Deuteronomy · Chapter 17

You shall not slaughter before Hashem your God an ox or a sheep that has a blemish, any defective thing, for that is an abhorrence before Hashem your God.

לא תזבח ... כל דבר רע THOU SHALT NOT SACRIFICE [UNTO THE LORD THY GOD ANY OF THE HERD OR FLOCK WHEREIN IS BLEMISH OR] ANY EVIL THING — This is an admonition to one who would make sacrifices abominable through an evil utterance (דבר רע). (See Rashi on Leviticus 7:18; cf. Sifrei Devarim 147:5). Besides this, other Halachas have been derived from it in the Treatise on “The slaughtering of Sacrifices” (Zevachim 36).

THOU SHALT NOT SACRIFICE UNTO THE ETERNAL THY G-D [AN OX, OR A SHEEP, WHEREIN IS A BLEMISH], EVEN ANY ‘DAVAR’ (THING) THAT IS EVIL. “This is an admonition against causing offerings to be rendered unfit through an improper utterance. There are yet other interpretations given by the Rabbis [on this verse] in the Tractate Shechithath Kadashim.” This is Rashi’s language. Now this is an explanatory commandment, for He has already admonished against slaughtering blemished offerings, and here he repeated it in order to add the admonition against rendering it unfit by an utterance. It is likely that he repeated this admonition in order that the Israelite who brings the offering should not render it unfit during the slaughter [since non-priests were permitted to slaughter offerings]. The priests themselves, however, are scrupulous and careful, one warning sufficing for them. Therefore he did not repeat the prohibition against a blemished ministering priest [performing the Divine Service]. FOR THAT IS AN ABOMINATION UNTO THE ETERNAL THY G-D. The term “abomination” refers to this offering, for whoever offers a corrupted thing is held in contempt, as it is stated in the Prophets, And cursed be he that dealeth craftily, whereas he hath in his flock a male, and voweth and sacrificeth unto the Eternal a blemished thing, for I am a great King. And according to the Midrash the term “abomination” refers to an animal that did, or was the object of perversion, or was the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog — all of which are “abominations.”

"You shall not sacrifice to Hashem your God" — Having mentioned the Asherah and the pillar, he now mentions that it is likewise forbidden to sacrifice to Him any blemished animal. "Any bad thing" — this is the meaning of 'blemish.' "For it is an abomination" — as in the sense of 'Present it now to your governor' (Malachi 1:8). There is punishment for one who slaughters such an animal, but no punishment for one who does not sacrifice at all, apart from the positive obligation to do so.

לא תזבח….אשר יהיה בו מום, "Do not slaughter for G'd anything blemished." The wording אשר יהיה בו מום "on which there will be a blemish," must be understood in conjunction with Sifri that our verse forbids an animal suffering from a temporary blemish. This ruling is hinted at by the word יהיה, "will be." That word includes not only permanent blemishes but even temporary blemishes. Perhaps one may also say that if the animal in question has a limb which would result in it becoming blemished unless said limb was amputated, the animal in question is considered blemished even before the operation (regardless of whether the animal is being considered for a sacrifice). The words לא תזבח …אשר יהיה בו מום mean "you must not sacrifice it…as it is going to develop a blemish" (which would disqualify it.)

לא תזבח, “do not slaughter as a sacrifice, etc.;” After having prohibited sacrificing to idols, the Torah proceeds to prohibit defective, blemished, animals to the Lord our G-d, also.

לא תזבח לה' אלוקיך צאן ובקר, “You shall not slaughter for the Lord your G’d an ox or lamb (that is blemished);” after having told the people that erecting an asherah or pillar, even in honour of Hashem is prohibited, Moses warns now that when offering animal sacrifices on the altar designated for this, the animals used must be free from any kind of blemish.

If there be found among you, in one of your cities that Hashem your God gives you, a man or a woman who does what is evil before Hashem your God, transgressing His covenant —

לעבר בריתו TRANSGRESSING HIS COVENANT — i.e. the covenant which He made with you not to practise idolatry.

IF THERE BE FOUND IN THE MIDST OF THEE WITHIN ANY OF THY GATES WHICH THE ETERNAL THY G-D GIVETH THEE. I have already explained that when he speaks of the ordinances he mentions first the judgment to be executed upon the idols or their worshippers. He states [here] within any of thy gates which the Eternal thy G-d giveth thee, not to imply that this law applies only in the Land of Israel, since one who worships idols outside the Land is also liable to stoning. The purport thereof is rather to state, “if the matter be found in one of the distant cities which G-d will give you when He will enlarge thy border — and it be told thee, and thou hear it, in whatever city you may be, you are to investigate the matter diligently and if you discover that the charge is true, you shall bring them forth to that city wherein they worshipped, and stone them.” He states that such abomination was done in Israel [implying that it is done within the nation rather than within the Land] in order to hold the worshipper [of the idols] culpable even outside the Land, for in the case of the apostate city he said, that such abomination is done ‘in thy midst,’ [within the Land], but here he mentioned within any of thy gates [a term generally limited to the Land] for it refers to common events as we have explained, and then he states in Israel in order to teach that it is binding upon the entire [nation of] Israel [even outside the Land]. It was also necessary to state within any of thy gates in order to teach that the worshipper be stoned at the gates [of the city] in which he worshipped the idols. This is [the law] in the Land, for outside the Land he is stoned at the entrance of the court where he was judged. Now, this commandment is explanatory, since He already stated He that sacrificeth unto the gods shall be utterly destroyed, this applying in every place and at every time. Therefore he repeated it in order to explain what must be added to the commandment, but he abbreviated regarding matters previously mentioned. And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], it is possible that he mentioned within any of thy gates because he stated in transgressing His covenant, this [transgression] being the abomination done in [the Land of] Israel. Scripture made it known that the covenant is in the Land of the covenant, whereas he who lives outside the Land is as if he worshipped idols. I have already mentioned this subject. He mentioned man or woman, because, due to a woman’s frivolity, she can be enticed into idol-worship through a sign or wonder done before her, the proof being the case of the women before Jeremiah. Similarly, with reference to [the witchcraft of] the ov (ghost) or yide’oni (familiar spirit), Scripture mentioned or a woman because these forms of sorcery were customarily practiced by women, as He said, Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live [even though both male and female sorcerers are equally liable]. And in the Sifre the Rabbis interpre...

"If there be found" — among you. Since he mentioned the Asherah beside the altar, which is a public act visible to all, he now returns to warn the individual regarding idolatry. "To transgress His covenant" — the opposite of upholding it. The grammatical analysis of 'and bowed down' (וישתחו) is found in the Sefer HaYesod.

כי ימצא בקרבך, after Moses instructed the people to appoint judges in each city so that each court would judge primarily people who lived in its vicinity, Moses continues with the trial of an idolater, something that is not judged locally, in the town where he lives, but in the town in which he committed the crime. Subsequently, Moses deals with the problem of disagreements among members of the court, or several courts with one another. Such disagreements are also not to be judged locally but “in the place that the Lord has chosen,” (verse 8) i.e. the same court in which an elder who refuses to submit to the majority view of his colleagues is to be judged. לעבור בריתו, the covenant embracing all the commandments, for worshipping idols is an offence considered as equivalent to having violated all of the Torah’s commandments.

כי ימצא בקרבך, "If there be found amongst you, etc." The reason the Torah adds the word בקרבך, "in your midst," is to place the burden of dealing with the sinner (idolator) on the local authorities. Jews in other cities are only charged with dealing with the idolator if the people of his own city have failed to do so. This is what is meant by the words באחד שעריך, "in one of your cities." Our sages in Ketuvot 45 make use of the expression שעריך both here and in verse 5 to rule that the execution of the idolator takes place where he performed the sin and not in the city where he was sentenced to death (assuming they are not the same). The reason that the verse concludes with "which the Lord your G'd is about to give to you," is a reminder that one of the reasons G'd gave us the Holy Land is that we observe the commandment to execute idolators. לעבר בריתו, "to violate His covenant." Moses means that it is important for the sinner to realise that he violated G'd's sacred covenant. This is the reason he cannot be executed unless he had been properly warned of the penalty in store if he proceeded with his intention to commit this sin. There is also a hint here that if the idolator told the people who warned him to desist that he had sworn an oath to serve this particular deity, that he must be reminded that such an oath is not valid as he had been obligated under a previous oath dating back to Mount Sinai not to engage in any form of idolatry. His execution would therefore be perfectly legal if he went ahead and ignored the warning.

כי ימצא, “if there will be found amongst you, etc.;” now the Torah addresses individual Israelites who may become guilty of idolatry.

כי ימצא בקרבך, “If there will be found in your midst,” etc. Mention of the word בקרבך both here and at the end of this paragraph (verse 7) reflects the fact that most sinners try and commit their sins in secret; this is why extensive investigations have to be made to bring the facts to light. Once found out, these sinners who are equated with the evil they did have to be destroyed like the leavened matters before Pesach which has to be cleaned out of all the cracks in the walls and in the floor. This is why the Torah writes ובערת, “you are to destroy,” coupled with the word מקרבך, “from deep inside you.” It is also possible to understand the word מקרבך as an allusion to the relatives of the sinner, as if the Torah had written מקרוביך, “from among your kin.” When someone observes a family member sinning (purposely) he is to shame him and be the first one to administer the punishment when it is imposed; he must neither allow feelings of kinship nor embarrassment to cause him to cover up such sins. This is the meaning of Psalms 15,3: “he must not be afraid to bear reproach for his relative’s acts and therefore cover up for him” (compare Rashi).

כי ימצא בקרבך, “if there will be found in your midst,” Nachmanides comments that it is commonplace for the Torah, whenever addressing the laws known as משפטים, laws dealing with inter-personal relations, that the first item on the list that follows always deals with idolatry or with those practicing it. איש או אשה, “a man or a woman, etc.” Seeing that it is part of the psyche of women to tend to inadvertently commit idolatrous acts by consulting soothsayers, or generally turning to people who claim to know the future, they tend to be impressed by people performing acts that demonstrate their extra-sensory capabilities. We find Biblical proof of this in Jeremiah, chapter 44.15 and onwards In the Sifri the reason for the separate mention of man and woman in this verse is explained as due to the fact that when speaking about the עיר הנדחת, Deut. 13,14, the Torah had described the guilty persons as אנשים, men, to indicate that if the instigator had been a woman the whole legislation of a city that had allowed itself to be seduced does not apply, the Torah had to emphasise that in the case of individual idolaters no difference is made between the punishment for men and women.

and he goes and worships the idols of the nations and bows down to them, or to the sun or to the moon or to any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded —

אשר לא צויתי [AND HATH GONE AND SERVED OTHER GODS … EITHER THE SUN, OR MOON, OR ANY OF THE HOST OF HEAVEN] WHICH I HAVE NOT COMMANDED to worship them (Megillah 9b).

"Other gods" — carved images, the work of human hands. "And the sun and the moon and the host of heaven" — for these are the work of God. "Which I have not commanded" — to worship them, even though they are My handiwork.

אלוהים אחרים, independent ones, having no relation to Hashem whatsoever, but disembodied beings. ולשמש או לירח, which are physical bodies; אשר לא צויתי, which I had not appointed to act independently of My will. This is in contrast to the philosophers of idolatrous religions who believe that G’d had appointed His agents to be in charge of a city each, within which they have power over life and death without reference to their Master. The inhabitants of each such city are under the illusion that by pleasing the local agent of G’d, their “patron saint,” their fates will be affected beneficially.

