Deuteronomy 21:7

and shall answer and say: It is manifest before the Lord that this hath not come by our hands, nor have we absolved him who shed this blood, nor have our eyes beheld.

The heh in the word spilled takes the place of the ordinary plural indicator, as in “my steps had slipped” [Psalms 73: 2]. There is also a homiletic explanation to the effect that the verb became singular (since the word “hand” is feminine, in most cases [see comment on Exodus 17: 12]).

and our eyes did not see The reason God commanded the nearest city to perform this ritual is probably that, had they not done a corresponding sin, it would not have happened that a man close to them was murdered. But the thoughts of God , next to our own, are limitlessly deep and profound.

they will call out and say Compare, “you shall call out and say” [26: 5], where I shall explain it [comment on 26: 5].

ידינו לא שפכו את הדם הזה, we have not left a stone unturned in (making public) locating the murderer in the land.

ועינינו לא ראו, we are certain that the murderer did not commit this act where he could be seen. Had he been seen, he would have been challenged and prevented from committing the deed. At the very least, such witnesses would have come forward.

ידינו לא שפכה, “our hands have not spilled this blood;” it is peculiar that the last letter in the word ושפכה is the letter ה when we would have expected it to be the plural ending ו. [It is read as if it had been spelled with the letter ו. Ed.] Our sages drive from this spelling that there are five items=ה, that must be provided by a host worthy of that name. They are: food, drink, overnight lodging, accompanying the guest at his departure for a certain distance, and providing him with some food for the journey. (Talmud Sotah, folio 45) The Talmud raises the question of how could anyone have thought that the members of the elders of the town near which the body had been found could have been responsible for the death of the person described in our paragraph? Why would they have to publicly declare their innocence? What these Elders really declared was that they had never been remiss in providing the five items mentioned in the Talmud to anyone who had been their guest. In other words, if that person had been a guest in their houses, they could state categorically, that he would have been treated in the manner that is appropriate. We have a saying by Rav Yehudah who quoted in the name of Rav, that anyone who has enjoyed as little as even four cubits of accompaniment from his host on his way out will not come to harm on the journey on which he set out. This saying has been illustrated by an actual occurrence. The scholar Ravinah accompanied Rava bar Yitzchok, when he became involved in a dangerous, potentially fatal situation, and he was saved from it (Talmud, Sotah folio 46) The Talmud sets the distances that a guest has to be accompanied by the host on his departure, commencing with a relatively short distance when a teacher had hosted a student, and a much greater distance when the student had hosted a teacher. (1200 meters in the latter case) Rabbi Meir considers the subject of such accompaniment one that the host can be enforced by a court to observe. [Naturally, the assumption is that the host is able-bodied. Ed.] According to Judges 1,24 there is no fixed limit for this, and the Israelites who had been in the process of conquering parts of the Holy Land that had not yet been conquered while Joshua had been alive showed a Canaanite gratitude for his showing them the way, similar to the spies promising Rahav of Jericho complete protection including her family for having protected them while on their mission. [The prophet explains how many parts of the …