freely among the people. In sharp contrast to American law in the 19th century, the Torah places human dignity above property claims, even within a system that otherwise permits slavery.