ולשמש או לירח או לכל צבא השמים אשר לא צויתי, “and to the sun or the moon or any host of heaven which I have not commanded;” it is so well known that G’d did not command us or anyone to worship idols that the Torah does not need to write this line. The words: “which I have not commanded” therefore must have a different meaning. The plain meaning is that seeing that the people who do perform acts of worship for sun, moon, etc., believe that by honoring G’d’s agents they honor Him and please Him, the Torah has to go on record that such thinking is erroneous. G’d never ordered acts of deference to be performed for any of His servants. Another meaning of these words could be that that they have to be understood as if the Torah had written אשר צויתי לא, “which I expressly commanded not to.” The words are a repetition of part of the second of the Ten Commandments not to bow down to any of these phenomena. We have a parallel meaning of such phrasing in Deut. 32,5: שחת לו לא. This means that mankind and Israel has corrupted itself by means of לא, by violating the commandment not to eat from the tree of knowledge. We will elaborate when discussing that verse. A kabbalistic approach. The additional words: “which I did not command,” are to be in contrast to what G’d did command, i.e. to observe and carefully preserve His covenant as mentioned in the previous verse where violating the covenant is the subject dealt with. The verses may be understood in this sequence: “who has done evil by violating His covenant concluded at Sinai when G’d said: “now when you do hearken to My voice and observe My covenant” (Exodus 19,5). The covenant referred to in that verse is the one embracing both the attribute of “Day” and the attribute “Night.” The meaning of this is: “although, when I commanded you concerning the daily communal offerings that you should take two sheep, one for the morning (corresponding to the attribute “Day,” and one for the evening, corresponding to the attribute “Night,”) the attributes which exercise their influence on the light of Day and Night respectively, this does not mean that I commanded you to worship these luminaries.”

אשר לא צויתי, to serve them.

and it is made known to you, and you hear of it and inquire thoroughly, and behold, it is true and certain that this abomination has been committed in Israel —

נכון [AND, BEHOLD, IT BE TRUE, AND THE THING BE] CERTAIN — i.e. the evidence of the witnesses is in agreement (מְכֻוָּן)

"And you shall inquire well" — very, very thoroughly. So too 'it burned me greatly' (הֵיטֵב חָרָה לִי) — and this word is slightly removed from the root טוב.

ודרשת היטב, “you shall investigate thoroughly;” the numerical value of the word היטב equals the numerical value of the letters in the tetragrammaton, i.e. 26. It is as if the Torah had written “you shall investigate him in your capacity as the agent of Hashem.”

והוגד לך ושמעת, “and you have been informed, and you will hear, etc.” The apparent repetition of the same thought means that whenever and wherever this accusation is brought to your attention you must immediately commence an investigation. As soon as you establish that the rumours you have heard are factual, you have to lead the guilty party to his or her place of execution where you will stone the guilty party to death. נעשתה התועבה הזאת בישראל, “this abominable thing has indeed been carried out in (the land of) Israel;” the wording suggests that this legislation also applies in the Diaspora, seeing the word בקרבך which is used in the legislation of עיר הנדחת in conjunction with the word תועבה has been omitted here. The word בישראל at the end of this verse makes it clear that such conduct cannot be ignored in any Jewish community wherever it is located.

then you shall bring out that man or that woman who committed this evil thing to the gate of your court of judgment, that man or that woman, and you shall stone them with stones and they shall die.

והוצאת את האיש ההוא אל שעריך וגו׳ THEN THOU SHALT BRING FORTH THAT MAN [OR THAT WOMAN WHO HAVE DONE THAT EVIL THING] UNTO THY GATES — He who renders אל שעריך in the Targum by לתרע בית דינך, unto the gate of thy court, is in error, for thus we have learned (Sifrei Devarim 148:2; Ketubot 45b): אל שעריך — this means the gate (the city) in which he has worshipped the idol. Or, perhaps this is not so, but it means the gate where he is being judged (the judges sat “at the gate of the city”; cf., e.g., Ruth 4:1 ff.)?! The term שעריך, however, is used below (i.e. here, which is the latter part of this section) and is used above (v. 2), and this suggests an analogy. What is the meaning of שעריך that is mentioned above? Evidently the gate (the city) wherein he served the idol! So, too, does שעריך mentioned below (in our verse) denote the gate in which he served the idol. The correct rendering in the Targum is therefore לקרויך “thou shalt bring him forth unto thy cities” (cf. Rashi on Deuteronomy 16:18).

"And you shall stone them with stones" — 'him' or 'her,' as in 'he and they shall be burned in fire' (Lev. 20:14). Because it said 'and it has been told to you' in private, and 'you heard the matter' publicly, it was necessary to clarify that even though it was told to you and you heard it, they are not to be put to death except on the testimony of two witnesses.

את האיש ההוא או את האשה ההיא, no mention is made in this connection of the idolatry being the result of seduction, the victim being foolish and knowing what he or she did, so that there is no need to convict him or her in the location where he or she committed the offence to teach the people who were aware of the sinner’s opinions that the truth is the opposite of what the sinner thought. אל שעריך, to the public place where the idolatrous act was performed. By convicting and executing the idolater the public would have to admit that the deity worshipped by the convicted sinner was either unable or unwilling to save his life.

אל שעריך, “to your gates;” according to the plain meaning of the text “the gates” is the place where the court sits in judgment. The location has been chosen as it is so central and public that any accused cannot avoid passing it for any length of time, at which time the judges will arrest the accused for a hearing. We find an illustration of this in the Book of Ruth, (Ruth 4,1) when the potential redeemer of Ruth is accosted by Boaz in such a square. וסקלתם באבנים, “you shall stone them with stones;” males or females as the case may be; we find a similar formula when the penalty is death by burning (swallowing molten lead) (Leviticus 20,14)

On the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses shall the one guilty of death be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness.

שנים עדים או שלשה [BY THE MOUTH OF] TWO WITNESSES OR THREE [WITNESSES, SHALL HE THAT IS WORTHY OF DEATH BE PUT TO DEATH] — But if evidence can be established by two witnesses to what end does it (Scripture) mention to you explicitly that it may be established by three? Scripture does so in order to compare the evidence of three witnesses to that of two (to make the same law apply to both cases). How is it in the case of two? Their evidence forms one testimony; so, too, does the evidence of three (or many) witnesses form one testimony and they cannot be declared “plotting witnesses” unless all of them are proved to be “plotting witnesses” (Makkot 5b).

AT THE MOUTH OF TWO WITNESSES, OR THREE WITNESSES, SHALL HE THAT IS TO DIE BE PUT TO DEATH. “If the evidence can be sustained by two witnesses, why did Scripture specify ‘three?’ It is to liken three to two: just as the evidence of two witnesses forms a single unit of testimony, so does the evidence of three, constitute a single unit of testimony and they are not subject to the law of plotting witnesses [which declares that whatever they plotted to do to their brother should be done to them] unless all three are proven to be plotters.” This is Rashi’s language. So also the principle [of a single unit of testimony] applies if one of the witnesses is found to be a kinsman [and hence ineligible to testify] or to have some other disqualification — the testimony of all is void. If they are proven to have been plotting witnesses, [in which case] all of them are subject to the death-penalty or payment of money [as the case may be, and the third witness cannot claim immunity because of his argument that even had he not testified the evidence of the first two witnesses was sufficient to sustain the charge], since the main intent of Scripture was to liken the evidence of three witnesses to that of two in every respect, according to the opinion of our Rabbis. And the Gaon Rav Saadia said, by way of the plain meaning of Scripture, that the interpretation of the verse is as follows: “two witnesses, or three judges who [officially] accept the testimony of the two witnesses.” But there is in the verse no mention of acceptance of the testimony; instead, it refers explicitly to witnesses. But it seems to me that the Gaon erred in his [statement of this] law, for testimony in capital cases cannot be accepted except in the presence of a Sanhedrin of twenty-three judges [and not, as Rav Saadia holds, before only three judges]! Rather, the plain meaning of the verse is that the condemned man shall be put to death at the mouth of two witnesses if no more are there, or at the mouth of three witnesses if three witnesses are to be found there. Scripture thus states: when it will be told thee, and thou hear it you are to inquire diligently into the matter by means of the testimony of all the witnesses found there. Thus if we heard that he transgressed in the presence of three people, we should send for them and have them all come to court and testify. The same law applies to a hundred, for by hearing the words of them all, the truth will become clear. But if not more [than two] were present, or they [the others] left and are not to be found, then two are sufficient.

"Or three witnesses" — two of whom suffice to receive testimony, according to the Gaon [Saadia]. Now the Torah does not specify whether the testimony of the others [i.e., other disqualified categories], a woman, or an enemy of the accused is admissible. Some say that if two witnesses contradict two other witnesses, a third witness is decisive, either for acquittal or for conviction. Others say 'two witnesses' refers to scholars and 'three' to others. We too are compelled, despite ourselves, to rely on the words of tradition.

על פי שנים עדים או שלושה, even if the charge is idolatry, the entire testimony is disqualified if one of the witnesses is found to be inadmissible. We do not rule that seeing there are a sufficient number of reliable and legally admissible witnesses left, we proceed with the trial on that basis.

יומת המת, "the condemned person will be executed." The reason the Torah repeats the reference to the condemned being dead is to alert us that if no witnesses could be found or that the warning was not legally valid for some reason, the fact that the terrestrial court could not execute the sinner does not make him any less guilty of death in the eyes of G'd. The word יומת applies when the legal proceedings here on earth could be completed.

יומת המת, “he that has to die shall be executed;” we find similar constructions in Genesis 48,21, concerning Yaakov and Joseph, הנה אנכי מת, “here I am dead;” and in Deuteronomy 31,27, where Moses describes a situation after his death,ואף גם אחרי מותי, “and also after my death.” לא יומת על פי עד אחד, “he must not be executed on the basis of the testimony of only one witness.” If you were to ask what news this verse contains, after all a single witness cannot bring about a conviction even if the case involves only a possible fine! [something reversible if proven to have been based on a false testimony. Ed.] How much more impossible is it to convict someone of a capital crime based on the testimony of only one witness! We would have to answer that seeing that the crime carrying a death penalty is so severe, surely the testimony of one witness is sufficient, if the penalty is to be a deterrent. The Torah does not accept this kind of reasoning and insists on at least two eye witnesses.והוגד לך ושמעת, since in verse 4 the Torah had written that the commission of the crime of idolatry had been so well known that you had heard about it, and it had been accepted as fact, the Torah insists that this is not the basis of convicting someone.[One of the reasons that the Torah insists on this is that even if no witnesses were prepared to testify to what they are known to have seen, G-d will punish the accused sinner for what he did, even if a panel of human judges was unable to do so for technical reasons. Ed.]

על פי שנים עדים, “on the basis of the testimony of two eye-witnesses, etc.” It is well known that two witnesses carry as much weight as 100 witnesses (Makkot 5). Seeing that this is so, why did the Torah have to write that evidence by three witnesses is acceptable? If the Torah wanted to tell us that only one judge suffices to accept the testimony of the two witnesses, there is no hint of this in the verse in front of us. The verse does not address the question of who accepts the testimony but who testifies. Nachmanides explains our verse as meaning that even though the whole proceedings have been concluded with the testimony of two witnesses (including capital crimes involving the death penalty), if there is another witness or two or three whose testimony has not been heard yet, the judges are to send for these witnesses and hear and examine their testimony. The assumption is that the more witnesses testify the clearer the facts will become. However, the verse reminds us that if there are only two witnesses or these two witnesses had already gone home when additional witnesses showed up, we rely on the testimony of the original two witnesses. Our sages in Makkot 5 explained the wording of our verse as follows: the Torah wanted to compare the validity of two witnesses to the validity of three or more. The testimony of three witnesses is a single unit, just as the testimony of two witnesses is a single unit. If the unit proves defective, all parts of the unit are considered as invalid. If one out of five witnesses who have come forward to give testimony on the same case contradicts himself, the testimony of the other four witnesses who were part of that group is disregarded also. The Talmud adds that the reason the Torah mentions a third witness is in order to tell us that if all three witnesses testified falsely, the one who was examined last cannot claim that seeing the testimony of his colleagues had already been disqualified his own testimony did not make any difference and he should not be considered liable as a false witness. Based on what we read here we have the authority to punish all three witnesses equally. The moral lesson learned from this verse is that if one is in the company of sinners one is liable to be punished in the same way as the sinners are punished. This piece of logic prompted Rabbi Akiva to say that even people who are merely fellow travelers of sinners are punished as if they had committed the same crimes, then people who keep the company of pious people should be given the reward as if they themselves had performed the good deeds performed by the pious people whose company they keep. Rabbi Akiva based himself on the principle that מדה טובה מרובה על מדת פורענות אחת על חמש מאות, “that the attribute of benevolence which G’d employs is 500 times stronger than the attribute of vengeance, retribution. We know this from Exodus 34,7 where G’d promises to favorably remember good deeds for 2,000 generations whereas in the same verse G’d is described as remembering the sins of the fathers for only 4 generations.

על פי שנים עדים, “based on the testimony of not fewer than two eye-witnesses;” Ibn Ezra explains that seeing the words והוגד לך ושמעת in verse 4 sound as if the first verse speaks about information obtained clandestinely, whereas the word ושמעת refers to openly received information, but not information by eye-witnesses, etc., I might have concluded from the wording in verse 5 וסקלתם באבנים ומת, “you shall stone the party in question to death,” that this is sufficient to convict such people. The Torah had to state that no matter what, without two reliable eye-witnesses against the accused no conviction, and certainly no execution can take place. Rav Saadyah gaon explains the words על פי שנים עדים או על פי שלשה עדים to mean that the testimony of the two witnesses must be submitted to no fewer than three judges. [This has not been found in Rav Saadyah gaon’s writings, and in my edition of Ibn Ezra, he does not attribute it to him, but to some unnamed scholars. Ed.] Nachmanides questions the validity of such an interpretation seeing that the text does not remotely refer to the people who are supposed to accept this testimony and to act upon it. Besides, seeing that the Torah discusses capital offences, we have a rule that no court composed of fewer than 23 judges may deal with cases involving capital punishment. The plain meaning of the text, according to Nachmanides, is that if there are no more than 2 eye witnesses to the offence mentioned, this suffices to hand down a death penalty, provided the testimony of the two witnesses is above reproach. Some commentators say that the meaning of the verse is that if one set of two witnesses contradicts what a set of three witnesses testifies, two of the testimonies cancel each other out and the remaining witness is decisive. This works either in favour of the accused or against him or her..

או שלשה עדים, “or three witnesses.” Seeing that in Exodus 23,2, the Torah had decreed that a majority opinion in disputes is to be accepted, it was necessary to tell us that when it comes to testimony, numbers do not count. In practice this means that if one of the three witnesses in litigation has been found as not trustworthy according to Jewish law, we do not use the fact that the remaining two witnesses are trustworthy as believable, seeing that they form a majority. The entire testimony is declared as null and void because one of the witnesses was disqualified. The same applies if there were 100 witnesses and only one of them was disqualified. If however, two witnesses had come forward concerning a certain court-case, and some relatives of the accused wanted to join these two witnesses,-presumably in order to make the two witnesses useless,- this is not allowed as the relatives had never meant to accuse their kin in the first place of the sin he is accused of. Unless we applied this rule, we would never find two qualified witnesses that could testify to the validity of a marriage ceremony. There are always numerous relatives of the couple present, and anyone could succeed in invalidating that marriage if he so chose.

The hand of the witnesses shall be against him first to put him to death, and the hand of all the people afterward; so shall you remove the one who does evil from among you.

"The hand of the witnesses" — the hand of each one of the witnesses. So too 'and the heart of the people melted' (Josh. 7:5) — and many expressions follow this pattern. "And you shall remove" — I have explained this.

If a matter is hidden from you in judgment — between one case of bloodshed and another, between one judicial matter and another, and between one case of leprous affliction and another — matters of dispute that are in judgment in your cities — then you shall arise and go up to the place that Hashem your God will choose.

כי יפלא IF THERE BE [A THING] TOO HARD [FOR THEE IN JUDGMENT] — The term פלא always denotes separation and being at a distance; it means here that the matter is apart and is hidden from thee. בין דם לדם [IF THERE IS ANYTHING TOO HARD FOR THEE IN JUDGMENT] BETWEEN BLOOD AND BLOOD — i.e. between the blood of the menstruous woman that may be unclean blood, and blood that may be clean (Niddah 19a; cf. Sifrei Devarim 152:5), בין דין לדין BETWEEN PLEA AND PLEA — i.e. between a verdict of acquittal and a verdict of “guilty”. בין נגע לנגע BETWEEN PLAGUE AND PLAGUE — i.e. between a plague that may be unclean and a plague that may be clean. דברי ריבה BEING THINGS OF STRIFE [WITHIN THY GATES] — i.e. that the scholars of the city (the judges) be of different opinions in that particular matter (cf. Onkelos), the one declaring it unclean, the other clean, the one sentencing, the other acquitting, וקמת ועלית THEN SHALT THOU RISE AND GO UP [UNTO THE PLACE WHICH THE LORD THY GOD SHALL CHOOSE] — This (the phrase “go up”) teaches that the Temple (in the vicinity of which the Sanhedrin sat) was situated higher than all other places in Palestine (Sifrei Devarim 152:15; Sanhedrin 87a). (cf. however, Ibn Ezra on Numbers 16:12.)

IF THERE ARISE A MATTER TOO HARD FOR THEE IN JUDGMENT, BETWEEN BLOOD AND BLOOD, BETWEEN PLEA AND PLEA, AND BETWEEN PLAGUE AND PLAGUE, MATTERS OF CONTROVERSY WITHIN THY GATES. “Matters of controversy — if the Sages of the city disagree over the matter, this one declaring it unclean and that one declaring it clean, this one convicting and that one acquitting.” This is Rashi’s language. It is also the opinion of Onkelos [who translated: matters of controversy — “disagreement among the judges”]. But it is not correct. Rather, according to the Midrash thereof it means as follows: “Between blood and blood, [the Sages disagree whether the blood in question is clean or unclean, the blood being any of the following]: the blood of a menstruous woman, the blood of a woman in childbirth, or the blood of a woman suffering a flux. Between plea and plea, [they disagree concerning the verdict in] civil cases, capital cases, and laws of scourging. And between plague and plague, [concerning] plagues of man, plagues of houses, and plagues of garments. Matters of controversy, giving the water to a suspected adulteress, the breaking of the heifer’s neck, and the purifying of the leper.” Thus the meaning of the word between [‘between’ blood and blood] is “and between,” [the verse stating: If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, “and” between blood and blood, since the phrase between blood and blood is a new category, and not in apposition to the first part of the verse]. The letter lamed [in the words l’dam which literally means “in regard to blood” and l’din — “in regard to a plea”] has the usage here of a beth [meaning “among”], “between blood ‘among’ blood, plea ‘among’ pleas,” meaning, should a case arise concerning one [form of blood] among the various forms of blood, or concerning one [plea] among the various pleas, [a case that will be too difficult for you to decide]. A similar usage [of a lamed serving as beth is found in these verses:] but the name of the city was Luz ‘larishonah’ [literally: “‘to’ the beginning”] means barishonah — “in the beginning;” the Eternal smote him in his bowels ‘lacholi l’ein marpei’ [literally: “to an incurable disease”] means bacholi b’ein marpei — “with an incurable disease;” and he covered it with fine gold ‘l’chikarim’ [literally: “to talents”] six hundred means b’chikarim — “with talents.” There are many similar cases. Or it may be that the meaning of the word between [‘between’ blood and blood etc.] is “between [a certain flow of] blood in regard to all other bloods, between [a certain kind of] plea in regard to all pleas.” Similarly, and whensoever any controversy shall come to you from your brethren, between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and ordinances, ye shall warn them, that they not be guilty towards the Eternal. And in line with the plain meaning of Scripture the verse means: between blood and blood, matters of bloodshed; [between plea and plea] in civil cases; [and between p...

"If a matter be too difficult for you" — the judge speaks of it on account of the testimony of two witnesses that may put a man to death; and this is the meaning of 'between blood and blood' — between innocent blood and guilty blood. The word יִפָּלֵא ('be too difficult') is like 'Is anything too wondrous for Hashem?' (Gen. 18:14), where it is explained. "Between case and case" — in monetary matters. "Between affliction and affliction" — such as wound and bruise — the general subject being matters of dispute. "And you shall arise and go up" — I have explained this.

כי יפלא ממך, even though you have appointed competent judges in each town and city, in order that each court would dispense justice in its home base, if a doubt arises as to what the correct ruling is according to reliable tradition, the local court is not to hand down a ruling according to their opinion when it is not supported by authentic tradition, but the problem should be submitted to the Supreme Court, Sanhedrin. The same holds true when the judges in the local court were deadlocked.

כי יפלא ממך דבר למשפט, "If a matter of judgment is hidden from you, etc." The apparently extraneous word למשפט is needed to remind us that the subject matter now being introduced, i.e. the "rebellious elder" who will be executed for insubordination to the Supreme Court, is applicable only to the kind of person who had himself been ordained as judge, etc. (compare Mishnah Sanhedrin 86). If the dissenting opinion was handed down as law by a student who had not yet been ordained, such a pupil is not liable to the penalty provided for in our paragraph. I have found a Baraitha in Sanhedrin 87 which derives the fact that an unordained student is free from the death penalty from an interpretation of the word כי יפלא in our verse as not meaning "if it is concealed," but "if the most distinguished one of the judges errs." If we base ourselves on this exegesis we can understand why the Torah added the word למשפט. It means that unless the dissenting opinion was actually formulated as a practical judgment, -as opposed to a learned opinion,- such as by the presiding judge of the Sanhedrin- the penalty provided in our paragraph is not applicable. This is also why the Mishnah added that the words in verse 12: "and the man who will act deliberately sinfully, etc." prove this point. Accordingly, our verse would prove that the dissenting elder is guilty of death only if he personally acts against the majority decision but not if he instructed others to do so. The word למשפט is needed therefore to also make him guilty if he instructed others to act on the basis of his dissenting ruling. We may also approach the verse from the following angle. כי יפלא …למשפט, "Even if the dissenting opinion was issued as an instruction to act contrary to the majority ruling of the local court, and it is proven that the majority opinion was in error, if the subject matter was one where deliberately sinning carries the karet penalty, etc., the dissenting judge will not be executed unless he repeated the same ruling in the face of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, openly defying them." This is also the concensus of the sages in the Talmud on the application of this halachah.

כי יפלא ממך דבר, “if there is a matter which is too difficult for you. [a local court, Ed.] The word יפלא is similar in meaning to the word יתכסה, “hidden;” The word belongs to a category of words that can have two meanings depending on the context in which it appears. We find the phrase כי יפליא נדר, (Leviticus 27,2) “when someone clearly utters a vow;” on the other hand we find כי יפליא לנדור, (Numbers 6,2) “when someone makes a vow to deny himself something. The author cites more examples.” ממך דבר, “the Torah addresses a specific judge who is unable to determine whether the accused in a capital case deserves the death penalty. The Torah lists three different categories of subjects in which the judge in question does not feel competent to hand down a ruling. [All three categories are subjects for which the priests are the proper address to give rulings. Ed.]

כי יפלא ממך דבר, “if some matter is hidden from you;” the word יפלא describes something concealed as we know already from Genesis 18,14 where the Torah makes the point that no future event (or past) is concealed from Hashem. בין דם לדם, “between blood and blood,” i.e. someone who shed blood and is guilty of bloodshed and someone who shed blood and is innocent (self-defense, for instance). בין דין לדין, “between justice and justice,” in disputes concerning financial matters; (Ibn Ezra). בין נגע לנגע, “between plague and plague;” injuries and liability for compensation for them (Ibn Ezra). דברי ריבות, “conflicting arguments;” this applies to all the above.

דברי ריבות בשעריך, “matters of dispute in your respective cities;” Rashi understands this verse not as referring to strife of a secular nature, but to disagreements amongst Torah scholars on how to rule in a matter brought to them for a binding decision. One group of sages tends to declare the object under discussion as ritually pure, whereas the other group disagrees. Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text the words בין דם לדם, refer to murder that has been committed, and there is a disagreement as to who is guilty of committing it. The words בין דין לדין refer to disputes involving money, or money due as compensation. The words בין נגע לנגע refer to injuries of different kinds caused to people or to the status of houses afflicted with what appears to be tzoraat. Finally, the words דברי ריבות בשעריך refer to any kind of disagreement between scholars or laymen. The phraseology, i.e. the examples, quoted in the text, has been chosen on the basis of what occurs most frequently. Disputes involving human relations and their belongings are much more frequent than disputes involving finer points of religious ritual. This is why Moses concludes with reminding the people that all of these disputes must be resolved, even by the highest tribunal, on the basis of the revealed law of Hashem, the Torah, and the judges must show that they have ruled on the basis of Torah law.

בין דם לדם, according to the plain meaning, between one kind of murder and another kind of murder. [either knowing if the killing had been deliberate or not, or, killing a terminally sick person in great pain, for instance, and killing a terrorist without trial, both deliberate acts, of course. Ed.] בין דין לדין, financial litigation, נגע, skin afflictions described in Leviticus chapter 13.

And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who shall be in those days, and you shall inquire, and they shall declare to you the matter of the judgment.

הכהנים הלוים [AND THOU SHALT COME UNTO] THE PRIESTS THE LEVITES — i.e. unto the priests, who descend from of the tribe of Levi. ואל השפט אשר יהיה בימים ההם [AND THOU SHALT COME UNTO THE PRIESTS …] AND UNTO THE JUDGE THAT SHALL BE IN THOSE DAYS — The last apparently redundant words suggest: and even though he is not as eminent as other judges that have been before him, you must obey him — you have none else but the judge that lives in your days (i.e. you are only concerned with him) (Rosh Hashanah 25b).

"The Levitical priests" — as I have explained, for there are priests who are not from the lineage of Levi. "And to the judge" — this is the king, who writes a copy of the Torah from the hand of the priests. "And to the judge" — wherever he may be.

ודרשת והגידו לך, "and you shall enquire and they will tell you, etc." It is up to you to make these enquiries, i.e. to find out (from the Supreme Court) why the judges ruled as they did. On the other hand, the judges of the Supreme Court are obligated to explain their ruling to you once you ask them. If you did not ask for the Supreme Court to tell you their reasons they are not under any obligation to volunteer it.

ובאת אל הכהן, “and you come to the priest, etc.” This verse is a clear example to the scoffers who question the teachings of the Sages. They maintain that the written Torah was to be interpreted literally and that there is no parallel oral Torah. If there were no such oral Torah, the most competent scholars of which reside in Jerusalem, what would be the point of travelling to Jerusalem for clarification?

ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים, “you will come to the priests, the Levites, etc.;” they are the teachers of the Torah. ואל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם, “and to the judge who officiates in those days;” the only judges who have authority to deal with your problems are the ones who are alive and officiate during your lifetime. A judge, such as Yiftach in his generation, (though he was relatively ignorant) has as much authority as the prophet Samuel in his period (compare Rosh Hashanah 25); this is why the Torah wrote here: “who will be in those days;” it would not have required superior intelligence to know that one cannot submit a claim to a judge who is dead. The authority of a legally appointed judge is such that if he declares right (what you considered to be right) as being left or vice versa, you have to accept his decision. It goes without saying that if such a judge declares right to be right and left to be left, that his decision must be accepted. Nachmanides writes that there was a great need to legislate this commandment. The Torah that we have received was received in written form. We know that among us humans there are many shades of opinions concerning the same problems. If each Rabbi were allowed to hand down decisions in accordance with his subjective understanding of the Torah it would not be long before we would have many different documents each claiming to be the original Torah. It was imperative therefore for the Torah to legislate that there is a supreme authority in each generation which bases its decision upon an historically valid tradition going back to the time of Moses. This is why the Sanhedrin described in this paragraph is depicted as having its offices in the presence of the Lord your G’d. They are qualified to interpret what is written in the Torah even if you think that their interpretation differs from the truth as much as left from right. You must remember that the members of that Supreme Court are endowed with Holy Spirit so that they enjoy a divine assist in arriving at the correct decisions.

And you shall act according to the ruling of the matter that they declare to you from that place which Hashem will choose, and you shall take care to do according to all that they teach you.

The explanation is, obviously [he must obey] that selfsame ruling, but rather even other rulings that are based on that verdict, for many judgments branch from the detail of a single judgment.

According to the teaching of the Torah that they teach you, and according to the judgment that they pronounce to you, you shall act; you shall not deviate from the ruling that they declare to you, to the right or to the left.

ימין ושמאל [THOU SHALT NOT DEPART FROM THE WORD WHICH THEY SHALL TELL THEE] TO THE RIGHT NOR TO THE LEFT, even if he (the judge) tells you about what appears to you to be right that it is left, or about what appears to you to be left that it is right, you have to obey him; how much the more is this so if actually he tells you about what is evidently right that it is right and about what is left that it is left (cf. Sifrei Devarim 154:5).

THOU SHALT NOT DEPART FROM THE WORD WHICH THEY SHALL TELL THEE, TO THE RIGHT NOR TO THE LEFT. “Even if he [the judge of the Great Sanhedrin] tells you of the right that it is the left, or about the left that it is the right [you must obey him].” This is Rashi’s language. The purport thereof is that even if you think in your heart that they are mistaken, and the matter is simple in your eyes just as you know [the difference] between your right hand and your left hand, you must still do as they command you. You are not to say: “How can I [permit myself to] eat this real forbidden fat, or execute this innocent man;” instead you are to say, “The Lord Who enjoined the commandments commanded that I perform all His commandments in accordance with all that they, who stand before Him in the place that He shall choose, teach me to do. He gave me the Torah as taught by them, even if they were to err.” Such was the case of Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamaliel [Rabbi Yehoshua being instructed by Rabban Gamaliel to come before him with his walking stick] on the Day of Atonement that occurred according to his reckoning. Now the need for this commandment is very great, for the Torah was given to us in written form and it is known that not all opinions concur on newly arising matters. Disagreements would thus increase and the one Torah would become many Torahs. Scripture, therefore, defined the law that we are to obey the Great Court that stands before G-d in the place that He chose in whatever they tell us with respect to the interpretation of the Torah, whether they received its interpretation by means of witness from witness until Moses [who heard it] from the mouth of the Almighty, or whether they said so based on the implication [of the written words] of the Torah or its intent. For it was subject to their judgment that He gave them the Torah even if it [the judgment] appears to you to exchange right for left. And surely you are obligated to think that they say “right” what is truly right, because G-d’s spirit is upon the ministers of His Sanctuary, and He forsaketh not His saints; they are preserved forever from error and stumbling. In the language of the Sifre: “Even if they show you before your own eyes that right is left and that left is right — obey them!”

"According to the instruction of the Torah which they shall teach you" — in the matter that was too difficult.

“You shall not deviate from the word which they tell you, to the right or to the left.” Rashi explains that even if they tell you that right is left, etc. It seems that he derived this interpretation because the verse does not say “Do not deviate to the right or to the left from the word,” but rather it says right and left after which they tell you. This implies that even though in truth it is not right and left except for their telling you that it is right and left. Regarding the reason for this matter, the commentators have struggled and provided many different explanations, each distinct from the other. According to the truth, I do not see any difficulty in this matter, as our Sages already said (Chagigah 3b): “Perhaps a person might say, ‘Since some declare something pure and others declare it impure, some prohibit and others permit, how can I learn Torah now?’ Scripture therefore states, They were given from one shepherd (Ecclesiastes 12:11), meaning that one God gave them all, etc.” But this is difficult — doesn’t the question return to its place, and ultimately how can one learn Torah? Rather, the explanation of the matter is that in every issue of impurity and purity, there are several aspects that suggest purity, and several aspects that suggest impurity. If the Torah declares something pure, it is because the considerations pointing toward purity are more numerous than those pointing toward impurity, and vice versa. The same applies to matters of what is permitted and prohibited, or valid and invalid. For this reason, our Sages said (Sanhedrin 17a) that we do not appoint someone to the Sanhedrin unless he knows how to prove a sheretz [creeping animal] pure from the Torah. The reason for this is that if sometimes there is a need for a temporary ruling against the Torah because of a time to act for the Lord, they have violated Your Torah (Psalms 119:126), then the sage or prophet can combine the concept of a time to act for the Lord with those minority opinions that were previously rejected due to the majority, and follow the minority — like Elijah’s ruling on Mount Carmel. But if the sage or prophet does not know any reasoning for the opposite view, then he would never declare something pure even as a temporary ruling. He is obligated to declare it pure by supporting the concept of a time to act for the Lord with the minority opinions that lean toward the opposite view, thus weakening the majority that opposes it. If the lower court rules that something is pure when it is impure according to the Torah, since there are also reasons to consider it pure, we combine the majority of the lower court who agreed to declare it pure with the minority of reasons that would independently suggest purity, and this weakens the majority that supports impurity. For God has given power even to the lower court to develop reasoning in both directions, and thus the considerations leaning toward purity increase. Therefore, our Sages appropriately said (Chagigah 3b): “Make your ear like a funnel and acquire a heart that can hear the words of those who declare pure and those who declare impure.” For in truth, every person needs all the reasoning, as one cannot be part of the Sanhedrin until one has mastery of all perspectives. For this reason, it is proper to accept from them even if they say that right is left, because of those reasons that also lean toward the left — and this is a very correct approach. And if you wish to say that they said this regarding legal judgments, that a judge has only what his eyes see, as it is written, and with you in the matter of judgment (II Chronicles 19:6). And this refers to what was written above between judgment and judgment for everything depends on what the judge’s eyes see. Then the matter explains itself, because it is in his power to judge according to the assessment of his understanding, as it is written, Truth and judgment of peace, judge in your gates (Zechariah 8:16). And it says judge regarding all three, and in your gates is an expression of evaluation, because all three require intellectual evaluation and assessment according to the time, place, and matter. For sometimes it is necessary to alter the truth for the sake of peace and the like, and likewise peace is not good in itself in every place, for a gathering of wicked people is bad for them and bad for the world (Sanhedrin 71b). And so too judgment requires evaluation and assessment of one’s understanding in the way that has been explained.

ימין או שמאל, “to the right or to the left.” Rashi says that even if the ruling is such that it appears what the man in the street knows to be right as being left, and vice versa, i.e. that you are convinced that the decision is flawed, you must accept their decision and conduct yourself in accordance with it. You cannot, because of your conscience, say that you refuse to eat a piece of חלב, fat tissue forbidden on pain of the Karet penalty, that you are certain is such in spite of the Supreme Court’s decision to the contrary. The following is how Nachmanides elaborates on the words of Rashi. It was necessary for Moses to spell this out, seeing that the Torah was given to the people as a written document, and it is common knowledge that not a single letter in that document will ever be changed or tampered with. If it were possible to do that, we would soon have numerous such books, each claiming to be the original Torah. This is why in that same written Torah we needed to have a verse explaining the absolute authority of the leading scholars of the nation to interpret the Torah according to approved guidelines. It is not necessary for these Torah scholars to have received that particular piece of legislation, or interpretation, from Moses directly. Basically, Moses teaches that the Torah that will be taught to us after his death, will be taught to us on the basis of how these scholars understood and interpreted it. It is irrelevant if minor scholars, or learned individuals are convinced that the Supreme Court had erred in a specific ruling.

And the man who acts with wicked insolence, so as not to accept from the priest who stands to minister there before Hashem your God, or from the judge — that man shall be put to death, and you shall remove the one who does evil from Israel.

"And that man shall die" — the court shall put him to death. The reason is so that 'all Israel shall hear and fear.' And since he mentioned the judge, he then explained the laws which the judge is obligated to observe.

והאיש אשר יעשה בזדון, who deliberately hands down a ruling to be applied forthwith, which is against that handed down by the Supreme Court, ומת האיש ההוא, he is to be executed at the behest of the Supreme Court, and thereby all the people will hear about it and the absolute authority of the Sanhedrin will be preserved and the people will remain in awe of it.

העומד לשרת, (to the priest) “the one who stands to minister;” the reason the Torah adds the word: העומד, is to teach that service in the Temple, or ritual service generally, must be performed while standing. (Sifri)

והאיש אשר יעשה בזדון, “and the man who will act deliberately contrary, etc.” the Torah refers to a judge, however competent, who after the Sanhedrin has ruled on a matter under dispute hands down a dissenting decision. The matter under dispute concerns violations for which the karet penalty applies if they were committed deliberately. Such a judge or elder is known as זקן ממרא, “a rebellious Elder.” He becomes guilty of the death penalty by asphyxiation.

And all the people shall hear and fear, and they shall not act wickedly again.

וכל העם ישמעו AND ALL THE PEOPLE SHALL HEAR [AND FEAR] — From here we derive the law that they wait for him (i.e. defer the execution of a זקן ממרא, an elder who disregards the decision of the Supreme Court, to whom Scripture refers in v. 12 by the words והאיש אשר יעשה בזדון) until the next festival (when all Israel is assembled in Jerusalem) and they put him to death at the season of the festival (Sanhedrin 89a).

וכל העם ישמעו וייראו, ”and all the people shall hear and be in awe,” at a time when all the people are present in Jerusalem, i.e. one waits with the trial until one of the pilgrimage festivals (Sanhedrin 89).

When you come to the land that Hashem your God gives you, and you take possession of it and dwell in it, and you say, 'I will appoint over me a king, like all the nations that are around me' —

AND THOU SHALT SAY: ‘I WILL SET A KING OVER ME.’ In the opinion of our Rabbis [who say that “The Israelites were obliged to fulfill three commandments upon their entry into the Land: to appoint a king etc.”] this verse is like “and thou shalt surely say ‘I will set a king over me.’” This is a positive commandment, for He has obligated us to say so after conquering and settling [in the Land]. The expression is similar to and thou shalt make a parapet for thy roof [which is also a matter of obligation and not one of choice], and other verses besides these. He mentioned and thou shalt say because it is commanded that the people come before the priests of the tribe of Levi, and to the judge and say to them, “It is our wish that we set a king over us.”It is my further opinion that this is also one of his [Moses’] allusions to future events, for so it happened when the people asked for Saul, saying to Samuel, Now make us a king to judge us like all nations, and similarly it is written there, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us etc. For what reason is there that the Torah should say in connection with a commandment [‘I will set a king over me] like all the nations that are round about me’ when it is not proper for Israel to learn their ways and neither be envious against the workers of evil. But this is an allusion to what will be, and therefore the section is written in an intermediate tense [and not in the form of a command] as I have already explained.

אשימה עלי מלך ככל הגויים, a monarch whose authority will be transferred from him to his biological heir after his death throughout the generations. This is quite different from judges, each of whom is appointed for his lifetime, with his heirs having absolutely no claim to succeed their father. The people were commanded to appoint such a hereditary position of king after they had conquered and settled in the land of Israel, the principal reason being to ensure that the Jewish people would not be like a flock without a shepherd, (Moses’ words in Numbers 27,17.) The fact is that G’d disapproved of a hereditary type of monarchy such as is customary among the gentile nations, so that He stipulated that if the people insisted on appointing a king who would start a dynasty, the initial king had to be approved not only by the people but by G’d’s representative on G’d’s behalf, as we know from Samuel I 8,18. The restrictions in appointing the original king were designed to ensure that such a king could not lead the people away from G’d’s Torah; on the contrary, they are meant for the people to see in him a shining example of Torah-observance, which in turn would inspire their own piety. Seeing that when the people asked Samuel for a king their purpose was far from what the Torah had legislated having a king for, the people were suitably punished as per the verse in Samuel I 8,18 that we referred to earlier. The prophet Hoseah 13,11 describes G’d granting the people’s wish as stemming from the fact that He was angry at them. Summing up, we may view the permission to appoint a king as being in the same category as the permission for a soldier to marry a physically attractive prisoner of war. G’d, the master psychologist, knows that sometimes in order to become wise enough to appreciate the Torah’s prohibitions, an individual, or even a whole nation, must find this out by having chosen in their own wisdom to ignore the Torah’s preferences. David’s experiences with his son Avshalom, born to such a prisoner of war whom he married because he was initially physically attracted to her, bears this out. In fact, his experience with his son Adoniah was not much better. (compare Tanchuma Ki Teytze, section 1).

בי תבא..ואמרת..שום תשים עליך מלך. "When you come to the land…and you will say..l want to appoint a king,…appoint a king over yourself, etc." The wording: "when you come and you will say, etc." shows that G'd did not decree that the people have to appoint a king for themselves. If they want to, however, the Torah gives them the right to do so. The repetition of שום תשים at the end of the verse appears to suggest that it is indeed a positive commandment to appoint a king. Are we faced with a contradiction here? It appears to us that the best way to understand the wording of the verse is as follows. There may be two reasons why the people want to appoint a king. 1) They want a king with superior intelligence in whose ability to conduct wars successfully they have confidence. They want him to be able to compete successfully with the bravery, etc., of Gentile kings. This is something G'd mightily disapproves of. The reason for this is that the kings of the Gentile nations are not motivated by what is right but merely what appears expedient, even if objectively speaking their undertakings are not even useful in the long run. Not only that, but they do not trust in G'd but in their own prowess. The second reason for Israelites wanting a king is that they want their king to represent the glory of Israel, G'd's people. They want the king to be the kind of person on whose account (merits) G'd will make the whole nation successful in its undertakings. G'd had done so repeatedly in the days of the Judges when the merit of the individual judge ensured that G'd would grant him victory over enemies who were (or appeared) much stronger. King David too enjoyed success all the time becaue he merited G'd's personal assistance. The request to appoint this kind of king is one which G'd approves of. This is why our verse commences with: "when you come to the land and you want to appoint a king over yourself to match what other nations are doing, etc." Clearly, here the Torah describes the first of the two scenarios we described for the Israelites wanting a king. This is the scenario, which, basically, G'd does not approve of. The verse concludes with the Torah encouraging us to appoint a king, i.e. שום תשים. This means that the prerequisite for the Israelites appointing a king is that G'd approves, i.e. אשר יבחר ה׳ אלוקיך (you consult the Supreme Court of 71 elders who in turn consult with a prophet as they are G'd's representatives). When a king is appointed on such a basis he cannot be compared to the kind of king Gentile nations appoint for themselves. Under such conditions we are entitled to understand the words שום תשים עליך מלך as a positive commandment. These words are simultaneously a positive commandment and a negative commandment not to appoint the wrong kind of king for the wrong reasons. Without these words I would have assumed that the appointment of a king with the powers of kings amongst Gentile nations was altogether forbidden. Even though the Torah...

ככל הגוים אשר סביבותי, ‘like all the nations around me.” The reason for the word סביבותי, “surrounding me,” is that seeing the land of Israel straddles the “middle” line of the terrestrial, lower world, this means that all the other nations are situated all around that nation. We find a verse expressing a similar thought describing “Jerusalem as amid the nations I have placed it and the nations are all around it” (Ezekiel 5,5). If this is correct then the Jewish nation dwells literally surrounded by the seventy nations which populate the globe. This is why the Torah wrote here ”like all the nations around me.” David also employs such wording in Psalms 118,10: ”all the nations who are around me (threateningly), by the name of the Lord, I will cut them down.” This refers to the fact that both on earth and in the celestial regions Israel is located centrally, surrounded in those regions by the seventy protective angels of those nations who flank the כנסת ישראל from all sides. This reflects a statement by Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 24 that G’d invited the 70 ministering angels which surround His throne to confuse the language of the various nations. This is the vision (Kings I 22,19) described by the prophet Michayu: “I saw the Lord seated on His throne with all the host of the heaven standing around Him to the right and to the left of Him.” This was a reference to these 70 angels who represent the nations of the world. The ones on the right of the throne represent celestial forces who cite Israel’s merits whereas the ones on the left are perceived as citing demerits. Psalms 89,8 reflects a similar thought when David says: “held in awe all around Him.” Keeping all this in mind David said in Psalms 118, 8-10: “it is better to put one’s trust in the Lord rather than in man; it is better to take refuge in the Lord rather than in the great; all the nations which surround me have beset me; etc.“ The nations besetting me” are these seventy Gentile nations. G’d will cut them all down, i.e. "“in the name of the Lord I will cut them down.”

ואמרת אשימה עלי מלך, “and you will say: “I will appoint a king as ruler over myself;” Nachmanides writes that according to the opinion of our sages (Sanhedrin 20) what sounds here as optional, depending on vox populi, is in fact one of the basic 613 commandments. It is one of the three commandments that would not become operational until after the people were firmly established in the land. In that respect it is similar to the legislation about making a railing on top of the roof of your house, (Deut. 22,80) a commandment that can also not be fulfilled until the conditions are ripe. The reason why Moses prefaces this commandment with the words: ואמרת, “when you will say,” is that the request to appoint a king must originate with the people, and they in turn have to submit it to the ruling authority at that time, the High Court. Nachmanides sees in this verse an allusion to future developments, when the people came to the prophet Samuel and requested that he appoint a king over them. (Samuel I chapter 8) [The fact that such a request for central government did not surface for well over 400 years after Joshua’s conquest of the land, says something about the traditional disinclination of the Jewish people to be governed. Ed.]

you shall surely appoint over you a king whom Hashem your God will choose; from among your brothers you shall appoint a king over you. You have no authority to appoint over you a foreign man who is not your brother.

THOU SHALT BY ALL MEANS SET HIM KING OVER THEE, WHOM THE ETERNAL THY G-D SHALL CHOOSE. In the opinion of the commentators this means that he is to be chosen according to the word of a prophet or the judgment of the Urim. Scripture is thus commanding: “You shall set up a king over you, whom the Eternal thy G-d shall choose, for it is He Who will choose and not you.” And in the Sifre it is stated: “Thou shalt by all means set him king over thee. If he dies, appoint another one in his place. A king — but not a queen. Whom the Eternal thy G-d shall choose — according to the word of the prophet.” But, if so, what sense is there to warn [in the verse before us], thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother, when G-d would not choose a foreigner? However, in the opinion of our Rabbis there is in this verse a hidden condition, stating: “you shall by all means set a king over you, whom G-d shall choose provided you can do so — if G-d will answer you through prophets; but a foreigner you may never appoint as king over you.”And in line with the plain meaning of Scripture they have said, “thou shalt by all means set him king over thee, whom the Eternal thy G-d will choose and not him whom the Eternal thy G-d hateth, for He will choose an Israelite to be king over His chosen ones and not from among the other peoples.” In my opinion the simple meaning of the expression whom He will choose is that every ruler over people receives his position from G-d, as it is written until thou wilt know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will. Similarly the Rabbis have said: “Even a superintendent of the well is appointed in heaven.” Thus the verse is stating: “thou shalt by all means set him king over thee — whoever it be decreed by Heaven that he is to reign, even if he be of the smallest of the tribes of Israel and of the least of all the families of the tribe — but you are never to invest a foreigner with regal power.” Similarly, by way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the expression the place which the Eternal thy G-d shall choose means “wherever G-d’s Sanctuary shall be built, was all the Will of G-d.”

"You shall surely set" — it is a matter of permission. "Whom Hashem shall choose" — by means of a prophet, or by the judgment of the Urim, meaning: not whomever you yourself choose. "You may not" — in accordance with the truth. Not [just any] brother who is not of the family of Israel, and not an Edomite, even though Scripture calls him your brother. Because in those days horses were brought out from Egypt — as the verse attests: 'And a chariot came up out of Egypt' (1 Kings 10:29) — the king would need, in order to multiply his horses, to cause the people to sin by returning to Egypt. This is clear, because Hashem redeemed them from there, and in returning they would profane His name. And Uriah the prophet, in mortal danger, fled there; and Jeremiah, against his will, went there as well.

שום תשים, “be sure to appoint for yourself!” Once the Torah mentions the authority of judges, it also describes the limitations imposed on the ruler [the first one being that he must be appointed with the approval of G-d. Ed.]. אשר יבחר ה, “whom the Lord will choose;” how do we know that the King has been chosen by the Lord? He will be chosen by the foremost prophet at that time, or in the absence of prophets, through consultation by the High Priest with G-d by means of the urim vetumim, the parchment in a pocket beneath the High Priest’s breastplate. לא תוכל, “you are legally forbidden, hence “unable;”(Sifri). לתת עליך איש נכרי, “you may not appoint over yourself a foreigner.” The reason for this is that a foreigner may wish to impose his religion upon you.

שום תשים עליך מלך, “You shall surely appoint a king over yourself.” According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah commands the people to appoint a formal king at some time in the future. It is one of the three commandments which take effect after the people enter the land of Israel (Sanhedrin 20b). Maimonides bases this on our verse here and states that the purpose of the election of this king is that he will lead the fight to exterminate Amalek (Deut. 25,19). The commandment becomes effective after G’d has given the people rest from all its surrounding enemies (ibid). The commandment to build a permanent Temple was implied in Deut. 12,8: “you shall seek out His presence, His residence.” This appointment of the king is to be accomplished before the building of the permanent Temple. Samuel makes this quite clear when he said to King Shaul: “G’d has appointed me to anoint you as king, now go and wipe out Amalek” (Samuel I 15,1). It is clear that the destruction of Amalek had to precede the building of the Temple from Samuel II 7,1-2: where David said to the prophet Natan that he thought the time had come for the Ark of the covenant to be accommodated in a building with a solid roof, seeing that he himself lived in a solid palace. This commandment is an example of G’d accommodating Himself to the wishes of the Jewish people. G’d knew that in the foreseeable future the people would demand to be ruled by a king of flesh and blood; although, basically, G’d prefers to be the direct king of the people of Israel. Seeing that only He can traverse all their camps and benevolently supervise the fate of every individual, there certainly is no objective need for a king of flesh and blood whose reign, however well intentioned, cannot match that of G’d Himself. This feeling that the wish of the people to have a king of flesh and blood was perceived by G’d as an insult directed at Him rather than at the prophet Samuel, was made clear to the prophet in Samuel I 8,7. Although G’d did give the people (through His prophet Samuel) King Shaul, this did not represent G’d’s first choice. In the event that we do not realise this, read Hoseah 8,4: “they have made kings, but not with My sanction; they have made officers but not of My choice.” We have an even more outspoken verse on the subject in Hoseah 13,11: “I give you kings in My anger, and take them away in My wrath.” The word באפי, “in My anger,” refers to King Shaul the first king, whereas the words ואקח בעברתי, “and I will take away in My wrath,” refer to Tzidkiyahu, last King of Yehudah. He was taken into captivity by Nevuchadnezzar who was granted permission to do that only because G’d was angry. It would do well for us to study our history and to learn what happened to the Jewish people during the centuries when their political system was headed by a king of flesh and blood. Devarim Rabbah 5,11 sums it up in these words: the Jewish kings caused many of their people to fall in battle because of their faulty policies. Shaul caused many casualties at Gilboah (Samuel I 31,1) David caused a plague (Samuel II 24,15). Achav, King of Israel, became the cause of the three year famine (Kings I 17,1). Tzidkiyah’s policies became the immediate cause for the destruction of the Temple . How was it that the entire people [who had experienced a tremendous renaissance under the leadership of the prophet Samuel. Ed.] agreed to ask for a king? The Talmud Sanhedrin 20 dissects the wording in Samuel I 8, pointing out that the elders of the people were motivated by pure considerations asking that the purpose of the king be “to judge us,” (rather than Samuel’s sons whom they did not consider fit). The common people were motivated by the desire for their king to be a general who would lead them in war, and their sin was in saying “like all the nations.” They spelled this out in greater detail in verse 20 of that chapter. The people were agreed that they wanted a king, but they differed regarding the tasks of that king. A Midrashic approach based on Sanhedrin 20: the emphasis in the line שום תשים עליך מלך, “be sure to appoint a king over yourself,” is that the fear of the authority of the king should pervade the people. One would not be allowed to ride on the king’s horse, sit on his chair, use his scepter or his crown, or any of the garments or implements used by the king; even if the king was modest and did not insist on these appurtenances of office to be his exclusively, i.e. was מוחל על כבודו, he was not allowed to waive his privileges and anyone violating these rules was guilty of insulting Royalty (Ketuvot 17). When the king died, all the utensils, garments, etc., which he had used would be burned so as not to be used by his successor. Only a successor king would be allowed to employ the servants of the former king. This is why Avishag, the woman from Shunem was permitted as a wife for Solomon whereas she was forbidden to Adoniah (Maimonides Hilchot Melachim 2, 1-2). Even a prophet would have to remain standing in the presence of the king and bow his face to the ground in deference. When there was a need for the High Priest to consult the urim vetumim, the king could remain standing in his presence (Maimonides Hilchot Melachim 5,2). A kabbalistic approach: it is well known what the power of a king consists of, seeing he is perceived as the fourth leg of the merkavah, the “chariot supporting the Shechinah, i.e. he represents the emanation מלכות. The concept of the merkavah is comprised of the three “crowns,” כתרים, i.e. the heads, (like the highest emanationכתר). In that concept the “crowns” are the patriarchs who support three “legs” of that “chariot.” (the lowest in the list of ten emanations is מלכות, “kingdom,” whereas the highest is כתר, “crown”) A king of Israel is supposed to act as this fourth leg of the merkavah, i.e. מלכות which is also known as צדק. We have an explicit verse in Isaiah 32,1 הן לצדק ימלך מלך, i.e. that the purpose of a king’s rule is to ensure righteousness and fairness in his kingdom. Concerning such a kingdom (king) David said in Psalms 118,22: “a stone which had been rejected by the builders (as useless) has become the ‘chief cornerstone’.” This is the stone which completes the whole building. The “builders” who had rejected this stone are the אבות, the patriarchs, who were on such a high spiritual level, (higher emanations) that they did not think they needed that emanation מלכות, “kingdom,” and what it represents. In order for David to turn the stone which the builders had rejected into something fit to support the merkavah, he took excess spiritual values of the various patriarchs and distributed that excess to form part of the emanation מלכות, so that the excess plus the “king” together would form the fourth leg of the מרכבה, “the chariot” which supports the Shechinah. Even though the king symbolizes a higher level than the emanation מלכות, we do find that on occasion מלכות is equated with מלך such as in Isaiah 44,6 מלך ישראל וגואלו ה' צבאות, כה אמר ה', “thus says the Lord, the king of Israel and its redeemer the Lord of hosts,” as well as in Psalms 145,1 ארוממך אלוהי המלך, “I wish to exalt my G’d the King.” In both of these instances the concept of מלכות (represented by an attribute of G’d) is elevated to the level of מלך. When the word אלוהי in Psalms 145 is spelled with the letter ו, (something most unusual) this shows that the attribute of G’d meant by this word had to be “elevated, raised in spiritual stature” in order to be on the same level as מלך. All the foregoing shows that the appointment of a king over the people of Israel is to be viewed as a positive development, a step in raising the Jewish people as a whole to a higher spiritual level. The proviso is that such an appointment is meant to further the interest of G’d, of heaven, not G’d forbid, to further the secular ambitions of the people. We might have thought that the meaning of the words שום תשים, may either be “elect” or “appoint.” Actually, it is derived from סם, “quintessence, an elixir,” and hints to us that the king is supposed to be the elixir of life. Alternatively, -if the king does not live up to his task- he can turn into being the סם המות, the elixir of death, seeing he is the quintessence of everything. The repetition of the words שום תשים then are an allusion to the dual role of a king, depending on his character. If he is appointed from a sincere desire to advance the spiritual level of the Jewish people he will be an elixir of life, if not, G’d forbid, he will symbolize the opposite. אשר יבחר ה' אל-היך בו, “whom the Lord your G’d will choose.” This verse teaches that in the final analysis both the monarchy and the other lofty positions are all a reflection of the will of heaven. The “election” of which the Torah speaks was decisively influenced by divine forces. This is why our sages in Baba Batra 91 say that even if the king is someone appointed as leader of totally ignorant uncivilised people, he was placed in such a position by an act of G’d. This is also the meaning of Daniel 5,21: “until he knew that the Supreme G’d rules in the kingdom of men and sets over it whom He wishes.” מקרב אחיך תשים עליך מלך, “from amongst your brethren shall you appoint a king for yourself.” Our sages in Sotah 41 conclude from the wording that both the king’s father and the king’s mother must be Jewish (compare Tosafot). Anyone who is not your brother is not an Israelite, and anyone who is not an Israelite is described as נכרי, alien.

You shall surely set a king over yourself, etc. Many people say, Who will show us a good thing? Here is a sufficient explanation for the great question that falls upon this commandment: If it was God’s will that a king should justly reign when they desire one, then why did the prophet Samuel, with God’s support, rebuke them when they asked for a king? This implies that it was something abhorrent in God’s eyes. Some say that the rebuke was because they said to judge us like all the nations, wanting to be judged according to the customs of the nations. Others say that this passage is not a commandment but rather an informative statement, where the Holy One, blessed be He, declares the end from the beginning, foretelling that Israel will request this in the future, and God permitted it to them. Rabbi Yitzchak Abarbanel elaborated on this debate. I will briefly state my opinion, that the divine will was that a king should reign over them justly in order to impose his fear upon all of them, as our Sages said (Avot 3:2), “Pray for the welfare of the government, for if not for the fear it inspires, etc.” This was not for the purpose of administering justice, since there were established courts in every city, but rather for the purpose of unifying and establishing proper order in the provinces, and only in such a manner that the fear of the monarchy would be upon them, because this is what God desired. Similarly, He said to Joshua (Deuteronomy 31:23), For you shall bring this people, [implying] “take a staff and strike their heads.” Therefore it says, When you come to the land, etc., because after inheritance and settlement, Jeshurun will grow fat and kick, and each man will do what is right in his own eyes when there is no king in Israel. Then certainly the remnant whom God calls will say that it is time to act and request a king. And you will say, “I will set a king over me”, meaning that his fear should be upon me, as the expression over me implies that he will be superior to me and rule and dominate me with a strong hand, like all the nations around me, to act like the most properly governed among them who do not rebel against their kings and accept their authority upon themselves, as current events demonstrate. Regarding this it says, You shall surely set over yourself a king, because this request is appropriate when the king will be over you, meaning his fear will be upon you, as understood from the word over you. But in the days of Samuel, they did not speak properly, for they said Give us a king (1 Samuel 8:6). They did not say “a king over us” but rather for us, because they did not want to accept authority that would instill fear “over us,” but rather wanted one that would be for us, handed over to us, so that we could establish kings and remove kings. The outcome of this would be that the king would be forced to flatter us. Therefore they said to judge us like all the nations (1 Samuel 8:5), because the main need for flattery is in judgments, similar to the custom in these countries where they appoint a rabbi for a specific time period so that they will not fear him; on the contrary, he fears them. Thus, he is compelled to flatter them so they will not dismiss him. And the thing displeased Samuel when they said Give us a king, because the main fault was in the words for us to judge us — if he is for us and not “over us,” how can he be “our judge”? And God said to Samuel, Listen to their voice, etc., for they have not rejected you (1 Samuel 8:7). On the contrary, this is your praise, because they consider you steadfast in not flattering them, therefore they requested a king in your place who would necessarily flatter them. In this, they have rejected Me and did not ask according to the Torah, because all they wanted was a king who would nullify My will before their own will. And this is what is meant by from reigning over them, meaning in this they rejected Me, in that they did not want the king to reign over them. Now, listen to their voice, but you shall warn them, and tell them the manner of the king who will reign over them (1 Samuel 8:9) — specifically over them and not “for them,” because “these are what I desire,” says the Lord. And he said, This will be the manner of the king who will reign over you (1 Samuel 8:11), for even if you only choose him to be “for you,” in the end, with poured out wrath, he will reign over you and take your sons, etc. This is your punishment for not asking properly, and you will cry out on that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves (1 Samuel 8:18) — meaning, and not over yourselves, and you will confess that the opposite of what you requested has happened to you. But the people refused, etc., and they said, “No, but a king shall be over us” (1 Samuel 8:19). When they said No, it was a form of confession, saying, “We no longer desire a king in the manner we first asked when we said ‘Give us a king.’ Rather, a king shall be over us as God has spoken.” And so it was later said, For we have added to all our sins to ask for ourselves a king (1 Samuel 12:19), meaning at the beginning, before we heard the punishment. This explanation is precious. And the change in language between “over us” and “for us” is understood, and [also] from the precision of our Sages who said that “his fear should be upon you” (Ketubot 17a), for the main commandment depends on this. And regarding what it says, “And God said to Samuel,” “Listen to their voice, etc.” and “you shall appoint for them a king” (First Samuel 8:22) — it should have said “over them.” This is because the acceptance of authority depends on those receiving it, and it was not God who did this, but rather He gave them a king who was equal to them, so that his heart would not be lifted above his brothers. Therefore, it says at the time of the act for them. Nevertheless, it was not proper for Israel to say it this way, but rather as God said: And you shall say, “I will set a king over me” — that is how they should have said it.

אשר יבחר ה' אלוקיך בו, “whom the Lord your G’d will choose.” According to numerous commentators the meaning is that G’d will indicate His choice of whom He favours as king, through one of His prophets, or, in the absence of such, through the response received by the High Priest when enquiring from Hashem through the urim vetumim in his breastplate. Nachmanides questions this approach, asking that if it were correct, why did Moses specifically warn against the appointment of a gentile as king, when clearly, such an appointment would be thwarted by Divine interference? He answers that our sages discovered in this verse also a hidden clause. The words שום תשים עליך מלך, “you shall surely set a king over yourself,” imply that it is within your power, politically speaking, to make that choice without external interference. When such conditions exist G’d needs to approve the appointment of such a king before he begins his reign. Such a king must have been born as a Jew. The word יבחר is an allusion to the people whom G’d has “chosen,” as opposed to the people whom G’d “hates.” [The word “hates,” used by Nachmanides must be understood in the same sense as Leah used it when she described herself as “hated” by her husband Yaakov. (Genesis 29,33) Ed.] Under no circumstances, however, must you appoint a gentile as king over you. According to the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, seeing that any king ruling over any nation does so only as long as I, Hashem, approve, you may appoint a king over yourselves as this is part of the fate of the Jewish people as it has been decreed by heaven. [If I understand correctly, the inference is from the indirect אשר יבחר, “that He will choose,” instead of the direct speech אשר תבחר, “that you will choose.” Ed.] Even when we think we do the choosing, in the final analysis, G’d has done the choosing in His capacity as “King of Kings.” However, there is also included here a warning not to crown gentile king, ever.

איש נכרי, who is to lead you in battle; אשר לא אחיך הוא, for he may seduce you to serve idols.

Only he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he bring the people back to Egypt in order to multiply horses for himself; for Hashem said to you, 'You shall not again return by this road.'

לא ירבה לו סוסים HE SHALL NOT MULTIPLY HORSES TO HIMSELF — but he shall have only what is sufficient for his carriages, in order that he shall not cause the people to return to Egypt, because horses come from there, as it is said in the history of Solomon (1 Kings 10:29) “And a chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver and a horse for a hundred and fifty” (Sanhedrin 21b).

HE SHALL NOT MULTIPLY HORSES TO HIMSELF — “except what he needs for his carriage, in order that he cause not the people to return to Egypt, because horses were obtained from Egypt, as it is said, And a chariot came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for a hundred and fifty.” This is Rashi’s language. But I have this difficulty regarding it, for the Rabbis have said in Yerushalmi at the end of Tractate Sanhedrin: “You may not return there for settlement, but you may return for business, for goods, and for conquest of the land.” And so, if the king should send men and buy horses and chariots there, it would be considered “trading” and would be permissible! It is then possible that Scripture admonishes [the king] not to increase his numbers of horses even from his own Land, or from the land of Shinar, or by way of permissible trading, in order that he should not put his trust in his chariots, because they are many, and in his horsemen, because they are exceedingly mighty, but his trust shall be in the Name of the Eternal. Then he admonishes the king not to cause the people to return to Egypt, to have his servants and people there as overseers of cattle dwelling in the cities for the chariots to the end that he should multiply horses, similar to what is said of Solomon, and all the store-cities that Solomon had, and the cities for his chariots etc. And thus he had in Egypt, as it is said, And the horses which Solomon had, were brought out of Egypt; also out of Keveh, the king’s merchants buying them etc. for no one was allowed to export horses from Egypt without permission from the Egyptian king and they paid him a tax for them. To Solomon, however, Pharaoh gave the right to export horses, meaning that he could take them out at will, and he could transfer that right to whomever he wished and keep the tax. He also had merchants stationed in Egypt buying all horses and sending to their lord [Solomon] those that he wanted and selling the others to kings of other countries. Thus it is said and so for all the kings of the Hittites, and for the kings of Aram, did they bring them out by their means, that is to say, they took them out through Solomon’s merchants, and it was to him that they gave the tax. RAK’ (ONLY) — [‘Only’ he shall not multiply horses to himself]. The purport of the word only is to state, “although you will set a king over you like all the nations that are around you — only he shall not be like their kings. He should not multiply horses as they do,” for the main desire of kings is to increase horses and horsemen for themselves. SINCE THE ETERNAL HATH SAID UNTO YOU. The meaning thereof is that “since G-d is telling you that you are henceforth not to return by the way of Egypt.” Similarly, as the Eternal thy G-d ‘commanded’ thee which means “as He is thus commanding you.” Or it may be that the expression He hath said unto you means “He had said to me to command you,” similar to the verse, And Moses sa...

"You shall not add again" — this was a commandment that was not written down. Some say the reason is derived from 'you shall see them no more forever' (Exod. 14:13), but that is a different approach.

וה׳ אמר לכם לא תוסיפו, “seeing that the Lord has said to you (not to return to Egypt to reside there).” (Ibn Ezra)

רק לא ירבה לו סוסים, “only he shall not amass for himself horses, etc.” The Torah now proceeds to list differences between Gentile kings’ prerogatives and those of a Jewish king. Jewish kings must not make the acquisition of many horses and chariots their policy. Neither must a Jewish king amass gold and silver or even wives. Gentile kings see in the acquisition of these possessions an end in itself and treat these possessions as the measure of their success instead of as something secondary as Jewish kings are asked to do. A Jewish king is to make preoccupation with the Torah his principal concern. This is why the Torah not only demands that he write (2) Torah scrolls but also that he read in it daily; this will teach him reverence for the Lord (verse 19) and will ensure that he remains on the throne for many years. Sanhedrin 21 interprets the words “that he do not amass many horses” to mean that he should not amass more horses than he needs for transportation for himself and his soldiers. He should not have a selection of chariots at his disposal to ride in and alternate between them. The reason for these restrictions is spelled out, i.e. not to bring the people back to Egypt, the country from which horses were exported in those days. We read in Kings I 10,29 that the cost of a chariot imported from Egypt in those days was 600 silver shekels whereas the price of a horse was 150 shekels. וה' אמר לכם לא תוסיפון לשוב בדרך הזה עוד, “and the Lord has said to you: “you shall not return again on this way.” This commandment was valid only during the period when it was promulgated. It was intended to ensure that Israelites traveling to Egypt would not learn to copy the abominations practiced in that country as the Torah spells out in detail in Leviticus 18,3. This does not mean that there is a permanent prohibition for Jews to reside in Egypt. Had the Torah intended these words as a permanent prohibition it would be inconceivable that so many Torah scholars, pious individuals, made their home in Egypt after the destruction of the Temple. Even if individual Jews had ignored this prohibition and settled in Egypt, the sages would have spoken out against this and we would have records of their protest. The only people who were forbidden to dwell in Egypt were Jews who left the land of Israel to do so. Others say that the prohibition applies even nowadays, but only to to one who has settled in the land of Israel. This is evidenced by the wording of our verse "you shall not return again on this way" indicating that it refers to one who has made a journey similar to the one traveled by the Jews in the desert, i.e. to the land of Israel. [The Sefer HaYereim quoted in Semag, (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol negative commandment 227) is one of the sources upon which the second view above is based on. The words “to return on this way,” are interpreted to mean that people who have left Egypt to settle in the land of Israel are forbidden to return there. Proof for this opinion is brought from the Talmud (Sukkah 51b) which quotes Abbaye as describing the extermination of the Jewish community in Alexandria by Alexander the Great as punishment for violation of the commandment in our verse. The scholars who disagree with Abbaye cite the fact that Daniel went to live in Egypt as proof that it was permitted. ]

רק לא ירבה לו סוסים, “only he shall not acquire for himself too many horses, etc.” The meaning of the restrictive word רק is inserted to teach that although by adopting the monarchy as your mode of government, something which makes you more like the nations of the world, and I have given My approval, there are certain tools used by monarchs the world over to reinforce their power that such a Jewish king must not use. They are: 1) not to amass too many horses. It is a boast of gentile kings to view their military strength in the number of horses and chariots they own. Nachmanides questions this rationale, basing himself on the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 10,9) in which possible return by Jews to Egypt is discussed and the prevailing view is that whereas it is forbidden for Jews to settle in Egypt, if they visit there as part of their business dealings this is quite in order. Therefore, if the king sends a delegation to Egypt to acquire horses, this is viewed as a commercial activity, and is permitted. He adds further, it is possible to explain our verse as a warning for the king not to amass too many horses even if they have been born and bred in the land of Israel. The definition of the words דרך סחורה, “a commercial transaction,” in Nachmanides’ view, means that the king must not acquire these horses because he considers himself armed superbly by owning a cavalry, but that the purpose in acquiring them is not for war but for peaceful commercial pursuits. The king’s actions must reflect that he places his trust in Hashem, not in man-made defensive or offensive weaponry. Moses follows the warning about the amassing of horses by the king, by a warning not to lead his people back to Egypt (already mentioned in Exodus 14,13), i.e. he is not to employ Egyptian servants at his court, in his army. The thrust of the whole paragraph is that Jews, who when first in Egypt were discouraged by Joseph to serve as officers in Pharaoh’s army, should retain their primary vocations, just as then they had been cattle-herders, now they would become farmers on their own land. למען הרבות סוס, “in order to amass quantities of horses.” In Kings I 9,19 the prophet Jeremiah already records that even a wise king such as Solomon ignored this warning of the Torah. He had Egyptian trainers living in the cities specially built for training cavalry horses and did not draft Jews for the military, although he employed them as “forced labour” to work in the quarries in Lebanon to hew and transport the stones needed for building the Temple. וה' אמר לכם, “seeing that Hashem has already told you., etc.,” the word אמר, though written in the past tense here, must be understood as if it had been written in the present tense. Until permission had been given by G’d to appoint a king, the Israelites could not possibly have been led back to Egypt by such a king. Another way of understanding our verse is that Moses now reveals what G’d had already told him a long time ago, but seeing that it had not been relevant, Moses had not yet told the people about that. According to our sages (Jerusalem Talmud, Sukkah 5,1) the reason for this prohibition is that both the Egyptians and the Canaanites were extremely anti G’d the Creator, in their whole religious mores, as well as in their sexually perverted values. (Compare Leviticus 18,2) There was little fear that the Israelites would copy the Canaanites, seeing they were about to wipe out those tribes. This left the Egyptians as a potentially very bad cultural influence. G’d therefore prohibited close relations between our two nations, something that would be bound to develop if Jews were allowed to settle there.

And he shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart go astray; and silver and gold he shall not multiply for himself excessively.

ולא ירבה לו נשים NEITHER SHALL HE MULTIPLY WIVES TO HIMSELF only eighteen, for we find that David had six wives, and it was announced to him (by Nathan the prophet): “[Thus saith the Lord … I gave thy master’s wives into thy bosom] … and if that had been too little, I would add unto thee such and such as these (i.e. twice as many)” (Sanhedrin 21a). וכסף וזהב לא ירבה לו מאד NEITHER SHALL HE GREATLY MULTIPLY TO HIMSELF SILVER AND GOLD — but only as much as he needs for his soldiers’ pay (Sanhedrin 21a).

"And his heart shall not turn aside" — for he would follow after his desire. "And silver and gold he shall not multiply for himself" — so that he not punish Israel. Indeed, regarding Solomon, who made silver as plentiful as stones in Jerusalem — out of his great love of wealth — Israel complained against him and said: 'Your father made our yoke heavy.' Some say they complained on account of the building projects, but this is not correct, for the foreigners built the House, as it is written; and behold, Adoniram who was over the levy — they stoned him to his death.

וזהב לא ירבה לו, “and he is not to amass gold for himself.” Rashi understands this imprecise instruction to mean that he must not amass more gold than necessary in order to pay the wages of his soldiers. (Sifri)

ולא ירבה לו נשים, “and he shall not have too many wives.” Our sages (Sanhedrin 21) put the number of wives a king may have at 18. They base this on the number of wives David had, six of whom were mentioned by name (Samuel II 3,2-5). It says there: “if this is insufficient, I will add for you כהנה וכהנה “twice more the same number,” i.e. another 12 (Samuel II 12,8). The reason the Torah gives for this limitation is: ולא יסור לבבו, “so his heart will not go astray.” It is assumed that a woman may seduce a man to turn from being G’d-fearing, seeing that the original woman Chavah had done exactly that when she seduced Adam into eating from the tree of knowledge (Genesis 3,6). וכסף וזהב לא ירבה לו מאד, “and he must not amass too much silver and gold.” Sanhedrin 21 defines the permissible amount as “sufficient to entertain visitors.” They mean that the king may amass sufficient money to pay the salaries of his servants, his soldiers that are employed by him on a year round basis. He must not, however, amass wealth the purpose of which is simply to lie in vaults, money not employed for a useful purpose. The reason for this limitation is to prevent the king from becoming arrogant vis-a-vis his fellow Jews. This latter reason (verse 17) applies to all three restrictions listed in our paragraph. People who amass excess wealth have a tendency of putting their faith in their wealth and simultaneously diminishing their reliance of G’d. A king is in greater danger of doing that as he is privileged. This is why he must make G’d his treasury and his fortress. Job 22,24-25 illustrates this when we read there (Eliphaz speaking) “if you regard treasure as dirt, Ophir-gold as stones of the wadi, and Shaddai be your treasure, and precious silver for you;” Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra says that the prohibition not to amass too much silver and gold is intended to lessen the tax burden on the people as this would be the source of the king’s wealth. Historically, we find that Solomon who was immensely rich, had imposed a heavy burden of taxes on his subjects. Wealth is compared to fire. The more wood the greater the flame of the fire. We find that the people were resentful of the tax burden and they said so to Solomon’s son Rechavam (Kings I 12,4). The matter became such a burning issue that they murdered the king’s tax collector Adoniram in his own house (Kings I 12,10). In order to appreciate the concerns of the Torah all we have to do is look at the wisest of kings, Solomon, (may be even wisest of men) who fell victim to all three of the prohibitions of the Torah mentioned here. He had no fewer than 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariotry (Kings I 5,7); He had 700 wives and 300 concubines (Kings I 11,3). He was so wealthy that silver is described as meaningless in terms of wealth during his reign (Kings 10,27). Silver was treated as if it were merely stones. He had thought that due to his superior wisdom he would not fall victim to the warnings expressed by the Torah. Alas, he was wrong.

And it shall be, when he sits upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this Torah in a scroll, from before the Levitical priests.

והיה כשבתו AND IT SHALL BE WHEN HE SITTETH [UPON THE THRONE OF HIS KINGDOM] — if he acts thus (as prescribed in the previous verses) he is worthy that his kingdom should endure (Sifrei Devarim 160:1). את משנה התורה [HE SHALL WRITE HIM] A משנה תורה — i.e. two scrolls of the Law, one that is placed in his treasury and the other that goes out and comes in with him (i.e. a small scroll which he carries everywhere with him) (Sanhedrin 21b). Onkelos, however, renders משנה by פתשגן, a copy; he thus interpreted the word משנה in the sense of שנן, repeating and uttering.

"And it shall be, when he sits" — at the beginning of his reign. "A copy (מִשְׁנֶה)" — a second transcript.

מלפני הכהנים, “a copy of the original retained by the priests.”

“And it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom.” Rashi explained that if he does this, his kingdom is worthy to be established. A hint to this matter is in the word “kise” [throne], which is an acronym for “kesef, sus, ishah” [money, horse, woman]. By virtue of being careful with these three things, he will merit to sit on God’s throne, as it is written, And Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord (First Chronicles 29:23). Therefore, he needs to be cautious of things that divert his heart from God and separate between Him and God, because amassing silver and gold brings him to forget God, as it is written, And your silver and gold multiply… then your heart will become proud and you will forget the Lord your God (Deuteronomy 8:13–14). Similarly, having many horses causes him to remove his trust from God and to trust in horse and chariot, as it is written, Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses (Isaiah 31:1). And this is why it says, He shall not return the people to Egypt to multiply horses. The prohibition is not about going to Egypt for commerce, but the main prohibition is because multiplying horses removes from him trust in God. Therefore, He commanded that he should not return the people to Egypt in order to multiply horses, as if all his trust was in horse and chariot. But for other commerce, it is permitted to go to Egypt. This explanation is more precious than what all the commentators have said about this. Similarly, having many wives causes his heart to turn away from God, as happened to Solomon. And it says, “And he shall write for himself a copy of this Torah, etc.” In order that he would read it and know to be careful about these three things. Against the multiplicity of silver [money], it says so that his heart will not be lifted up above his brethren, because money brings haughtiness of heart. And against the multiplicity of wives, it says so that he will not turn aside from the commandment to the right or to the left, as it says above, He shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away. And against the multiplicity of horses, it says that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel, to say that if he trusts in horse and chariot, he will die in battle, for the horse is a vain thing for safety and with the multitude of his strength he will not save his soul, but if he trusts in the salvation of God, he will prolong his days and not die. And it says “in the midst of Israel,” to say that one who trusts in horse and chariot seeks salvation and help from the lands of the nations and not from within Israel, as it is stated, Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, etc. (Isaiah 31:1). But if he does not multiply horses for himself, then he will find salvation in the midst of Israel and not from the lands of the nations. And it further alludes that Israel is saved by God who walks in the midst of Israel, as it is written, For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp (Deuteronomy 23:15). And it means that he will prolong his days, etc., from the One who is in the midst of Israel.

משנה התורה, my grandfather Rashi, explained this as meaning two separate Torah scrolls, [in line with the traditional interpretation of our sages in Sanhedrin 21, as distinct from Onkelos who derives the word משנה as related to שנן, (Deut. 6,7) to delve into the deeper meaning. Therefore,] Onkelos renders the word as פתשגן, a clearly worded interpretation, translation. [The king would have to have a version of the Torah at hand which a layman can understand without difficulty.]

And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear before Hashem his God, to observe all the words of this Torah and these statutes, to perform them —

דברי התורה [ALL] THE WORDS OF [THIS] LAW — Take it as what it literally implies.

V’HAY’THAH’ (AND IT SHALL BE) WITH HIM [“it” refers to] the Torah as mentioned [in the preceding verse]. AND HE SHALL READ ‘BO’ (THEREIN) — “in the book” mentioned [in the preceding verse]. And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], ‘v’hay’thah’ (and it shall be) with him means that the Torah itself will be with him, similar to what is said, And the Eternal gave Solomon wisdom, and it is further said, And Solomon sat on the throne of the Eternal as king.

"And it shall be with him" — the Torah. "And he shall read in it" — in the scroll. "To fear" — he himself personally. "To observe all the words" — for it is he who shall correct wrongs by his power.

למען ילמד ליראה, in the philosophical, ethically instructive passages of the Torah acquainting us with the marvelous characteristics of G’d and His reluctance to interfere with man’s free choice. Such knowledge must lead one to revere G’d ever more.

והיתה עמו, “It shall be with him, constantly;” the subject is the Torah scroll just mentioned.”

so that his heart not be lifted up above his brothers, and so that he not deviate from the commandment to the right or to the left; so that he may prolong his days upon his kingdom, he and his sons, in the midst of Israel.

ולבלתי סור מן המצוה AND THAT HE DEPART NOT FROM THE COMMANDMENT — not even from a less important command given to him by means of a prophet. למען יאריך ימים TO THE END THAT HE MAY PROLONG HIS DAYS [IN HIS KINGDOM] — From the positive statement you may derive the negative (that if he does not fulfil the commandments his kingdom will not endure). And so, indeed, do we find in the case of Saul that Samuel said to him, (I Samuel 10:8) “Seven days shalt thou tarry, till I come unto thee” to offer burnt sacrifices, and it is written, (I Samuel 13:8) “and he tarried seven days”, but he did not keep his promise to wait the whole of the seventh day and had scarcely finished offering the burnt offering when Samuel came (I Samuel 10:10) and said to him (I Samuel 10:13-14) “Thou hast done foolishly; thou hast not kept [the commandment of the Lord thy God, which He commanded thee; for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel forever;] but now thy kingdom shall not continue”. Thus you learn that for the neglect of an unimportant command given by means of a prophet he was severely punished. הוא ובניו [THAT HE MAY PROLONG HIS DAYS IN HIS KINGDOM] HE, AND HIS CHILDREN — This tells you that if his son is worthy of becoming king he has to be given preference to any other person (Horayot 11b).

THAT HIS HEART BE NOT LIFTED UP ABOVE HIS BRETHREN. Here in the Torah a prohibition against conceit is alluded to, for Scripture prohibited even the king from indulging in conceit and haughtiness of heart, surely other people who are not of such commendable excellence [or merit, are forbidden to be haughty]. Scripture has thus admonished him for whom it is proper to be haughty and majestic that his heart must be as humble as that of his brethren of lower status, because conceit is a reprehensible character-trait, and it is loathsome to G-d even in a king. To G-d alone is the greatness and exaltation, and to Him alone is the praise, and in [the knowledge of] Him may man glory, as the matter is explained by King Solomon, Every man that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Eternal. It is further written, But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth, and knoweth Me.

"So that his heart not be lifted up" — if he were exempt from the commandments. "And so that he not turn aside" — for if he does not study, he will not know what the commandment is. And his reward is 'so that he may prolong his days.'

לבלתי רום לבבו, "so that his heart does not become arrogant, etc." This may be understood as analogous to Avot 6,1 ומלבשתו ענוה ויראה, "and it clothes him in meekness and the fear of G'd." [The subject is a person who studies Torah with a pure purpose. Ed.] The Torah means that studying Torah as the king is bidden to do daily will ensure that he does not become haughty. Concerning the king developing fear of the Lord, the Torah had already written in verse 19: "in order that he will learn to fear the Lord his G'd."

לבלתי רום לבבו מאחיו, “so as not to lift his heart above that of his brethren.” This is the reason why the king must not amass material wealth mentioned in verse 17. ולבלתי סור מן המצוה, “and in order not to turn aside from the commandment;” this is the reason why the King must always have a Torah scroll with him from which he is to read daily. למען יאריך ימים, “so that he may prolong his life;” it is a well known fact that the burden of high office is bound to shorten the life of the people charged with it. In order to counteract this, the Torah provides the King with an antidote, i.e. regular daily Torah study. This is also why when the King is crowned, the crowd welcomes him with the shout: יחי המלך. “long life to the King!” (Kings I 1,25)

למען יאריך ימים על ממלכתו, “in order that he may enjoy a long reign, etc.” The Torah, while emphasizing the positive, also implies the negative consequences if the king will fail to heed the Torah’s instructions. The best example is the first king of Israel, Shaul, who on account of a relatively minor sin, lost his kingdom and dynasty. The prophet Samuel had told him to wait for seven days for his arrival. Shaul failed to do so, (during the last hours of the seventh day) and the prophet not only chided him but told him that on account of this insubordination (described as foolishness) his kingdom would not endure (Samuel I 10,8 and 13,13-14). הוא ובניו, “he and his sons, etc.” This verse teaches that the succession is by heredity and that there is no need to anoint the son of the previous king (Horiot 11). However if there should break out a quarrel involving the succession, the choice that the people agree on will require anointing. This is the meaning of the words בקרב ישראל, i.e. if there is no dispute and all agree who should ascend the throne after the death of the previous king — only then is anointing not required. The reason Solomon had to be anointed was precisely because there had been a quarrel about which of David’s sons should rule after him (compare Horiot 11).

לבלתי רום לבבו, “so that his heart does not become haughty;” here the Torah zeroes in on the negative virtue called pride, arrogance, haughtiness. By warning the King not to fall victim to such feelings, we commoners must surely learn that we are included in that warning, as we have far less to tempt us to display or harbour such feelings of superiority.

לבלתי רום לבבו, “so that his heart not feel superior;” this is the reason why the Torah does not wish that the king amass undue amounts of gold and silver. ולבלתי סור מן המצוה, “and in order that he do not deviate from G–d’s commandments;” this is the reason why a king is commanded to write a Torah scroll personally; this scroll is to accompany him wherever he goes. I have heard an opinion that what was written in that “Torah scroll,” are only the Ten Commandments. Seeing that the Ten Commandments total 613 letters, it is as if this scroll was equivalent to the entire five Books of Moses which contain a total of 613 commandments.